U N Human Rights Commissioner Says Thailand Should Try Those Responsible For 2010 Deaths

[Buchholz]

I wonder how many innocent civilians would have been hurt or killed had the granade attack on Sala Deng BTS station had actually hit a train?

BANGKOK, 5 May 2010 (NNT) M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan.

The director stated that M79 grenades against protestors of the Alliance of Patriots that day could have been launched from either the seventh or the eighth floor of King Bhumibol Building in Chulalongkorn Hospital based on traces and damages found at the scene.

Ahh, Chula hospital, where they refuse to treat reds and allow army snipers access to their upper floors & then pull a (very successful to the gullible) publicity stunt of evacuating patients, putting their own patients at risk. Oh & let's not forget their most famous associate Dr. Dr. Tul Sithisomwong (old DNA Tul as I like to call him)

do you have a link for this news source? If not it will be deleted. Unattributed sources are not allowed

the same could be asked of his unattributed source in his other post, # 141.

.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Buchholz

[AleG]

"I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush."

"These sorts of deaths were in the minority" I'm going to have to differ with you there, a gut feeling as it were as there is no specific proof yet but I think these deaths of innocents are likely to be in the majority. Now my definition of an innocent will be different to yours - it appears that of all the deaths recorded by the PIC none of those had been handling guns, no gunshot residue found.

I add to that the many photographs/videos of dead redshirts that do not show them to be armed with anything other than a catapult. If you wish to call this armed, well fair enough but you have to accept that to shoot these people dead is a wild over reaction to the threat, an over reaction already documented by the HRW.That is what I was suggesting by the number of deaths of protesters going up in relation to the deaths of security forces. The use of grenades by the red or black shirts whoever it was the limit, there was no escalation above this, 5 Security Force personnel were killed on the 10th April and another 6 (one by "friendly" fire) by the 19th May - were was this supposed constant escalation of armed offenses against the security forces that warranted live fire zones and snipers, let alone 30,000 deployed troops? In this same period 50 plus civilians were killed.

Oh well, they were only using guns and grenades as part of their peaceful protests, and they didn't kill that many people anyway, so why get so worked up over it?

Would you suggest the Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades? More dead soldiers would make things more fair?

Douglas Adams was right, coming down from the trees was a bad idea.

[GentlemanJim]

"I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush."

"These sorts of deaths were in the minority" I'm going to have to differ with you there, a gut feeling as it were as there is no specific proof yet but I think these deaths of innocents are likely to be in the majority. Now my definition of an innocent will be different to yours - it appears that of all the deaths recorded by the PIC none of those had been handling guns, no gunshot residue found.

I add to that the many photographs/videos of dead redshirts that do not show them to be armed with anything other than a catapult. If you wish to call this armed, well fair enough but you have to accept that to shoot these people dead is a wild over reaction to the threat, an over reaction already documented by the HRW.That is what I was suggesting by the number of deaths of protesters going up in relation to the deaths of security forces. The use of grenades by the red or black shirts whoever it was the limit, there was no escalation above this, 5 Security Force personnel were killed on the 10th April and another 6 (one by "friendly" fire) by the 19th May - were was this supposed constant escalation of armed offenses against the security forces that warranted live fire zones and snipers, let alone 30,000 deployed troops? In this same period 50 plus civilians were killed.

It is pointless to answer most of your post as it has all been answered many many times before on this never ending hamster wheel. BUT, just to put things straight on one point. Protestors armed only with catapults! The protestors were firing steel ball bearings from catapults and always aiming for a head shot. IF they hit you on the head it will highly likely prove fatal. Some protestors were firing steel 'nuts' that had had edges sharpened to a point designed to kill or maim. Just catapults and peaceful protests!

[TheKrayTriplet]

"I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush."

"These sorts of deaths were in the minority" I'm going to have to differ with you there, a gut feeling as it were as there is no specific proof yet but I think these deaths of innocents are likely to be in the majority. Now my definition of an innocent will be different to yours - it appears that of all the deaths recorded by the PIC none of those had been handling guns, no gunshot residue found.

I add to that the many photographs/videos of dead redshirts that do not show them to be armed with anything other than a catapult. If you wish to call this armed, well fair enough but you have to accept that to shoot these people dead is a wild over reaction to the threat, an over reaction already documented by the HRW.That is what I was suggesting by the number of deaths of protesters going up in relation to the deaths of security forces. The use of grenades by the red or black shirts whoever it was the limit, there was no escalation above this, 5 Security Force personnel were killed on the 10th April and another 6 (one by "friendly" fire) by the 19th May - were was this supposed constant escalation of armed offenses against the security forces that warranted live fire zones and snipers, let alone 30,000 deployed troops? In this same period 50 plus civilians were killed.

Oh well, they were only using guns and grenades as part of their peaceful protests, and they didn't kill that many people anyway, so why get so worked up over it?

Would you suggest the Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades? More dead soldiers would make things more fair?

Douglas Adams was right, coming down from the trees was a bad idea.

Well there's no need to be rude, it kind of cheapens your response. Why not come up with a reasonable argument against what I said.

Many people have posted on here that it was a deliberate tactic of the red shirts to escalate at every opportunity to force the army into retaliation. I personally do not agree with that and provided a reason for my belief.

I'm not suggesting that the "Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades" at all and can not see anything in my post suggesting that.

[tlansford]

Well why do all of the army apologist's always lay the blame of this attack (BTS) on the reds? Also on the day of the hospital 'invasion' an hour or so before there were a stream of twitter reports saying army personnel were seen hurriedly exiting the upper floors of Chula hospital. Considering snipers were positioned in schools is anyone really doubting that they weren't there?

Backed up by twitter reports. Well there you have it people. How can you argue with something that has been on twitter?

don't address the information, just mock the source. Good retort.

You know as well as anyone that twitter not only allows people to broadcast what they are seeing, it leaves a documented trail of first hand information which can be confirmed or not. Maybe you have seen an analysis which debunks the "stream of tweets" about the military being in the hospital. Maybe not.

[tlansford]

do you have a link for this news source? If not it will be deleted. Unattributed sources are not allowed

DSI: Origin of Silom grenade attacks yet to be concluded : National News Bureau of Thailand, 5 May 2010

a comment here quoted the same article : http://asiancorrespo...m-under-attack/

The original NNT link is dead now (surprise!). But at the time, the news article was quoted and reposted in many forums with the same link.

There is also this statement from a german language forum base on a report from matichon with a link to the matichon article. (Thai)

"Abhisit admitted on April 28 that the M79 grenades were likely fired from the hosptial, but that the hospital administration won´t accept this. There were earlier witness reports stating the same thing.

http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detai...rpid=00&catid= "

Edited September 20, 2012 by tlansford

[AleG]

"I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush."

"These sorts of deaths were in the minority" I'm going to have to differ with you there, a gut feeling as it were as there is no specific proof yet but I think these deaths of innocents are likely to be in the majority. Now my definition of an innocent will be different to yours - it appears that of all the deaths recorded by the PIC none of those had been handling guns, no gunshot residue found.

I add to that the many photographs/videos of dead redshirts that do not show them to be armed with anything other than a catapult. If you wish to call this armed, well fair enough but you have to accept that to shoot these people dead is a wild over reaction to the threat, an over reaction already documented by the HRW.That is what I was suggesting by the number of deaths of protesters going up in relation to the deaths of security forces. The use of grenades by the red or black shirts whoever it was the limit, there was no escalation above this, 5 Security Force personnel were killed on the 10th April and another 6 (one by "friendly" fire) by the 19th May - were was this supposed constant escalation of armed offenses against the security forces that warranted live fire zones and snipers, let alone 30,000 deployed troops? In this same period 50 plus civilians were killed.

Oh well, they were only using guns and grenades as part of their peaceful protests, and they didn't kill that many people anyway, so why get so worked up over it?

Would you suggest the Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades? More dead soldiers would make things more fair?

Douglas Adams was right, coming down from the trees was a bad idea.

Well there's no need to be rude, it kind of cheapens your response. Why not come up with a reasonable argument against what I said.

Many people have posted on here that it was a deliberate tactic of the red shirts to escalate at every opportunity to force the army into retaliation. I personally do not agree with that and provided a reason for my belief.

I'm not suggesting that the "Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades" at all and can not see anything in my post suggesting that.

The argument is weak to say the least, for example saying that more protesters than soldiers were killed, what does that prove?. Japan lost 1.8 or so million to the Allies 140.000, so that makes Japan the victim? No it just shows that they picked up a fight and got their arse handed back.

Most protesters died at or nearby the barricades, which of course would explain why most of the fatal injuries were to the head and torso (not to mention that injuries to the extremities are much less likely to cause death) They manned those barricades, created smokescreens which seems quite convenient for the MiB hit and run tactics. Let go a few rounds and or a grenade or two to the army lines and hightail somewhere else. They do that, the soldiers fire back and who gets it? the idiots at the barricade get it, that's who.

[TheKrayTriplet]

"I don't say there weren't any innocent people caught up in this. There were. Some most likely killed at the hands of soldiers, some most likely killed at the hands of protesters. There needs to be justice for those deaths. But we also need to recognise, these sorts of deaths were in the minority. Focusing solely on them, and making no mention of all the other deaths that make up the majority, is i think an attempt to paint them all with the same "victim" brush."

"These sorts of deaths were in the minority" I'm going to have to differ with you there, a gut feeling as it were as there is no specific proof yet but I think these deaths of innocents are likely to be in the majority. Now my definition of an innocent will be different to yours - it appears that of all the deaths recorded by the PIC none of those had been handling guns, no gunshot residue found.

I add to that the many photographs/videos of dead redshirts that do not show them to be armed with anything other than a catapult. If you wish to call this armed, well fair enough but you have to accept that to shoot these people dead is a wild over reaction to the threat, an over reaction already documented by the HRW.That is what I was suggesting by the number of deaths of protesters going up in relation to the deaths of security forces. The use of grenades by the red or black shirts whoever it was the limit, there was no escalation above this, 5 Security Force personnel were killed on the 10th April and another 6 (one by "friendly" fire) by the 19th May - were was this supposed constant escalation of armed offenses against the security forces that warranted live fire zones and snipers, let alone 30,000 deployed troops? In this same period 50 plus civilians were killed.

It is pointless to answer most of your post as it has all been answered many many times before on this never ending hamster wheel. BUT, just to put things straight on one point. Protestors armed only with catapults! The protestors were firing steel ball bearings from catapults and always aiming for a head shot. IF they hit you on the head it will highly likely prove fatal. Some protestors were firing steel 'nuts' that had had edges sharpened to a point designed to kill or maim. Just catapults and peaceful protests!

I'll take your word for it with a pinch of salt, creating a vision of red shirt ninjas leaping up from behind a pile of tyres to fire shurikens at army guys who are walking around with no helmets or body armour on and nowhere near a sandbagged position. Coincidentally the army set the distance apart for their barricades and the "threat" as 400 metres. Just how good do you have to be to fire a catapult 400 metres and have sufficient velocity and accuracy to cause damage?

[TheKrayTriplet]

Well there's no need to be rude, it kind of cheapens your response. Why not come up with a reasonable argument against what I said.

Many people have posted on here that it was a deliberate tactic of the red shirts to escalate at every opportunity to force the army into retaliation. I personally do not agree with that and provided a reason for my belief.

I'm not suggesting that the "Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades" at all and can not see anything in my post suggesting that.

The argument is weak to say the least, for example saying that more protesters than soldiers were killed, what does that prove?. Japan lost 1.8 or so million to the Allies 140.000, so that makes Japan the victim? No it just shows that they picked up a fight and got their arse handed back.

Most protesters died at or nearby the barricades, which of course would explain why most of the fatal injuries were to the head and torso (not to mention that injuries to the extremities are much less likely to cause death) They manned those barricades, created smokescreens which seems quite convenient for the MiB hit and run tactics. Let go a few rounds and or a grenade or two to the army lines and hightail somewhere else. They do that, the soldiers fire back and who gets it? the idiots at the barricade get it, that's who.

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

[AleG]

Well there's no need to be rude, it kind of cheapens your response. Why not come up with a reasonable argument against what I said.

Many people have posted on here that it was a deliberate tactic of the red shirts to escalate at every opportunity to force the army into retaliation. I personally do not agree with that and provided a reason for my belief.

I'm not suggesting that the "Army faced the barricades with batons and water canons vs. the MiB guns and grenades" at all and can not see anything in my post suggesting that.

The argument is weak to say the least, for example saying that more protesters than soldiers were killed, what does that prove?. Japan lost 1.8 or so million to the Allies 140.000, so that makes Japan the victim? No it just shows that they picked up a fight and got their arse handed back.

Most protesters died at or nearby the barricades, which of course would explain why most of the fatal injuries were to the head and torso (not to mention that injuries to the extremities are much less likely to cause death) They manned those barricades, created smokescreens which seems quite convenient for the MiB hit and run tactics. Let go a few rounds and or a grenade or two to the army lines and hightail somewhere else. They do that, the soldiers fire back and who gets it? the idiots at the barricade get it, that's who.

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The argument still holds no water whatsoever, if there were not more soldiers dead was because they took no chances, no more walking up to the Red Shirts with shields and batons as on the 10th of April. But still there were deaths and grievous injuries at the hands of the "MiB" right up to the end of the "protest", by gunfire and grenades, they didn't stop trying, they just were less effective when the Army was prepared for their guerrilla tactics.

[sbk]

Ok I see yet another posting of a news article with no link and no attribution, keep that up and your posts will be deleted and you will be warned. We insist on FAIR USE in this forum and if you cannot follow this then do not post news articles.

so, first three sentences and A LIVE LINK. Thanks

Your unattributed news post a few back is now deleted as have your inaccurate discussions of moderation, birdpooguava. Dont do that again.

[birdpooguava]

But still there were deaths and grievous injuries at the hands of the "MiB" right up to the end of the "protest", by gunfire and grenades, they didn't stop trying...

Is this pure speculation? If not, please share your sources

[AleG]

But still there were deaths and grievous injuries at the hands of the "MiB" right up to the end of the "protest", by gunfire and grenades, they didn't stop trying...

Is this pure speculation? If not, please share your sources

Funny you should ask, you seem so well informed...

For example, photo 22 "Canadian journalist Chandler Vandergrift (left) lies wounded near injured Thai soldiers after they were hit by a grenade on May 19, 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand. "

Edited September 20, 2012 by AleG

[whybother]

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The red shirts did escalate their protests. If you look at their time line from the start of the protests, to spilling blood, then mobile protests, followed by confrontation with the troops away from the protest areas, then threats to storm the army barracks. They then took over Ratchaprasong, stormed government house and then Thaicom.

To me, that looks like escalation.

[birdpooguava]

But still there were deaths and grievous injuries at the hands of the "MiB" right up to the end of the "protest", by gunfire and grenades, they didn't stop trying...

Is this pure speculation? If not, please share your sources

Funny you should ask, you seem so well informed...

For example, photo 22 "Canadian journalist Chandler Vandergrift (left) lies wounded near injured Thai soldiers after they were hit by a grenade on May 19, 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand. "

What on earth does that prove? Typical that you would blame that on a MIB with absolutely no evidence.

[whybother]

What on earth does that prove? Typical that you would blame that on a MIB with absolutely no evidence.

Was it the red shirts then? Maybe there was a group of yellow shirts in the middle of Lumpini Park on May 19.

[tlansford]

Ok I see yet another posting of a news article with no link and no attribution, keep that up and your posts will be deleted and you will be warned. We insist on FAIR USE in this forum and if you cannot follow this then do not post news articles.

so, first three sentences and A LIVE LINK. Thanks

Your unattributed news post a few back is now deleted as have your inaccurate discussions of moderation, birdpooguava. Dont do that again.

a serious question : is news from NNT considered unattributed?

[whybother]

What on earth does that prove? Typical that you would blame that on a MIB with absolutely no evidence.

One thing it does prove. There are some people that will keep their red coloured glasses on regardless of the evidence put in front of them.

[tlansford]

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The red shirts did escalate their protests. If you look at their time line from the start of the protests, to spilling blood, then mobile protests, followed by confrontation with the troops away from the protest areas, then threats to storm the army barracks. They then took over Ratchaprasong, stormed government house and then Thaicom.

To me, that looks like escalation.

What does de-escalation look like?

Did the army try that?

[whybother]

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The red shirts did escalate their protests. If you look at their time line from the start of the protests, to spilling blood, then mobile protests, followed by confrontation with the troops away from the protest areas, then threats to storm the army barracks. They then took over Ratchaprasong, stormed government house and then Thaicom.

To me, that looks like escalation.

What does de-escalation look like?

Did the army try that?

For the first 3 weeks they didn't do much. In fact when the red shirts confronted them where they were stationed away from protest areas, they withdrew.

It was only after the red shirts had taken over Ratchaprasong and stormed parliament and Thaicom that the army started getting active.

What would you expect them to do at that stage?

[tlansford]

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The red shirts did escalate their protests. If you look at their time line from the start of the protests, to spilling blood, then mobile protests, followed by confrontation with the troops away from the protest areas, then threats to storm the army barracks. They then took over Ratchaprasong, stormed government house and then Thaicom.

To me, that looks like escalation.

What does de-escalation look like?

Did the army try that?

For the first 3 weeks they didn't do much. In fact when the red shirts confronted them where they were stationed away from protest areas, they withdrew.

It was only after the red shirts had taken over Ratchaprasong and stormed parliament and Thaicom that the army started getting active.

What would you expect them to do at that stage?

Where do I find your response to the question, 'de-escalation, did the army try that?'?

[whybother]

For the first 3 weeks they didn't do much. In fact when the red shirts confronted them where they were stationed away from protest areas, they withdrew.

It was only after the red shirts had taken over Ratchaprasong and stormed parliament and Thaicom that the army started getting active.

What would you expect them to do at that stage?

Where do I find your response to the question, 'de-escalation, did the army try that?'?

How about " In fact when the red shirts confronted them where they were stationed away from protest areas, they withdrew."

[nurofiend]

My argument was against those who suggest the red shirt protesters were escalating the conflict every day. I was suggesting that having had 5 security forces being killed on one day and then a further 6 in the month that followed is not reflective of the red shirts escalating their actions. In that same timescale when 50 plus protesters, cameramen, medics, bystanders were killed it appears to me that the army have upped the ante with no reasonable reason to do so.

As far as the head and torso shots being a result of hiding behind barricades it would seem the barricades were "not fit for purpose". I think it more highly likely that the troops ignored their officers and fired indiscriminately as has been suggested by a number of on the scene reporters. The use of snipers would obviously up this amount as well.

The red shirts did escalate their protests. If you look at their time line from the start of the protests, to spilling blood, then mobile protests, followed by confrontation with the troops away from the protest areas, then threats to storm the army barracks. They then took over Ratchaprasong, stormed government house and then Thaicom.

To me, that looks like escalation.

What does de-escalation look like?

Did the army try that?

For the first 3 weeks they didn't do much. In fact when the red shirts confronted them where they were stationed away from protest areas, they withdrew.

It was only after the red shirts had taken over Ratchaprasong and stormed parliament and Thaicom that the army started getting active.

What would you expect them to do at that stage?

not start to use live rounds and lie about it?

[whybother]

not start to use live rounds and lie about it?

So, what WOULD you do?

[nurofiend]

not start to use live rounds and lie about it?

So, what WOULD you do?

i'd not start using live rounds and lie about it.

what would you do?

[whybother]

not start to use live rounds and lie about it?

So, what WOULD you do?

i'd not start using live rounds and lie about it.

what would you do?

I would stop trolling.

Edited September 20, 2012 by whybother

[nurofiend]

not start to use live rounds and lie about it?

So, what WOULD you do?

i'd not start using live rounds and lie about it.

what would you do?

I would stop trolling.

well obviously not because that's exactly what you're doing in that reply.

you asked me what i'd do and i told you, i asked you so why won't you answer me?

[AleG]

What on earth does that prove? Typical that you would blame that on a MIB with absolutely no evidence.

One thing it does prove. There are some people that will keep their red coloured glasses on regardless of the evidence put in front of them.

Indeed.

[whybother]

well obviously not because that's exactly what you're doing in that reply.

you asked me what i'd do and i told you, i asked you so why won't you answer me?

You guys are the ones that are saying that they should have done something different.

We know what you would NOT do. But you haven't answered the question of what you WOULD do?

[rixalex]

Backed up by twitter reports. Well there you have it people. How can you argue with something that has been on twitter?

don't address the information, just mock the source. Good retort.

You know as well as anyone that twitter not only allows people to broadcast what they are seeing, it leaves a documented trail of first hand information which can be confirmed or not. Maybe you have seen an analysis which debunks the "stream of tweets" about the military being in the hospital. Maybe not.

What, like a stream of tweets that the military were not in the hospital?

I don't think a medium like twitter is one for which there is any onus on anyone to debunk what might have been said by some anonymous person/people. It's like News of the World saying Elvis was sighted on the moon and then me, in response to your scepticism, demanding you prove he wasn't.