Slain Nurse's Mother Seeks Action Against Thailand's D S I Chief Tarit

[rixalex]

Let's remind ourselves then of what Khun Payou said.

"If we don't prosecute soldiers now, then they will end up engaging in such 'operations' again and again,"

With the greatest of respects to the mother, she has lost the life of her own daughter, and the person most directly responsible for that tragedy - albeit not the person/people most at fault for what brought us to that point - has to be the one that actually pulled the trigger... in this case it seems, a soldier... what else would you expect a mother to be calling for, if not the prosecution of that person? Frankly, would be bizarre not to.

[bigbamboo]

This does change things, obviously the soldiers were not obeying the given orders by the Govt and took it upon themselves to do what they did so they should be charged. Shooting at possible terrorists(van)in self defence and hitting someone disobeying the curfew is one thing, deliberately firing on a nurse in a safe area is another and those that did the actual shooting need to be held responsible. As the shooters have not followed the Govts orders they are the ones that should be charged in this now, could damage all the reds work trying to blame abhisit especially when the soldiers were told to only shoot in self defence, maybe the soldiers/officers involved need to be looked at a bit more carefully.

Maybe the black shirts did the shooting. After all that was there mandate to create trouble for the Democrats.

That is a distinct possibility.

Ah. the still unanswered question.

Why were the blackshirts really there?

Edited January 6, 2013 by bigbamboo

[Siripon]

This does change things, obviously the soldiers were not obeying the given orders by the Govt and took it upon themselves to do what they did so they should be charged. Shooting at possible terrorists(van)in self defence and hitting someone disobeying the curfew is one thing, deliberately firing on a nurse in a safe area is another and those that did the actual shooting need to be held responsible. As the shooters have not followed the Govts orders they are the ones that should be charged in this now, could damage all the reds work trying to blame abhisit especially when the soldiers were told to only shoot in self defence, maybe the soldiers/officers involved need to be looked at a bit more carefully.

Maybe the black shirts did the shooting. After all that was there mandate to create trouble for the Democrats.

That is a distinct possibility.

Ah. the still unanswered question.

Why were the blackshirts really there?

Due to libel laws, it is very dangerous to openly speculate about the sponsor of the black shirts.

I heard that the volunteer nurse was not wearing any red cross identification when she was shot, rather it was added later by the red shirts.

[waza]

Heres some footage from the temple, viewer discretion advised

[waza]

and an eye witness account............

http://www.theglobea...4330192/?page=3

"A key eyewitness has claimed that the shots that killed six people at Pathum Wanaram Temple during the redshirt protest last month came from redshirt guards, not soldiers, a Department of Special Investigation source said yesterday."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/06/09/national/Red-shirts-fired-temple-shots%22-30131188.html

Also interviewed by Spectrum,

a UDD protester recalled a “night of terror”, where shots were fired indiscriminately into the temple. He said the gunmen were behind the concrete slabs on the second level of the elevated skytrain tracks. Everyone ran further inside the temple after the first man and the nurse were shot..............

Kittichai Khangkhan, a 43-year-old Khon Kaen resident, insists he saw a group of men wearing jackets that looked like soldiers’ uniforms on the Skytrain railway line in front of the temple – and that the men fired intensively at people in the supposed “safe zone” at 6pm on May 19.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/33124/what-happened-at-wat-pathum-wanaram/#comment-111748431

Edited January 7, 2013 by waza

[Moruya]

A speech that is both valiant and to the point.

However the reds also need to accept their part of the responsibility in these events and they aren't mature enough to do that and the government is too scared to bite the hand that got them to shore.

The obsessive mentality of some members takles the breath away.Here we have a report on a mother - I think respected by all regardless of politics - who has lost her daughter and who is very articulate. on who was responsible and what must be done.She makes some penetrating observations on Khun Tarit whose chameleon propensities have bemused many.She finally makes the killer observation, the elephant in the room, the subject which is so often avoided.Never commented on by those who regardless of context look to blame the redshirt movement.Let's remind ourselves then of what Khun Payou said.

"If we don't prosecute soldiers now, then they will end up engaging in such 'operations' again and again,"

I'm an "obsessed with the truth" kind of member.

There are also those who are dismembered members

[smedly]

I think this woman knows full well that Tarit shouldn't have immunity from justice, it's a poke in the eye that he is leading an investigation into the killings but somehow thinks he's not involved, ultimately if it was soldiers who shot innocent civilians then they should be the ones investigated, if the soldiers were being fired upon then they have nothing to defend, who are the guys on the rh picture amongst the red shirts wearing flak jackets, also some of those on the ground in the video were wearing black

there are anawful lot of unanswered questions and this mother just wants answers, I suspect she knows details that would assist any investigation

The one detail that seems to be constantly left out is - were the red shirts armed and were they firing at soldiers, if they were then the soldiers were quite justified in firing back, those that didn't want to get involved in armed conflict should have left the area - that's just common sense

[cdnvic]

Unattributed news source removed.

[metisdead]

Inane comments on moderation have been removed.

[muttley]

// Inane comments edited out //

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

Witnesses: Soldiers Opened Fire at Wat Pathum on 19 May 2010

Wed, 19/12/2012 - 06:41 | by prachatai

On 13 Dec, South Bangkok Criminal Court held witness hearings in the inquest into the deaths of six people who were killed at Pathum Wanaram Temple near Ratchaprasong intersection after the dispersal of the red-shirt protests on 19 May 2010.

The six dead were Suwan Sriraksa, 30, a farmer; Atthachai Chumchan, 28, a law graduate from Ramkhamhaeng University; Mongkhon Khemthong, 36, a rescue volunteer of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation; Rop Suksathit, 66, an airport taxi driver; Kamonkade Akkahad, 25, a volunteer paramedic; and Akharadet Khankaew, an employee.

The public prosecutor brought three witnesses to testify, including Narongsak Singmae, Tibet Puengkhunthod, and Natthathida Meewangpla.

Narongsak testified that he had been staying in a tent inside the temple since 14 April 2010. On 19 May 2010, after the UDD leaders announced the cancellation of the protests, many people came to the temple as it had been declared a sanctuary.

At 5 pm, when he was taking a rest near the temple gate, some people walked past him and told him that soldiers had already come. He thought that as the temple had been declared a sanctuary, it should have been safe. However, when looking up at the elevated tracks of the skytrain in front of the temple, he saw 6 soldiers aiming their rifles and shooting down. He was shot with 5 bullets. The first one hit a ten baht coin in the left pocket of his shirt. The second and third hit his stomach, and the fourth hit his left thigh. The fifth hit his bag. He dodged, and saw a man shot in the foot. He crawled to the back of a 10-wheeled truck and then further to a tent where he was helped by some people who put him on a deck chair and carried him to the grove at the back of the temple. He was there until about 10 pm when he was taken in an ambulance to Ramathibodi Hospital.

Tibet, a volunteer guard of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, told the court that on that day after the rallies were cancelled at about 1 pm, he walked along Rama I Rd to find a way out. When he was near Chalerm Phao intersection, he heard gunshots and then ran into the temple and stayed at the temple grove. At about 5 pm, he heard a television announcement by the spokesperson of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation who said that the protesters could go to board buses at the National Stadium. He consulted with his friend and Atthachai Chumchan, the second dead person, whom he had just met at the temple, and they agreed to walk out of the temple to get to the National Stadium.

When near the same intersection, he saw soldiers at the skytrain pillars aiming rifles at them, and they turned to run back to the temple. The soldiers shot at them. They took shelter behind a skytrain pillar in the middle of the road in front of the temple. Once the gunfire ceased, he led his friends to run back into the temple. When he was inside, he heard someone shouting that someone had been shot, and then he saw that Atthachai was shot and had fallen on the traffic island. At that time, he only heard gunfire from the direction of the intersection. This took place at about 5.50 pm. Atthachai was then taken into the temple and received first aid.

Natthathida, a volunteer paramedic, witnessed the deaths of Kamonkade Akkahad, Akharadet Khankaew and Mongkhon Khemthong, whom she worked with on that day.

She said that she had worked in a medical tent in front of the Royal Thai Police Headquarters since 16 April 2010. On the morning of 19 May 2010, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet decided to move into the temple to provide help for those who took shelter there. Mongkhon came to help them at about 2 pm. Their tent was near the temple gate.

At about 4 pm, she heard gunfire from the direction of Chalerm Phao intersection, and people on Rama I Rd ran into the temple. She saw Atthachai shot and fall at the traffic island. He stood up and ran, but fell at the temple gate.

Later, she and her colleagues including Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon decided to move to the temple grove at the back as they thought that the front of the temple was no longer safe. When Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon were collecting their medical kits inside, there was gunfire. The witness, who was standing 5 meters away from the tent, called out for them to crouch down. When she turned her head to look at them, she saw that Kamonkade was crawling with difficulty towards a pick-up truck at the back of the tent, but could not make it and lay still. Mongkhon was motionless, but Akharadet seemed to be still moving. At that moment, no one could help because gunshots were being fired from the skytrain tracks all the time, as evident by sparks when the bullets hit iron poles, and dust blown up from the concrete floor and the holes made by the bullets. The witness took shelter behind flower pots with a foreign reporter named Andrew (last name unknown to her). The reporter was shot when he raised his knee.

The witness then went to the temple grove to seek help for them. Kamonkade and Mongkhon were already dead, but Akharadet was still alive. At about 7 pm, the bodies were retrieved and Akharade was rescued, but he died about an hour later. An ambulance finally came at about 11 pm, after it had first been called at 6 pm. The witness said that if the ambulance could have come earlier, Akharadet’s life should have been saved.

She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back. The soldiers were aiming their rifles into the temple. She did not see anyone firing or hear gunfire from the temple. And on that day, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet were wearing red-cross armbands, and Mongkhon was wearing the uniform of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation. According to international practice, they should have never been harmed by either side in the conflict, she said.

Edited January 10, 2013 by metisdead

[whybother]

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

<snipped ... see above>

For starters, I find it difficult to believe that the army would shoot unarmed people in a declared sanctuary. I find it incredulous that you would think that the soldiers were actually ordered to shoot people there.

"She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back."

How would she see anything during the gunfire? How would she see the back of the helmets if they were aiming into the wat? Maybe they were doing a bit of trick, behind the back shooting.

[muttley]

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

<snipped ... see above>

For starters, I find it difficult to believe that the army would shoot unarmed people in a declared sanctuary. I find it incredulous that you would think that the soldiers were actually ordered to shoot people there.

"She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back."

How would she see anything during the gunfire? How would she see the back of the helmets if they were aiming into the wat? Maybe they were doing a bit of trick, behind the back shooting.

Well they didn't find it hard to shoot unarmed people elsewhere it's just one lower step to go. The inquest also came to the decision that they did. I find it incredulous that you and others despite all evidence to the contrary still find it hard to believe that the soldiers fired down into the Wat and killed innocent people, among them two people clearly identified as red cross / voluntary Aid workers.

I didn't say that the soldiers were ordered to shoot people there. I questioned whether they were following orders or not following orders in this case - read carefully.

Even soldiers are human beings - they bend like you and I do. They even turn round on occasions.

Now I know you're desperately trying to retain a grip on your preconceived thoughts on what happened but you're going to have to adjust.

Edited January 10, 2013 by muttley

[smedly]

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

<snipped ... see above>

For starters, I find it difficult to believe that the army would shoot unarmed people in a declared sanctuary. I find it incredulous that you would think that the soldiers were actually ordered to shoot people there.

"She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back."

How would she see anything during the gunfire? How would she see the back of the helmets if they were aiming into the wat? Maybe they were doing a bit of trick, behind the back shooting.

Well they didn't find it hard to shoot unarmed people elsewhere it's just one lower step to go. The inquest also came to the decision that they did. I find it incredulous that you and others despite all evidence to the contrary still find it hard to believe that the soldiers fired down into the Wat and killed innocent people, among them two people clearly identified as red cross / voluntary Aid workers.

I didn't say that the soldiers were ordered to shoot people there. I questioned whether they were following orders or not following orders in this case - read carefully.

Even soldiers are human beings - they bend like you and I do. They even turn round on occasions.

Now I know you're desperately trying to retain a grip on your preconceived thoughts on what happened but you're going to have to adjust.

I do find it unbelievable that soldiers would shoot random innocent unarmed people - if they did they certaintly weren't following any official orders and should face the full letter of the law

If on the other hand these people were armed and shooting at the army then the soldiers have no case to answer and anyone in the area should have stayed well away with the knowledge that there was a gun battle taking place

[jayboy]

Now I know you're desperately trying to retain a grip on your preconceived thoughts on what happened but you're going to have to adjust.

Fat chance.These people never admit they have got it wrong because they are so committed to one particular narrative.Nuance and shading are not in their vocabulary and bear in mind these were the people not so long ago claiming the redshirts murdered themselves.Sadly intellectual coherence and moral integrity disappeared long ago, leaving just the bleatings of those on the wrong side of history.

[waza]

// Inane comments edited out //

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

Witnesses: Soldiers Opened Fire at Wat Pathum on 19 May 2010

Wed, 19/12/2012 - 06:41 | by prachatai

On 13 Dec, South Bangkok Criminal Court held witness hearings in the inquest into the deaths of six people who were killed at Pathum Wanaram Temple near Ratchaprasong intersection after the dispersal of the red-shirt protests on 19 May 2010.

The six dead were Suwan Sriraksa, 30, a farmer; Atthachai Chumchan, 28, a law graduate from Ramkhamhaeng University; Mongkhon Khemthong, 36, a rescue volunteer of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation; Rop Suksathit, 66, an airport taxi driver; Kamonkade Akkahad, 25, a volunteer paramedic; and Akharadet Khankaew, an employee.

The public prosecutor brought three witnesses to testify, including Narongsak Singmae, Tibet Puengkhunthod, and Natthathida Meewangpla.

Narongsak testified that he had been staying in a tent inside the temple since 14 April 2010. On 19 May 2010, after the UDD leaders announced the cancellation of the protests, many people came to the temple as it had been declared a sanctuary.

At 5 pm, when he was taking a rest near the temple gate, some people walked past him and told him that soldiers had already come. He thought that as the temple had been declared a sanctuary, it should have been safe. However, when looking up at the elevated tracks of the skytrain in front of the temple, he saw 6 soldiers aiming their rifles and shooting down. He was shot with 5 bullets. The first one hit a ten baht coin in the left pocket of his shirt. The second and third hit his stomach, and the fourth hit his left thigh. The fifth hit his bag. He dodged, and saw a man shot in the foot. He crawled to the back of a 10-wheeled truck and then further to a tent where he was helped by some people who put him on a deck chair and carried him to the grove at the back of the temple. He was there until about 10 pm when he was taken in an ambulance to Ramathibodi Hospital.

Tibet, a volunteer guard of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, told the court that on that day after the rallies were cancelled at about 1 pm, he walked along Rama I Rd to find a way out. When he was near Chalerm Phao intersection, he heard gunshots and then ran into the temple and stayed at the temple grove. At about 5 pm, he heard a television announcement by the spokesperson of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation who said that the protesters could go to board buses at the National Stadium. He consulted with his friend and Atthachai Chumchan, the second dead person, whom he had just met at the temple, and they agreed to walk out of the temple to get to the National Stadium.

When near the same intersection, he saw soldiers at the skytrain pillars aiming rifles at them, and they turned to run back to the temple. The soldiers shot at them. They took shelter behind a skytrain pillar in the middle of the road in front of the temple. Once the gunfire ceased, he led his friends to run back into the temple. When he was inside, he heard someone shouting that someone had been shot, and then he saw that Atthachai was shot and had fallen on the traffic island. At that time, he only heard gunfire from the direction of the intersection. This took place at about 5.50 pm. Atthachai was then taken into the temple and received first aid.

Natthathida, a volunteer paramedic, witnessed the deaths of Kamonkade Akkahad, Akharadet Khankaew and Mongkhon Khemthong, whom she worked with on that day.

She said that she had worked in a medical tent in front of the Royal Thai Police Headquarters since 16 April 2010. On the morning of 19 May 2010, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet decided to move into the temple to provide help for those who took shelter there. Mongkhon came to help them at about 2 pm. Their tent was near the temple gate.

At about 4 pm, she heard gunfire from the direction of Chalerm Phao intersection, and people on Rama I Rd ran into the temple. She saw Atthachai shot and fall at the traffic island. He stood up and ran, but fell at the temple gate.

Later, she and her colleagues including Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon decided to move to the temple grove at the back as they thought that the front of the temple was no longer safe. When Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon were collecting their medical kits inside, there was gunfire. The witness, who was standing 5 meters away from the tent, called out for them to crouch down. When she turned her head to look at them, she saw that Kamonkade was crawling with difficulty towards a pick-up truck at the back of the tent, but could not make it and lay still. Mongkhon was motionless, but Akharadet seemed to be still moving. At that moment, no one could help because gunshots were being fired from the skytrain tracks all the time, as evident by sparks when the bullets hit iron poles, and dust blown up from the concrete floor and the holes made by the bullets. The witness took shelter behind flower pots with a foreign reporter named Andrew (last name unknown to her). The reporter was shot when he raised his knee.

The witness then went to the temple grove to seek help for them. Kamonkade and Mongkhon were already dead, but Akharadet was still alive. At about 7 pm, the bodies were retrieved and Akharade was rescued, but he died about an hour later. An ambulance finally came at about 11 pm, after it had first been called at 6 pm. The witness said that if the ambulance could have come earlier, Akharadet’s life should have been saved.

She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back. The soldiers were aiming their rifles into the temple. She did not see anyone firing or hear gunfire from the temple. And on that day, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet were wearing red-cross armbands, and Mongkhon was wearing the uniform of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation. According to international practice, they should have never been harmed by either side in the conflict, she said.

Interesting eye witness accounts seems no one was shot in the temple, they were all shot near the gates on the traffic island outside the gates.

[waza]

// Inane comments edited out //

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3462

Wat Inquest

Witnesses: Soldiers Opened Fire at Wat Pathum on 19 May 2010

Wed, 19/12/2012 - 06:41 | by prachatai

On 13 Dec, South Bangkok Criminal Court held witness hearings in the inquest into the deaths of six people who were killed at Pathum Wanaram Temple near Ratchaprasong intersection after the dispersal of the red-shirt protests on 19 May 2010.

The six dead were Suwan Sriraksa, 30, a farmer; Atthachai Chumchan, 28, a law graduate from Ramkhamhaeng University; Mongkhon Khemthong, 36, a rescue volunteer of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation; Rop Suksathit, 66, an airport taxi driver; Kamonkade Akkahad, 25, a volunteer paramedic; and Akharadet Khankaew, an employee.

The public prosecutor brought three witnesses to testify, including Narongsak Singmae, Tibet Puengkhunthod, and Natthathida Meewangpla.

Narongsak testified that he had been staying in a tent inside the temple since 14 April 2010. On 19 May 2010, after the UDD leaders announced the cancellation of the protests, many people came to the temple as it had been declared a sanctuary.

At 5 pm, when he was taking a rest near the temple gate, some people walked past him and told him that soldiers had already come. He thought that as the temple had been declared a sanctuary, it should have been safe. However, when looking up at the elevated tracks of the skytrain in front of the temple, he saw 6 soldiers aiming their rifles and shooting down. He was shot with 5 bullets. The first one hit a ten baht coin in the left pocket of his shirt. The second and third hit his stomach, and the fourth hit his left thigh. The fifth hit his bag. He dodged, and saw a man shot in the foot. He crawled to the back of a 10-wheeled truck and then further to a tent where he was helped by some people who put him on a deck chair and carried him to the grove at the back of the temple. He was there until about 10 pm when he was taken in an ambulance to Ramathibodi Hospital.

Tibet, a volunteer guard of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, told the court that on that day after the rallies were cancelled at about 1 pm, he walked along Rama I Rd to find a way out. When he was near Chalerm Phao intersection, he heard gunshots and then ran into the temple and stayed at the temple grove. At about 5 pm, he heard a television announcement by the spokesperson of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation who said that the protesters could go to board buses at the National Stadium. He consulted with his friend and Atthachai Chumchan, the second dead person, whom he had just met at the temple, and they agreed to walk out of the temple to get to the National Stadium.

When near the same intersection, he saw soldiers at the skytrain pillars aiming rifles at them, and they turned to run back to the temple. The soldiers shot at them. They took shelter behind a skytrain pillar in the middle of the road in front of the temple. Once the gunfire ceased, he led his friends to run back into the temple. When he was inside, he heard someone shouting that someone had been shot, and then he saw that Atthachai was shot and had fallen on the traffic island. At that time, he only heard gunfire from the direction of the intersection. This took place at about 5.50 pm. Atthachai was then taken into the temple and received first aid.

Natthathida, a volunteer paramedic, witnessed the deaths of Kamonkade Akkahad, Akharadet Khankaew and Mongkhon Khemthong, whom she worked with on that day.

She said that she had worked in a medical tent in front of the Royal Thai Police Headquarters since 16 April 2010. On the morning of 19 May 2010, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet decided to move into the temple to provide help for those who took shelter there. Mongkhon came to help them at about 2 pm. Their tent was near the temple gate.

At about 4 pm, she heard gunfire from the direction of Chalerm Phao intersection, and people on Rama I Rd ran into the temple. She saw Atthachai shot and fall at the traffic island. He stood up and ran, but fell at the temple gate.

Later, she and her colleagues including Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon decided to move to the temple grove at the back as they thought that the front of the temple was no longer safe. When Kamonkade, Akharadet and Mongkhon were collecting their medical kits inside, there was gunfire. The witness, who was standing 5 meters away from the tent, called out for them to crouch down. When she turned her head to look at them, she saw that Kamonkade was crawling with difficulty towards a pick-up truck at the back of the tent, but could not make it and lay still. Mongkhon was motionless, but Akharadet seemed to be still moving. At that moment, no one could help because gunshots were being fired from the skytrain tracks all the time, as evident by sparks when the bullets hit iron poles, and dust blown up from the concrete floor and the holes made by the bullets. The witness took shelter behind flower pots with a foreign reporter named Andrew (last name unknown to her). The reporter was shot when he raised his knee.

The witness then went to the temple grove to seek help for them. Kamonkade and Mongkhon were already dead, but Akharadet was still alive. At about 7 pm, the bodies were retrieved and Akharade was rescued, but he died about an hour later. An ambulance finally came at about 11 pm, after it had first been called at 6 pm. The witness said that if the ambulance could have come earlier, Akharadet’s life should have been saved.

She insisted to the court that during the gunfire she saw 5 soldiers in military fatigues on the skytrain tracks wearing helmets with pink stickers on the back. The soldiers were aiming their rifles into the temple. She did not see anyone firing or hear gunfire from the temple. And on that day, she, Kamonkade and Akharadet were wearing red-cross armbands, and Mongkhon was wearing the uniform of the Po Tek Tueng Foundation. According to international practice, they should have never been harmed by either side in the conflict, she said.

Interesting eye witness accounts seems no one was shot in the temple, they were all shot near the gates on the traffic island outside the gates.

and as clearly shown in previous posts Blackshirt were in the area and on the skytrain tracks wearing military fatigues as well.

[rubl]

Well they didn't find it hard to shoot unarmed people elsewhere it's just one lower step to go. The inquest also came to the decision that they did. I find it incredulous that you and others despite all evidence to the contrary still find it hard to believe that the soldiers fired down into the Wat and killed innocent people, among them two people clearly identified as red cross / voluntary Aid workers.

I didn't say that the soldiers were ordered to shoot people there. I questioned whether they were following orders or not following orders in this case - read carefully.

Even soldiers are human beings - they bend like you and I do. They even turn round on occasions.

Now I know you're desperately trying to retain a grip on your preconceived thoughts on what happened but you're going to have to adjust.

How do you know that 'they' didn't find it hard to shoot 'unarmed' persons? The inquests failed to point to or name specific soldiers. You seem to have names and withheld them till now?

As for questioning whether or not soldiers followed orders, soldiers tend to do which is not the same as saying they had orders 'just to kill a few'. To suggest soldiers bend is a insinuation that soldiers may have 'overdone' things a wee bit, or maybe even some refused to shoot?

Get a grip man, get a grip