Thai Democrats Ordered Use Of Snipers: Korkaew

[billd766]

"A policeman once told him"..... ah well then it MUST be true.

Absolutely, I had a girl tell me once I was handsome. Does not make it so.

My wife told me the same thing (once) and I still think I and a handsome man.

Strangely enough when I say that she collapses in a heap LOL.

Was she telling me the truth back then?

[Fozfromoz]

Jbrain,

You are either talking in riddles, evading the question, or you approve of this murder. If its the latter, then you probably need to take a good look at yourself.

Did this guy do something to you, to make you wish him dead?

[jbrain]

Jbrain,

You are either talking in riddles, evading the question, or you approve of this murder. If its the latter, then you probably need to take a good look at yourself.

Did this guy do something to you, to make you wish him dead?

I didn't kill him.

I didn't also wish him dead, same as I don't wish all those people killed in any war somewhere else on this planet.

That guy was at war with the government at that time, and unfortunately in a war people get killed.

Edited October 20, 2012 by jbrain

[sysardman]

Jbrain,

You are either talking in riddles, evading the question, or you approve of this murder. If its the latter, then you probably need to take a good look at yourself.

Did this guy do something to you, to make you wish him dead?

I didn't kill him.

I didn't also wish him dead, same as I don't wish all those people killed in any war somewhere else on this planet.

That guy was at war with the government at that time, and unfortunately in a war people get killed.

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice. Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

[rixalex]

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice.

You seem to be trying to imply equal guilt on both sides. When authorities are engaged in a stand-off with hijackers, and the outcome is death on both sides, it's not usual to treat the deaths of the hijackers by the police in the same manner as the deaths of the police by the hijackers, because one side is there legally armed as part of their job of trying to restore law and minimize injury and death, and the other side is there breaking the law and illegally armed.

Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

If he was shot by someone from the red side, it wouldn't matter what he was waving, as he was simply being used as a sacrificial lamb to increase tension and pressure on the government. I don't know that he was shot by the red side, but i don't know that he wasn't. And nor do you. So what is your point?

Edited October 20, 2012 by rixalex

[sysardman]

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice.

You seem to be trying to imply equal guilt on both sides. When authorities are engaged in a stand-off with hijackers, and the outcome is death on both sides, it's not usual to treat the deaths of the hijackers by the police in the same manner as the deaths of the police by the hijackers, because one side is there legally armed as part of their job of trying to restore law and minimize injury and death, and the other side is there breaking the law and illegally armed.

Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

If he was shot by someone from the red side, it wouldn't matter what he was waving, as he was simply being used as a sacrificial lamb to increase tension and pressure on the government. I don't know that he was shot by the red side, but i don't know that he wasn't. And nor do you. So what is your point?

Your first point is total bull - if the police are responding to armed threats then OK but these situations were cases of firing on unarmed civilians and if you can see evidence of weapons other than a few sticks in those videos then you have got great eyesight.

Your second point is just muddying the water because I said whoever the shooters were should face legal justice.

[rixalex]

Your first point is total bull - if the police are responding to armed threats then OK but these situations were cases of firing on unarmed civilians and if you can see evidence of weapons other than a few sticks in those videos then you have got great eyesight.

They were responding to an armed threat. No, not everyone was armed, but they were together as part of the same group, and when you place yourself in that sort of situation, with those sorts of people around you, you have to be prepared for the force being used against those armed members to be used against you. If you don't like the sound of that, you should take yourself somewhere where illegally armed people aren't mingling within your vicinity. And all the protesters had plenty of opportunity to remove themselves. They didn't.

Your second point is just muddying the water because I said whoever the shooters were should face legal justice.

By your asking whether a flag was an offensive weapon, you made the assumption that he was shot for what he was carrying. All i did was point out that your assumption may be wrong. Clearing your muddied water.

Edited October 20, 2012 by rixalex

[jbrain]

Your first point is total bull - if the police are responding to armed threats then OK but these situations were cases of firing on unarmed civilians and if you can see evidence of weapons other than a few sticks in those videos then you have got great eyesight.

There are nummerous video's on youtube and elsewhere that show grenade launchers being used by red shirts, and that was long time before the army had fired their first shot.

Or is it that only the video's that suit your case are to be mentioned?

Oh and by the way, Sedaeng was a hig ranked government soldier who had deserted his unit.You know what the army everywhere in the world does with betrayers within their ranks, don't you?

[Skywalker69]

If the "MIB" was under the Democrats control, how come the could move freely amongst (and was protected) the red skirts?

[Roadman]

So if all these highly trained snipers were deployed, why didn't they use them to pick off the hate-mongers inciting violence from the stage?

So Seh Daeng shot himself then?

No, he was rightfully taken out.

So you support extrajudicial shooting? makes you one of the animals too

What a load of bull shit. Extrajudicial shooting? He was not a citizen. He was a renegade Army officer leading an attack on his own Army and country on behalf of a coward convicted criminal. If it was the Army that dealt to him then it was a good and the correct call from them to dealt to the scum who were attacking them. Absolutely amasing that people think an Army officer can go renegade against his own and not expect to be dealt to. Pull ya head out of your arse.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Roadman

[Pimay1]

There are numerous videos and photos of government snipers. What's the story here?

Please post the links to these government snipers videos and photos. If you don't have then what's your post here?

[sysardman]

So Seh Daeng shot himself then?

No, he was rightfully taken out.

So you support extrajudicial shooting? makes you one of the animals too

What a load of bull shit. Extrajudicial shooting? He was not a citizen. He was a renegade Army officer leading an attack on his own Army and country on behalf of a coward convicted criminal. If it was the Army that dealt to him then it was a good and the correct call from them to dealt to the scum who were attacking them. Absolutely amasing that people think an Army officer can go renegade against his own and not expect to be dealt to. Pull ya head out of your arse.

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.

[Pimay1]

BANGKOK: -- Pheu Thai MP and former red-shirt leader Korkaew Pikulthong delivered a statement at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) yesterday, saying a police officer had once told him that the Democrat government had given security officers the green light to deploy snipers for crowd

My ex-wife once told me the Thai man who often came to our house was her cousin. Come to find out he was her Poo Bao that she was funneling 9,000 Baht to each month. Korkaew has the same credibility as my ex-wife. Absolutely none.

[Skywalker69]

Jbrain,

You are either talking in riddles, evading the question, or you approve of this murder. If its the latter, then you probably need to take a good look at yourself.

Did this guy do something to you, to make you wish him dead?

I didn't kill him.

I didn't also wish him dead, same as I don't wish all those people killed in any war somewhere else on this planet.

That guy was at war with the government at that time, and unfortunately in a war people get killed.

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice. Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

The man fro "afar" knew, the Red Shirt leaders knew but the people bussed in didn´t know.

[rixalex]

As the government were illegally in power then who are the ones that are the renegades?

They weren't illegally in power, it was just that some people didn't like the way they came to power. Some people don't like the way this current government came to power, with a banned from politics convicted fugitive leading it from overseas, and it's easy to understand why, but until it is proved in a court of law that this government is illegal, those who don't like it do not have the right to take over central Bangkok and get violent and destructive. The reds didn't have that right either, no matter how much you argue they did.

[473geo]

What a load of bull shit. Extrajudicial shooting? He was not a citizen. He was a renegade Army officer leading an attack on his own Army and country on behalf of a coward convicted criminal. If it was the Army that dealt to him then it was a good and the correct call from them to dealt to the scum who were attacking them. Absolutely amasing that people think an Army officer can go renegade against his own and not expect to be dealt to. Pull ya head out of your arse.

Good explanation.....Korkaew could well be correct then.....based on the assuption the government were running the show and not the military

[ramrod711]

"I could only find one man with a black heart who ordered attacks on these people," he said, adding that even security agencies could not shed light on this issue, hence this was proof enough that no men in black existed.

Well, I suppose we could all watch the video of men in black, surrounded by red shirts, shooting at the army, while being encouraged to burn, burn, burn.

He also said that whether or not these men in black were present, the more than 20 deaths in violent incidents from May 13 to 18 at Rajprarop Road remained unexplained.

I'm so confused, he "proved that no men in black existed", then proved that they did, but may not have been there.

don't eat that henry, that's horse sh-t

[yoshiwara]

Watch it you're foaming at the mouth

For that watch the red speeches on the stage with the MIB prowling around in the background.

[yoshiwara]

Korkaew said he could confirm that no men in black were present among the red-shirt protesters.

What he has confirmed is that he is lying from beginning to end

[jbrain]

As the government were illegally in power

You must be really desperate that you need to resort to such nonsense comments.

[sysardman]

As the government were illegally in power

You must be really desperate that you need to resort to such nonsense comments.

And you obviously don't know what a coup is? a clue is it isn't democracy. I bet the shoe would be on the other foot if your own native country was taken over by a government that wasn't elected - you'd soon be putting your red or yellow shirt on and manning the barricades.

[AleG]

As the government were illegally in power

You must be really desperate that you need to resort to such nonsense comments.

And you obviously don't know what a coup is? a clue is it isn't democracy. I bet the shoe would be on the other foot if your own native country was taken over by a government that wasn't elected - you'd soon be putting your red or yellow shirt on and manning the barricades.

I think you are rather confused about the timeline, to say the least.

[sysardman]

As the government were illegally in power

You must be really desperate that you need to resort to such nonsense comments.

And you obviously don't know what a coup is? a clue is it isn't democracy. I bet the shoe would be on the other foot if your own native country was taken over by a government that wasn't elected - you'd soon be putting your red or yellow shirt on and manning the barricades.

I think you are rather conf

used about the timeline, to say the least.

Well you guys are experts at saying the least

[animatic]

Sounds like BS.

Since Border Patrol Police are known to side with the red shirts.

Edited October 20, 2012 by animatic

[yourauntbob]

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice.

You seem to be trying to imply equal guilt on both sides. When authorities are engaged in a stand-off with hijackers, and the outcome is death on both sides, it's not usual to treat the deaths of the hijackers by the police in the same manner as the deaths of the police by the hijackers, because one side is there legally armed as part of their job of trying to restore law and minimize injury and death, and the other side is there breaking the law and illegally armed.

Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

If he was shot by someone from the red side, it wouldn't matter what he was waving, as he was simply being used as a sacrificial lamb to increase tension and pressure on the government. I don't know that he was shot by the red side, but i don't know that he wasn't. And nor do you. So what is your point?

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....

[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?

I didn't see any tanks around also at that time.

[animatic]

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice.

You seem to be trying to imply equal guilt on both sides. When authorities are engaged in a stand-off with hijackers, and the outcome is death on both sides, it's not usual to treat the deaths of the hijackers by the police in the same manner as the deaths of the police by the hijackers, because one side is there legally armed as part of their job of trying to restore law and minimize injury and death, and the other side is there breaking the law and illegally armed.

Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

If he was shot by someone from the red side, it wouldn't matter what he was waving, as he was simply being used as a sacrificial lamb to increase tension and pressure on the government. I don't know that he was shot by the red side, but i don't know that he wasn't. And nor do you. So what is your point?

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....

They brought in armored vehicles to clear away the barricades without being shot by Men In Black,

There was no shown incidence of tanks firing on protesters.

And most nations will bring in armored vehicles in times of riots or massive threats to order.

The difference is they won't use full machine guns and tank shells on protestors,

they will make them move away from territory they hold illegally using teargas and sound weapons.

[GentlemanJim]

I think Andy Warhol must have been on holiday in Thailand when he came up with the concept of "everyone wants their 15 mins of fame'.

[Pimay1]

At no point in the demonstrations was I aware that war had been declared - shots may have been fired by both sides but they were done by radical factions and all should face real legal justice.

You seem to be trying to imply equal guilt on both sides. When authorities are engaged in a stand-off with hijackers, and the outcome is death on both sides, it's not usual to treat the deaths of the hijackers by the police in the same manner as the deaths of the police by the hijackers, because one side is there legally armed as part of their job of trying to restore law and minimize injury and death, and the other side is there breaking the law and illegally armed.

Have you seen the Youtube video with the Redshirt flag waver getting the top of his head removed by a sniper - don't tell me a flag is now an offensive weapon.

If he was shot by someone from the red side, it wouldn't matter what he was waving, as he was simply being used as a sacrificial lamb to increase tension and pressure on the government. I don't know that he was shot by the red side, but i don't know that he wasn't. And nor do you. So what is your point?

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....

Selective memory loss: A form of amnesia, selective memory loss is a rare side effect of head injuries when the victim loses certain parts of his/her memory. Not much is known because this only results when certain areas of the head are traumatized. Common elements may be forgotten

[AleG]

And you obviously don't know what a coup is? a clue is it isn't democracy. I bet the shoe would be on the other foot if your own native country was taken over by a government that wasn't elected - you'd soon be putting your red or yellow shirt on and manning the barricades.

I think you are rather conf

used about the timeline, to say the least.

Well you guys are experts at saying the least

Facts tend to be concise.

Abhisit was elected by a majority of elected MPs, that is how a parliamentary system works. He was not put in place via a coup, the coup was in 2006, Abhisit was elected in 2008, before him there were two PPP PMs that lost their position by infringing laws. Now you may call politicians suffering repercussions from breaking the law a "coup", as Red Shirts love to claim. It doesn't make it so, just as Gerard Ford didn't become president of the USA by a coup.

Either you don't know that Abhisit was not installed by a coup, or you know he was not installed by a coup but you want to portray it as so. The first is an argument based on ignorance and the second on intellectual dishonesty. Neither of which makes your arguments persuasive.

Now then, you like it best when I say the least or when I go at length to explain why your arguments are worthless?