Thai Democrats Ordered Use Of Snipers: Korkaew

[OzMick]

As the government were illegally in power then who are the ones that are the renegades? I assume you guys that are arguing are Americans because you seem to think that any government you guys fund are the upholders of truth and justice. If that's not the case then why did a load of armed renegades kick out the legitimate British rulers.

You seem to have attended a red "democracy" school, though I'm still waiting for "judicial coup" to appear. Perhaps its too hard for your Issaan girlfriend to translate for you? Or a you one of our American friends with no idea of how the Westminster system works, and to whom the concept of a coalition government is beyond comprehension?

[OzMick]

So the target may not have been the BTS but a few hundred soldiers loitering around there . Why do you guys defend the army who can't hit MiBs despite their training but can hit civilians and then expect pin point accurancy from a guy who maybe hasn't had training with a notoriously hard to aim weapon.

I think you should stick to bent fairground air rifles. What leads you to believe that the M-79 is a "notoriously hard to aim weapon" and why do you assume the user hasn't had any training?

Some 40 years ago I had quite a bit of experience with the M-79 - I could still put one in your shirt pocket from 100m if you'd like to try.

Sounds like you don't need an M-79 you could just fire the grenade out of your backside

Is that your defence of a moronic statement? Can you justify even one of the claims you fantasized?

[rubl]

So it's right to shoot him??? no judge, jury just a bullet in the head - the animal pack are baying for blood oooooooohhhhhhh

The full moon must be out tonight

2010-05-13

"Renegade Army General Shot In Thailand

...

Mr. FULLER: He's a very colorful person. He was - I think colorful is probably a euphemism. I mean he was a bit wacky. He was provocative. He was defiant. And it was a mystery to a lot of people why he couldn't be reined in. A military is not supposed to have renegade generals on the loose for as long as he was. But I don't think anyone saw him more than a mysterious, charismatic renegade soldier.

...

"

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=126805541

[OzMick]

So it's right to shoot him??? no judge, jury just a bullet in the head - the animal pack are baying for blood oooooooohhhhhhh

The full moon must be out tonight

You are attributing his death to the RTA. If you have evidence of that, you should present to to the DSI as they would be happy to receive it. OTOH if you do not, please stop making claims of extrajudicial killing based on what you saw on red television, your girlfriend told you, or a presumption that you have made.

[animatic]

are you listening to yourself? your implying they were killing themselves to make a point

even if there were a few protesters on the fringe using firecrackers to fight back, it does not make it right for the government to open fire. i also dont remember any violence before the army showed up with TANKS!!! dont forget they brought in the TANKS to clear the protesters. imagine if they did that anywhere in the west....

Fire crackers ?

The grenade they launched into the BTS station, you call a firecracker?

Well the army were using the BTS for sniper vantage points so fair game.

But there has never been ANY evidence whatsoever that this was the case.

No military could be there sinceIt was operating normally as a transit system.

And people injured and person killed were ALL civilians.

There were only military there later during the final day clearing out,

and only after TRANSIT WAS STOPPED.

So stop attempting to muddy the waters will illogical hyperbole.

[animatic]

Well hate to keep going back to Youtube videos but there were suddenly a lot of soldiers come from nowhere when the BTS was hit - must have been hiding in the bushes.

The soldiers were stationed under and around Silom and Sala Daeng stations. Do you know anything about 2010?

Apparently it was not in the briefing paper.

[jbrain]

are you listening to yourself? your implying they were killing themselves to make a point

even if there were a few protesters on the fringe using firecrackers to fight back, it does not make it right for the government to open fire. i also dont remember any violence before the army showed up with TANKS!!! dont forget they brought in the TANKS to clear the protesters. imagine if they did that anywhere in the west....

Fire crackers ?

The grenade they launched into the BTS station, you call a firecracker?

Well the army were using the BTS for sniper vantage points so fair game.

But there has never been ANY evidence whatsoever that this was the case.

No military could be there sinceIt was operating normally as a transit system.

And people injured and person killed were ALL civilians.

There were only military there later during the final day clearing out,

and only after TRANSIT WAS STOPPED.

So stop attempting to muddy the waters will illogical hyperbole.

No evidence, Sysardman says that there is nummerous evidence on Youtube, however he hasn't posted any link yet.

On second thoughts, maybe he's just talking out of his neck.

[sysardman]

So the target may not have been the BTS but a few hundred soldiers loitering around there . Why do you guys defend the army who can't hit MiBs despite their training but can hit civilians and then expect pin point accurancy from a guy who maybe hasn't had training with a notoriously hard to aim weapon.

I think you should stick to bent fairground air rifles. What leads you to believe that the M-79 is a "notoriously hard to aim weapon" and why do you assume the user hasn't had any training?

Some 40 years ago I had quite a bit of experience with the M-79 - I could still put one in your shirt pocket from 100m if you'd like to try.

Anyway no hard feelings - just to make up I'll take you up on the offer, bet you couldn't put one in my shirt pocket

PS I forgot to say you'd be firing the RPG and wearing my shirt at the same time

[rubl]

So it's right to shoot him??? no judge, jury just a bullet in the head - the animal pack are baying for blood oooooooohhhhhhh

The full moon must be out tonight

You are attributing his death to the RTA. If you have evidence of that, you should present to to the DSI as they would be happy to receive it. OTOH if you do not, please stop making claims of extrajudicial killing based on what you saw on red television, your girlfriend told you, or a presumption that you have made.

If the renegade general Seh Daeng was still alive today I'm sure that Pheu Thai spokesman Promphong would file a defamation case against him, just like k. Promphong did against k. Abhisit c.s. Imagine the affront with on 2010- 05-12

"Red-shirt supporter Maj-General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol claimed that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra was the only individual who could order an end to the protest."

http://www.nationmul...t-30129108.html

[jbrain]

No evidence, Sysardman says that there is nummerous evidence on Youtube, however he hasn't posted any link yet.

On second thoughts, maybe he's just talking out of his neck.

Well I thought you guys could read and use search engines and even if I'm talking out of my neck it must be a metre above where you guys talk out of.

Well I don't want to brag about my abilities, but actually I'm quite experienced in using search engines, only thing is I can't find any video that supports your claims.

So would you please post a link for us.If you have seen them they must for sure still be in your browser history.

[whybother]

Well I thought you guys could read and use search engines and even if I'm talking out of my neck it must be a metre above where you guys talk out of.

Says someone who didn't know that the army were stationed in Silom, and thinks that the Democrats came to power as a result of the coup.

[spongeman]

Crackdown on snipers ? Hopefully not.

[TomTao]

Sysardman,

let me ask you a question, were you at the protest or have you ever been in a similar situation?

I was caught up in the 1987 Fiji coup, I was in the navy at the time and the ship I was on arrived half an hour after the coup started, we didn't know the coup was on till after the ship had docked and we then told to stay and render assistance to Australian citizens if needed, members of the crew, myself included were assaulted while ashore in unprovoked attacks, on the last day we were there I was given a 9mm Browning pistol and an smg (small machine gun) and ordered to man the side and prepare to repel boarders, when I got up on deck I saw a large crowd made up of both soldiers and civilians mixed together, all of the soldiers were armed as were some of the civilians, the soldiers kept pointing thier weapons at us in a threatening manner, all of us were in state of heightened anxiety and all it would have taken was for a one shot to be fired and it would have been on, and civilians would been killed. The soldiers at the protest would have been in a state of heightened anxiety, keeping in mind that there had been bomb blasts in different parts of the country as well as speeches from the red shirt leaders inciting violence leading up to the protest, so once the shooting started if the soldiers saw what they thought was a weapon they would have fired. Its very easy to be an armchair critic, but try taking off the red tinted glasses and looking at the situation objectively instead of subjectively.

Sent from my GT-I9003

[sysardman]

Sysardman,

let me ask you a question, were you at the protest or have you ever been in a similar situation?

I was caught up in the 1987 Fiji coup, I was in the navy at the time and the ship I was on arrived half an hour after the coup started, we didn't know the coup was on till after the ship had docked and we then told to stay and render assistance to Australian citizens if needed, members of the crew, myself included were assaulted while ashore in unprovoked attacks, on the last day we were there I was given a 9mm Browning pistol and an smg (small machine gun) and ordered to man the side and prepare to repel boarders, when I got up on deck I saw a large crowd made up of both soldiers and civilians mixed together, all of the soldiers were armed as were some of the civilians, the soldiers kept pointing thier weapons at us in a threatening manner, all of us were in state of heightened anxiety and all it would have taken was for a one shot to be fired and it would have been on, and civilians would been killed. The soldiers at the protest would have been in a state of heightened anxiety, keeping in mind that there had been bomb blasts in different parts of the country as well as speeches from the red shirt leaders inciting violence leading up to the protest, so once the shooting started if the soldiers saw what they thought was a weapon they would have fired. Its very easy to be an armchair critic, but try taking off the red tinted glasses and looking at the situation objectively instead of subjectively.

Sent from my GT-I9003

That's great a bunch of armchair critics calling me an armchair critic - as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists, those people are hard working salt of the earth and the government tries to treat them like rubbish. The majority were there to hold peaceful demonstrations and the government refused to talk and sent in storm troopers instead, it's no wonder violence erupted. The army's decision to use live ammunition instead of rubber bullets and water cannon was a clear invitation for the redshirts to do likewise.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory insulting posts and replies have been removed.

Off topic posts have been removed.

[siampolee]

as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists

I larf I larf I pee Iself.

Have you actually searched on you tube and watched and listened to the litany and rhetoric of violence and hate spewed out by the Red Shirt leadership and the incitement to violence rants from Thaksin telling the Red Shirts to fight on his behalf while he was swanning around the worlds top class shopping centres ?

Edited October 21, 2012 by siampolee

[whybother]

That's great a bunch of armchair critics calling me an armchair critic - as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists, those people are hard working salt of the earth and the government tries to treat them like rubbish. The majority were there to hold peaceful demonstrations and the government refused to talk and sent in storm troopers instead, it's no wonder violence erupted. The army's decision to use live ammunition instead of rubber bullets and water cannon was a clear invitation for the redshirts to do likewise.

Once again, do you even remotely know what happened during the 2010 protests?

The government allowed the peaceful protests. The government did talk. They offered early elections.

The government sent in the army to disperse the protests the offer had been rejected, AFTER the protesters had threatened to storm the army barracks, AFTER they had stormed government house, and AFTER they had stormed Thaicom using molotov cocktails.

The government used rubber bullets and water cannons at Thaicom. The government didn't use grenades, so I don't know what excuse you want to use for the protesters to use grenades. The red shirts were using grenades long before the army were doing anything.

[jbrain]

Sysardman,

let me ask you a question, were you at the protest or have you ever been in a similar situation?

I was caught up in the 1987 Fiji coup, I was in the navy at the time and the ship I was on arrived half an hour after the coup started, we didn't know the coup was on till after the ship had docked and we then told to stay and render assistance to Australian citizens if needed, members of the crew, myself included were assaulted while ashore in unprovoked attacks, on the last day we were there I was given a 9mm Browning pistol and an smg (small machine gun) and ordered to man the side and prepare to repel boarders, when I got up on deck I saw a large crowd made up of both soldiers and civilians mixed together, all of the soldiers were armed as were some of the civilians, the soldiers kept pointing thier weapons at us in a threatening manner, all of us were in state of heightened anxiety and all it would have taken was for a one shot to be fired and it would have been on, and civilians would been killed. The soldiers at the protest would have been in a state of heightened anxiety, keeping in mind that there had been bomb blasts in different parts of the country as well as speeches from the red shirt leaders inciting violence leading up to the protest, so once the shooting started if the soldiers saw what they thought was a weapon they would have fired. Its very easy to be an armchair critic, but try taking off the red tinted glasses and looking at the situation objectively instead of subjectively.

Sent from my GT-I9003

That's great a bunch of armchair critics calling me an armchair critic - as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists, those people are hard working salt of the earth and the government tries to treat them like rubbish. The majority were there to hold peaceful demonstrations and the government refused to talk and sent in storm troopers instead, it's no wonder violence erupted. The army's decision to use live ammunition instead of rubber bullets and water cannon was a clear invitation for the redshirts to do likewise.

Strange that you have so different memoires about the event than anyone else.

I remember that the government went out of their way to talk, but there was a bunch of terrorists on the other side that continiously changed their demands everytime the government agreed to them, until those demands were really rediculous. It clearly showed that the terrorsts had no intention to put a stop at keeping this country hostage.

[sysardman]

That's great a bunch of armchair critics calling me an armchair critic - as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists, those people are hard working salt of the earth and the government tries to treat them like rubbish. The majority were there to hold peaceful demonstrations and the government refused to talk and sent in storm troopers instead, it's no wonder violence erupted. The army's decision to use live ammunition instead of rubber bullets and water cannon was a clear invitation for the redshirts to do likewise.

Once again, do you even remotely know what happened during the 2010 protests?

The government allowed the peaceful protests. The government did talk. They offered early elections.

The government sent in the army to disperse the protests the offer had been rejected, AFTER the protesters had threatened to storm the army barracks, AFTER they had stormed government house, and AFTER they had stormed Thaicom using molotov cocktails.

The government used rubber bullets and water cannons at Thaicom. The government didn't use grenades, so I don't know what excuse you want to use for the protesters to use grenades. The red shirts were using grenades long before the army were doing anything.

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

[sysardman]

Sysardman,

let me ask you a question, were you at the protest or have you ever been in a similar situation?

I was caught up in the 1987 Fiji coup, I was in the navy at the time and the ship I was on arrived half an hour after the coup started, we didn't know the coup was on till after the ship had docked and we then told to stay and render assistance to Australian citizens if needed, members of the crew, myself included were assaulted while ashore in unprovoked attacks, on the last day we were there I was given a 9mm Browning pistol and an smg (small machine gun) and ordered to man the side and prepare to repel boarders, when I got up on deck I saw a large crowd made up of both soldiers and civilians mixed together, all of the soldiers were armed as were some of the civilians, the soldiers kept pointing thier weapons at us in a threatening manner, all of us were in state of heightened anxiety and all it would have taken was for a one shot to be fired and it would have been on, and civilians would been killed. The soldiers at the protest would have been in a state of heightened anxiety, keeping in mind that there had been bomb blasts in different parts of the country as well as speeches from the red shirt leaders inciting violence leading up to the protest, so once the shooting started if the soldiers saw what they thought was a weapon they would have fired. Its very easy to be an armchair critic, but try taking off the red tinted glasses and looking at the situation objectively instead of subjectively.

Sent from my GT-I9003

That's great a bunch of armchair critics calling me an armchair critic - as for the redshirts they are not a bunch of terrorists, those people are hard working salt of the earth and the government tries to treat them like rubbish. The majority were there to hold peaceful demonstrations and the government refused to talk and sent in storm troopers instead, it's no wonder violence erupted. The army's decision to use live ammunition instead of rubber bullets and water cannon was a clear invitation for the redshirts to do likewise.

Strange that you have so different memoires about the event than anyone else.

I remember that the government went out of their way to talk, but there was a bunch of terrorists on the other side that continiously changed their demands everytime the government agreed to them, until those demands were really rediculous. It clearly showed that the terrorsts had no intention to put a stop at keeping this country hostage.

No terrorists here mate

[whybother]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

[sysardman]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

I've been defending the peaceful protesters but you guys keep whining on about some renegades

Edited October 21, 2012 by sysardman

[rubl]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

I've been defending the peaceful protesters but you guys keep whining on about some renegades

The 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' don't need to be defended, they were peaceful, weren't they?

Strangely those peaceful protesters were also deaf, blind, dumb it seems as no one noticed armed elements in their midst, no-one heard a bloody thing over those 24x7 shoutcasted hate speeches and no-one questioned what they heard (or didn't see).

[siampolee]

I've been defending the peaceful protesters but you guys keep whining on about some renegades

As it seems you are unable to read let alone answer questions here is post # 136. below.

Have you actually searched on you tube and watched and listened to the litany and rhetoric of violence and hate spewed out by the Red Shirt leadership and the incitement to violence rants from Thaksin telling the Red Shirts to fight on his behalf while he was swanning around the worlds top class shopping centres ?

[rixalex]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

I'm glad you said "somebody" because it clearly in my opinion wasn't the reds in general that refused that offer, and i don't think the reds in general thought it was nonsense either. They came to Bangkok to demand early elections, and that is what the government, after a few weeks of their protesting, agreed to after sitting down with them in front of the cameras. Did the offer have some conditions? Of course "yes". How could there not be conditions? The government could hardly promise elections if the reds didn't leave Bangkok and allow parties to freely and fairly campaign. None of the conditions were unreasonable. Name me one that was? Of course the agreement would require trust from both sides. The reds would have to trust that the government organised the elections they promised, and the government would have to trust that the reds stopped all the disruption. Could either side of gone back on their promise? Well of course yes, but if you don't give them the chance to prove themselves, how will you ever know and how will you ever have progress?

The offer was fine. Nothing nonsense about it whatsoever. The only nonsense thing was that it wasn't accepted. And why wasn't it accepted? As i say, i don't think it had anything to do with the way the reds in general felt. I have since encountered reds who became disenchanted with the movement when that offer was refused, much in the same way as some yellows became disenchanted when the airport sit in began.

The "reds" didn't refuse it, because it wasn't allowed to be their decision to make, despite it being their lives on the line, despite it being them camping on the streets. Somebody refused it. One person. One person who wasn't even here, much less camping on the street. He knew accepting the offer would likely resolve the situation, and he knew it would likely mean he could return to power, but he wanted more than that, he wanted the whole world to know the people who had kicked him out were evil and as such, all the charges against him were groundless. He wanted the people who kicked him out to be totally and completely discredited, so that when he did get back in power, he would have complete and total control, and not have anyone in a position to question him or any of his actions. And the way he knew he could best achieve this discrediting, was by having so called "democracy fighters" gunned down in the streets, with the army seemingly turning on its own people, on innocent peaceful protesters. That was the vision he had in his head, and he did all he could to bring the country to that point. Sadly for him, when things did predictably get ugly, they didn't last that long and the fatalities list was much shorter than i'm sure he would have liked.

It did work to a point however, as people like you prove, but my guess is you were already part of the proverbial choir who needed no convincing in the first place.

[whybother]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

I've been defending the peaceful protesters but you guys keep whining on about some renegades

How do you separate the renegades from the peaceful protesters when thousands of them head out from the main protest sites (including some of the leaders) to confront troops at barracks, government house, Thaicom. What about hospital invasion, grenade launches, and all those renegades that came out from the protest sites to attack the army in the last few days?

[philw]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

Quite possibly rolled onto him by one of his own men or another attending unit............

[Pimay1]

Well you obviously don't know what happened in 2010 - just because somebody rejects a nonsense offer doesn't signal the use of force. You go back to the negotiating table and find a better offer, not send in the storm troops

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

Quite possibly rolled onto him by one of his own men or another attending unit............

Would that come under the category of friendly fire?

[whybother]

The rejection of the offer didn't signal the use of force. The storming of government house and Thaicom signalled that the protests needed to be dispersed. The dispersal went haywire when the colonel was blown up by a grenade.

Quite possibly rolled onto him by one of his own men or another attending unit............

A theory put forward by Robert Amsterdam because a grenade couldn't be thrown that distance. Apparently he's never heard of a grenade launcher.

Edited October 21, 2012 by whybother

[metisdead]

Some more inflammatory insulting posts and replies have been removed.