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

[rixalex]

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.

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.

Yes i think we may have a different view on what constitutes an innocent citizen.

My view is that if you are in some way breaking the law at the time of an event, your rights at claiming yourself an innocent citizen diminish somewhat.

The protesters were told, after the protests had been ongoing for some time, that anyone who stayed and remained a part of the group, that included violent elements that were killing and injuring soldiers, was breaking the law, and that if they didn't want to be guilty of that, they should leave immediately. Those who didn't leave, those who stayed on, and ended up being the ones most heavily killed, were breaking the law at the time of their death. That to me means they ceased being innocent citizens.

Now that of course means they deserved to die. But they and their families do have to accept that when you get involved with breaking the law, bad things can happen. You can't expect authorities to adhere to some sort of gentlemanly code of conduct, whereby if you use a slingshot to fire against them, they will only use weapons to the same degree of deadliness to fire back at you.

Problem is we live in a day and age in which people always look for someone else to blame: You break the law, actively taking part in a group that is firing various missiles and projectiles at soldiers, ending up in soldiers dying, and get this, shock horror, you end up getting injured, or worse, you end up getting killed. But no, no, no, this is not your fault, how can anyone suggest that? You are an innocent victim, deserving of millions of baht of tax payers money in compensation, and if you haven't already signed your rights away, let's put someone up on trial for your death.

Madness.

[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.

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.

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

[TheKrayTriplet]

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.

But not escalation of provocation that has been put forward by some posters on this forum as a reasonable excuse to kill another 50 odd protesters.

[Nickymaster]

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?

Red glasses people have been asked to answer that question a hundred times.

[AleG]

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

You do understand that people within the Red Shirt protest was firing guns and grenades at security forces and other targets throughout the protest, up and until the final crack down, don't you?

You don't need to escalate things any more than gunfire and explosives to get an armed reaction from security agencies.

I'm frankly perplexed at this line of argumentation.

[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.

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.

Yes i think we may have a different view on what constitutes an innocent citizen.

My view is that if you are in some way breaking the law at the time of an event, your rights at claiming yourself an innocent citizen diminish somewhat.

The protesters were told, after the protests had been ongoing for some time, that anyone who stayed and remained a part of the group, that included violent elements that were killing and injuring soldiers, was breaking the law, and that if they didn't want to be guilty of that, they should leave immediately. Those who didn't leave, those who stayed on, and ended up being the ones most heavily killed, were breaking the law at the time of their death. That to me means they ceased being innocent citizens.

Now that of course means they deserved to die. But they and their families do have to accept that when you get involved with breaking the law, bad things can happen. You can't expect authorities to adhere to some sort of gentlemanly code of conduct, whereby if you use a slingshot to fire against them, they will only use weapons to the same degree of deadliness to fire back at you.

Problem is we live in a day and age in which people always look for someone else to blame: You break the law, actively taking part in a group that is firing various missiles and projectiles at soldiers, ending up in soldiers dying, and get this, shock horror, you end up getting injured, or worse, you end up getting killed. But no, no, no, this is not your fault, how can anyone suggest that? You are an innocent victim, deserving of millions of baht of tax payers money in compensation, and if you haven't already signed your rights away, let's put someone up on trial for your death.

Madness.

The shool of hard knocks version of events. We are never going to agree. I cannot believe that you accept that a soldier with live ammunition sighting down on a protester with a catapult regards him or her as a legitimate target suitable for killing, regardless of whether they had broken the "temporary" Internal Security Act or Emergency Decree. Where is your sense of proportionality?

[TheKrayTriplet]

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

You do understand that people within the Red Shirt protest was firing guns and grenades at security forces and other targets throughout the protest, up and until the final crack down, don't you?

You don't need to escalate things any more than gunfire and explosives to get an armed reaction from security agencies.

I'm frankly perplexed at this line of argumentation.

I'd probably agree with you if those additional 50 odd civilians were throwing grenades and firing at soldiers. I happen to believe that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe this will be borne out by the inquest results as and when they are published.

[rixalex]

The shool of hard knocks version of events. We are never going to agree. I cannot believe that you accept that a soldier with live ammunition sighting down on a protester with a catapult regards him or her as a legitimate target suitable for killing, regardless of whether they had broken the "temporary" Internal Security Act or Emergency Decree. Where is your sense of proportionality?

I believe that the soldiers were not in the vast majority of situations going in with the intention of using more force than was necessary, or with the intention of killing unnecessarily, but i do believe that the soldiers felt in very real threat of the lives, the soldiers had seen their colleagues getting injured and killed, and the job soldiers were being asked to perform was not a scientific job for which people judging from the safety of their sofas months after the event should be quick to judge. If it was your life on the line, or the life of your son, perhaps you would start appreciating things not only from the position of the law breaking violent mob, but from the position of the authorities and the soldiers trying to restore order in a capital city that had been brought on its knees, and doing so without the benefit of Western policing techniques, skills and equipment in riot control.

[jayboy]

I believe that the soldiers were not in the vast majority of situations going in with the intention of using more force than was necessary, or with the intention of killing unnecessarily, but i do believe that the soldiers felt in very real threat of the lives, the soldiers had seen their colleagues getting injured and killed, and the job soldiers were being asked to perform was not a scientific job for which people judging from the safety of their sofas months after the event should be quick to judge. If it was your life on the line, or the life of your son, perhaps you would start appreciating things not only from the position of the law breaking violent mob, but from the position of the authorities and the soldiers trying to restore order in a capital city that had been brought on its knees, and doing so without the benefit of Western policing techniques, skills and equipment in riot control.

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

Edited September 21, 2012 by cdnvic
Fixed mangled quotation

[AleG]

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

You do understand that people within the Red Shirt protest was firing guns and grenades at security forces and other targets throughout the protest, up and until the final crack down, don't you?

You don't need to escalate things any more than gunfire and explosives to get an armed reaction from security agencies.

I'm frankly perplexed at this line of argumentation.

I'd probably agree with you if those additional 50 odd civilians were throwing grenades and firing at soldiers. I happen to believe that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe this will be borne out by the inquest results as and when they are published.

Most were probably not "armed" with fire guns and grenades, still most died at the barricades. Take a look at this video:

Now put yourself on the side of the soldiers on the other end of the road.

First two clips, you see through the smoke of burning tires a metal tube projecting from the barricade and taking aim at your position, do you wait until they fire to decide whether it is a an M79 or just a firework to lay down suppressive fire or not? Remember, your life and the lives of those around you may depend on that decision.

Go to around 0:25, Red Shirts set off fireworks and a particularly stupid Red Shirt pops up and pretends to fire a gun, you on the other side, you have either already been attacked with guns or know someone who has, do you fire back?

Now, one small thought experiment, suppose you are in the vicinity of a recent shooting, let's say a crazy guy opens fire during a police parade injuring and killing a few officers; police scramble and start looking for the shooter. Now you, standing in a shadowy place pull out a toy gun and pretend to fire to one of the officers, what would you expect to happen next?

These idiots decided to play war with armed soldiers, they bear responsibility for their actions.

[whybother]

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.

But not escalation of provocation that has been put forward by some posters on this forum as a reasonable excuse to kill another 50 odd protesters.

They escalated until the government decided to try to disperse them. Then the red shirts brought out their militia.

Most of those killed were "protesters" that were often outside the barricades attacking soldiers. None of the "innocent protesters" sitting around the stage at Ratchaprasong were killed.

[Nickymaster]

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

You do understand that people within the Red Shirt protest was firing guns and grenades at security forces and other targets throughout the protest, up and until the final crack down, don't you?

You don't need to escalate things any more than gunfire and explosives to get an armed reaction from security agencies.

I'm frankly perplexed at this line of argumentation.

I'd probably agree with you if those additional 50 odd civilians were throwing grenades and firing at soldiers. I happen to believe that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe this will be borne out by the inquest results as and when they are published.

Most were probably not "armed" with fire guns and grenades, still most died at the barricades. Take a look at this video:

Now put yourself on the side of the soldiers on the other end of the road.

First two clips, you see through the smoke of burning tires a metal tube projecting from the barricade and taking aim at your position, do you wait until they fire to decide whether it is a an M79 or just a firework to lay down suppressive fire or not? Remember, your life and the lives of those around you may depend on that decision.

Go to around 0:25, Red Shirts set off fireworks and a particularly stupid Red Shirt pops up and pretends to fire a gun, you on the other side, you have either already been attacked with guns or know someone who has, do you fire back?

Now, one small thought experiment, suppose you are in the vicinity of a recent shooting, let's say a crazy guy opens fire during a police parade injuring and killing a few officers; police scramble and start looking for the shooter. Now you, standing in a shadowy place pull out a toy gun and pretend to fire to one of the officers, what would you expect to happen next?

These idiots decided to play war with armed soldiers, they bear responsibility for their actions.

These idiots were sadly brainwashed by their leaders into starting a war with the army.

If they could have gotten their hands on bazooka they would have used it too.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

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.

Lets take for example your comment

"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."

First off you maintain incorrectly that soldiers walked up to the red shirts with shields and batons on the 10th April. Wrong, Some soldiers were armed with M16's and Tavors and were firing live ammunition at the red shirts.

Your next argument is the unarmed red shirts that were shot in the head or chest due to the fact that alleged armed elements of the Red Shirts would fight skirmish actions with the troops from behind the smoke of burning tyres and then slipping away letting the unarmed red shirts still at the barricades take the brunt of the return fire from the troops.

"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."

Well all I can say about that theory is that at best it's fanciful when compared to the footage available of the shooting incidents (for example the one accompanying the Nick Nostitz on the spot report mentioned earlier in the thread)

I cannot see any evidence of the Red Shirt supporters continually upping the ante argument that is being used to justify the use of snipers and seemingly coincidentally large rise in protesters shot and killed. Is there some kind of trade off that goes on in peoples minds: that they threw two grenades so we kill 10 protesters - Is that how you view this as an escalation of "violence" by the red shirts?

Meanwhile back on planet earth:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers.

[Buchholz]

You do understand that people within the Red Shirt protest was firing guns and grenades at security forces and other targets throughout the protest, up and until the final crack down, don't you?

You don't need to escalate things any more than gunfire and explosives to get an armed reaction from security agencies.

I'm frankly perplexed at this line of argumentation.

I'd probably agree with you if those additional 50 odd civilians were throwing grenades and firing at soldiers. I happen to believe that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe this will be borne out by the inquest results as and when they are published.

Most were probably not "armed" with fire guns and grenades, still most died at the barricades. Take a look at this video:

Now put yourself on the side of the soldiers on the other end of the road.

First two clips, you see through the smoke of burning tires a metal tube projecting from the barricade and taking aim at your position, do you wait until they fire to decide whether it is a an M79 or just a firework to lay down suppressive fire or not? Remember, your life and the lives of those around you may depend on that decision.

Go to around 0:25, Red Shirts set off fireworks and a particularly stupid Red Shirt pops up and pretends to fire a gun, you on the other side, you have either already been attacked with guns or know someone who has, do you fire back?

Now, one small thought experiment, suppose you are in the vicinity of a recent shooting, let's say a crazy guy opens fire during a police parade injuring and killing a few officers; police scramble and start looking for the shooter. Now you, standing in a shadowy place pull out a toy gun and pretend to fire to one of the officers, what would you expect to happen next?

These idiots decided to play war with armed soldiers, they bear responsibility for their actions.

Whether it's the 2009 Black Songkran riot

Or the 2010 May Mayhem riot

the Red Shirts sure do seem to have an affinity for fuel trucks.

.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

I believe that the soldiers were not in the vast majority of situations going in with the intention of using more force than was necessary, or with the intention of killing unnecessarily, but i do believe that the soldiers felt in very real threat of the lives, the soldiers had seen their colleagues getting injured and killed, and the job soldiers were being asked to perform was not a scientific job for which people judging from the safety of their sofas months after the event should be quick to judge. If it was your life on the line, or the life of your son, perhaps you would start appreciating things not only from the position of the law breaking violent mob, but from the position of the authorities and the soldiers trying to restore order in a capital city that had been brought on its knees, and doing so without the benefit of Western policing techniques, skills and equipment in riot control.

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

[jayboy]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

[rixalex]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

[jayboy]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.No wonder you get agitated when it becomes apparent the rest of the world thinks differently.

[rixalex]

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.

One wonders why you feel the need for an investigation. You have already declared that the military committed crimes and that they went of a killing spree in which unarmed innocent people were gunned down, apparently for the fun of it. Seems like you have it all sorted.

You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.

Criminality on the part of generals and government shouldn't get a free pass, but it should be proven first. You, are happy assuming it. That will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with your outspoken views on both those establishments.

[rixalex]

No wonder you get agitated when it becomes apparent the rest of the world thinks differently.

Speaking for the rest of the world, just perhaps might be extending your reach... but who am i to question?

[LadyHeather]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

According to a very close friend of mine who had to walk through Rachaprasong at the time and was threatened with guns every single time (he lived there) they were not unarmed. I would think that someone with a gun who pulls it on an unarmed foreigner would also be considered dangerous and threatening but this is why I never get involved in these political discussions. Its all armchair warriors who have never seen anything and only choose to believe what they want to believe.

[TheKrayTriplet]

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.

One wonders why you feel the need for an investigation. You have already declared that the military committed crimes and that they went of a killing spree in which unarmed innocent people were gunned down, apparently for the fun of it. Seems like you have it all sorted.

You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.

Criminality on the part of generals and government shouldn't get a free pass, but it should be proven first. You, are happy assuming it. That will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with your outspoken views on both those establishments.

But you have only to read the comments made on this thread

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/584972-army-behind-thai-protest-death-inquest/

to see that there is still backing for the security forces despite them being proven to be responsible for an innocent victims death. I really can't imagine the hyperbole to be unleashed if an inquest finds the security forces responsible for the death of a protester found with a catapult.

[rixalex]

But you have only to read the comments made on this thread

http://www.thaivisa....-death-inquest/

to see that there is still backing for the security forces despite them being proven to be responsible for an innocent victims death. I really can't imagine the hyperbole to be unleashed if an inquest finds the security forces responsible for the death of a protester found with a catapult.

In that particular case, i don't back them. I think, to put it bluntly, they fcuked up.. or to put it less bluntly, they made a mistake. To me, that means the person/people responsible for the mistake perhaps being given a different job, or being made to find a new job, it means an apology to the family and friends of the deceased, an admittance of wrongdoing, and admittance of the victim's innocence, as well as compensation given.

Unless there are indications of intention to kill that person, or unless there are indications of wilfully acting irresponsibly or recklessly, i don't personally think a crime has been committed. A very sad accident has occurred.

Edited September 21, 2012 by rixalex

[TheKrayTriplet]

But you have only to read the comments made on this thread

http://www.thaivisa....-death-inquest/

to see that there is still backing for the security forces despite them being proven to be responsible for an innocent victims death. I really can't imagine the hyperbole to be unleashed if an inquest finds the security forces responsible for the death of a protester found with a catapult.

In that particular case, i don't back them. I think, to put it bluntly, they fcuked up.. or to put it less bluntly, they made a mistake. To me, that means the person/people responsible for the mistake perhaps being given a different job, or being made to find a new job, it means an apology to the family and friends of the deceased, an admittance of wrongdoing, and admittance of the victim's innocence, as well as compensation given.

Unless there are indications of intention to kill that person, or unless there are indications of wilfully acting irresponsibly or recklessly, i don't personally think a crime has been committed. A very sad accident has occurred.

In that case I think there may be far more than a few cases of "very sad accidents" being proved to have occurred in the next few months of inquest results. Eventually, hopefully, then people will accept that the security forces acted in a wholly disproportionate manner and justice be meted out accordingly.

[rixalex]

In that case I think there may be far more than a few cases of "very sad accidents" being proved to have occurred in the next few months of inquest results. Eventually, hopefully, then people will accept that the security forces acted in a wholly disproportionate manner and justice be meted out accordingly.

That to me depends on how many of the deaths involved people who had nothing to do with supporting the red riot, and who were not there in an active capacity of that support. If you think that accounts for a lot of the dead people, then you are right. I personally don't think it does, and i don't think you are.

[TheKrayTriplet]

In that case I think there may be far more than a few cases of "very sad accidents" being proved to have occurred in the next few months of inquest results. Eventually, hopefully, then people will accept that the security forces acted in a wholly disproportionate manner and justice be meted out accordingly.

That to me depends on how many of the deaths involved people who had nothing to do with supporting the red riot, and who were not there in an active capacity of that support. If you think that accounts for a lot of the dead people, then you are right. I personally don't think it does, and i don't think you are.

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

Sorry but that's my whole point - it's the disproportionate response that brought about these deaths not the protesters actions (or medic, journalist, media personnel etc).

[AleG]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

Sorry but that's my whole point - it's the disproportionate response that brought about these deaths not the protesters actions (or medic, journalist, media personnel etc).

Nobody forced the Red Shirts to have an armed militia within their ranks, that was their (or their leaders at least) choice. No guerrilla no street gun fights, no dead protesters.

Would you stick around as a peaceful protester when the guy next to you pulls out an AK-47 and takes a potshot at a line of security officers?

[rixalex]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

[Nickymaster]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.No wonder you get agitated when it becomes apparent the rest of the world thinks differently.

"No wonder you get agitated when it becomes apparent the rest of the world thinks differently."

Not really. Most of the world know the games people play with there own people (supporters).

[tlansford]

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.

One wonders why you feel the need for an investigation. You have already declared that the military committed crimes and that they went of a killing spree in which unarmed innocent people were gunned down, apparently for the fun of it. Seems like you have it all sorted.

You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.

Criminality on the part of generals and government shouldn't get a free pass, but it should be proven first. You, are happy assuming it. That will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with your outspoken views on both those establishments.

Two points : jayboy is not assuming anything as you claim. He is in fact assuming much much less about the actions of the military as other posters (daily) assume about the actions of the protesters. But he does observe events which are well established and like a reasonable person conclude that there are situations which could be prosecuted. The eventual result could be charges filed against government officials and military.

Then as he stated, these should be investigated and in the case of guilty verdicts, punished. That seems to be 100% compatible with your statement about "proven".

Also, one of the issues in Thailand is the fact that there are 20+ cases against red shirts in prosecution and 0 cases in prosecution against Abhisit, his colleagues and the military.

While it is up to the judicial process to determine guilt or innocence, that process should at least start.