Inquest Not Conclusive In 2010 Shooting: Bangkok Protests

[rubl]

so i m losing track of the investigations - which day was this killing?

was it from may 15th

The man was shot on the 14th of May, but died a bit more than two months later of a blood infection from the wound. A bit more 'likely happened' from April, 2011:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2224

Edited January 21, 2013 by rubl

[rubl]

From a historical point of view it's certainly interesting to look at the protests in 2006, 2005, 1997, 1992, 1688, 1302, 1215, 410 and a few before that, but it only distracts from the topic at hand which is

"Inquest not conclusive in 2010 shooting: Bangkok protests". This is the fourth case, the first three clearly showing that most likely the person killed was shot by army personel. Now we have clearly a possibility that maybe the army shot. The most interesting part is that somewhen last year the DSI started to concentrate on the 'easy' cases. I for one am looking forward to the continued story of the innocent UDD leaders against those two 'kill me some' alleged murderers Abhisit/Suthep

Edited January 22, 2013 by rubl

[yoshiwara]

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

Closing the airport did ratchet up and escalate tension a lot and i can see how doing that could of potentially been beneficial to a number of people, who may have "helped" the AOT come to their decision, but no evidence of this has ever come to light as far as i am aware, so i think we have to take the AOT at their word and accept that the safety concerns were valid and reason enough for the decision they took.

Thank you.I respect people who are quite clear what is nonsense even when expressed by people who in broad terms share ones political views.I tried to do this recently with the shoddy treatment of ASTV by the military - though you have skewered the old AOT responsibility chestnut with particular politeness and effectiveness.

Like the dragged out refusal to acknowledge the content of Arisman's burn down Bangkok speech we can now add the refusal to acknowledge seriously armed and firing redshirts. Throw into the mix the forum signature tune of trying to shift the subject. For some hardline red apologists there is no need to adjust one's watch.

[muttley]

so i m losing track of the investigations - which day was this killing?

was it from may 15th

The man was shot on the 14th of May, but died a bit more than two months later of a blood infection from the wound. A bit more 'likely happened' from April, 2011:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2224

That bit more "likely happened" (the pratchathai article is dated January 2011 by the way) - what was that? Was it that the victim of the shooting's recorded testament was that the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers barricade?

The reports, obtained by The Nation, stated that 71-year-old Boonmee Rermsuk was likely killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. The bullet hit Boonmee on May 14 in front of the Rabiang Thong restaurant on Rama IV Road near Lumpini Park.

The alleged report said Boonme's recorded statement soon after he was shot revealed that he believed the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers' barricade on Rama IV Road. Boonmee was paying his bill at about 4pm in front of the restaurant and insisted he had nothing to do with the protest

This coupled with the forensic report and four witness accounts led investigators to conclude the shooting was "likely to be that of a soldier" acting on duty, according to the report.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Reports-link-two-more-civilian-deaths-to-Army-30145562.html

It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states.

[rubl]

so i m losing track of the investigations - which day was this killing?

was it from may 15th

The man was shot on the 14th of May, but died a bit more than two months later of a blood infection from the wound. A bit more 'likely happened' from April, 2011:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2224

That bit more "likely happened" (the pratchathai article is dated January 2011 by the way) - what was that? Was it that the victim of the shooting's recorded testament was that the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers barricade?

The reports, obtained by The Nation, stated that 71-year-old Boonmee Rermsuk was likely killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. The bullet hit Boonmee on May 14 in front of the Rabiang Thong restaurant on Rama IV Road near Lumpini Park.

The alleged report said Boonme's recorded statement soon after he was shot revealed that he believed the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers' barricade on Rama IV Road. Boonmee was paying his bill at about 4pm in front of the restaurant and insisted he had nothing to do with the protest

This coupled with the forensic report and four witness accounts led investigators to conclude the shooting was "likely to be that of a soldier" acting on duty, according to the report.

http://www.nationmul...y-30145562.html

It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states.

The OP has

"The bullet found in his body is suspected to have been fired from an M-16 assault rifle, but ballistics tests failed to match it with the rifles used by the 40 soldiers. Armed protesters were also using assault rifles with the same type of ammunition.

Furthermore, the court said, the victim might have been moved from wherever he was shot to where he was found at a petrol station.

There is no physical evidence or any eyewitnesses to confirm where the shooting occurred. Nor did the victim's statement given before his death pinpoint the exact location."

[jayboy]

Like the dragged out refusal to acknowledge the content of Arisman's burn down Bangkok speech we can now add the refusal to acknowledge seriously armed and firing redshirts. Throw into the mix the forum signature tune of trying to shift the subject. For some hardline red apologists there is no need to adjust one's watch.

All this would be rather more compelling if the tone was less shrill and the content more even handed.Actually the actions of the redshirts have been analysed and commented on in detail, including the points mentioned.if this member showed any indication of condemning the excesses of the ruling politicians and responsible generals one might be obliged to sit up and take notice.But no, just the same old stale debating points about red apologists.No respect deserved for facing up to awkward truths.

[muttley]

The man was shot on the 14th of May, but died a bit more than two months later of a blood infection from the wound. A bit more 'likely happened' from April, 2011:

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2224

That bit more "likely happened" (the pratchathai article is dated January 2011 by the way) - what was that? Was it that the victim of the shooting's recorded testament was that the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers barricade?

The reports, obtained by The Nation, stated that 71-year-old Boonmee Rermsuk was likely killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. The bullet hit Boonmee on May 14 in front of the Rabiang Thong restaurant on Rama IV Road near Lumpini Park.

The alleged report said Boonme's recorded statement soon after he was shot revealed that he believed the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers' barricade on Rama IV Road. Boonmee was paying his bill at about 4pm in front of the restaurant and insisted he had nothing to do with the protest

This coupled with the forensic report and four witness accounts led investigators to conclude the shooting was "likely to be that of a soldier" acting on duty, according to the report.

http://www.nationmul...y-30145562.html

It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states.

The OP has

"The bullet found in his body is suspected to have been fired from an M-16 assault rifle, but ballistics tests failed to match it with the rifles used by the 40 soldiers. Armed protesters were also using assault rifles with the same type of ammunition.

Furthermore, the court said, the victim might have been moved from wherever he was shot to where he was found at a petrol station.

There is no physical evidence or any eyewitnesses to confirm where the shooting occurred. Nor did the victim's statement given before his death pinpoint the exact location."

Yes I can read (and have done) the OP. Your part is to add something if I understand this debate thing right?

[rubl]

Yes I can read (and have done) the OP. Your part is to add something if I understand this debate thing right?

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

Edited January 22, 2013 by rubl

[muttley]

Yes I can read (and have done) the OP. Your part is to add something if I understand this debate thing right?

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[rubl]

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army? 'martyrs for the just cause fighting amat and their tools'?

As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure

[Buchholz]

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army?

Red Shirts

.

[muttley]

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army? 'martyrs for the just cause fighting amat and their tools'?

As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure

See there you go again - you and your "peaceful protesters" shooting at the army b/s. How many times does it have to spelled out to you that some of us on here who happen to have differing ideas to you are not stupid.

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters so therefore they should not be regarded as such - the only people that regard them as "peaceful" are people like yourself who seem to derive some satisfaction with repeating the term ad nauseam.

Likewise I do not call them terrorists either. This was a term first used by Abhisit as presumably part of his "charm offensive" to get the people onside and against the redshirts along with various other snide propaganda efforts.

"As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure"

Well you certainly don't act like it

[muttley]

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army?

Red Shirts

.

Stop Trolling.

[Pimay1]

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army?

Red Shirts

.

Stop Trolling.

Since when stating the truth is trolling?

[smutcakes]

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army? 'martyrs for the just cause fighting amat and their tools'?

As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure

See there you go again - you and your "peaceful protesters" shooting at the army b/s. How many times does it have to spelled out to you that some of us on here who happen to have differing ideas to you are not stupid.

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters so therefore they should not be regarded as such - the only people that regard them as "peaceful" are people like yourself who seem to derive some satisfaction with repeating the term ad nauseam.

Likewise I do not call them terrorists either. This was a term first used by Abhisit as presumably part of his "charm offensive" to get the people onside and against the redshirts along with various other snide propaganda efforts.

"As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure"

Well you certainly don't act like it

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

[rubl]

See there you go again - you and your "peaceful protesters" shooting at the army b/s. How many times does it have to spelled out to you that some of us on here who happen to have differing ideas to you are not stupid.

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters so therefore they should not be regarded as such - the only people that regard them as "peaceful" are people like yourself who seem to derive some satisfaction with repeating the term ad nauseam.

Likewise I do not call them terrorists either. This was a term first used by Abhisit as presumably part of his "charm offensive" to get the people onside and against the redshirts along with various other snide propaganda efforts.

"As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure"

Well you certainly don't act like it

The OP has "Armed protesters were also using assault rifles with the same type of ammunition." I called them armed terrorists which you didn't like. That's when I started asking how to call 'peaceful protesters shooting'.

Of course I 'know' that most likely 95 or more percent of the protesters were peaceful. Also death, dumb and blind, IMHO. Some posters here as well it seems, again IMHO. Those few 'armed militants' spoiled it for all those others. I hope you can find it in your heart to allow me that 'armed militants', uless you feel I should call them as in the OP 'armed protesters'

Now as a BTW, most of what gets posted here is 'opinion' even if some is stated as 'fact'. So yes, the only thing we know for sure

Edited January 22, 2013 by rubl

[whybother]

See there you go again - you and your "peaceful protesters" shooting at the army b/s. How many times does it have to spelled out to you that some of us on here who happen to have differing ideas to you are not stupid.

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters so therefore they should not be regarded as such - the only people that regard them as "peaceful" are people like yourself who seem to derive some satisfaction with repeating the term ad nauseam.

Likewise I do not call them terrorists either. This was a term first used by Abhisit as presumably part of his "charm offensive" to get the people onside and against the redshirts along with various other snide propaganda efforts.

"As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure"

Well you certainly don't act like it

Actually, it's Thida and the red shirt leaders that are saying they were peaceful.

[Pimay1]

Quotes got me again.

Sumtcakes: All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

Well my friend you have finally hit the nail on the head. Firing an M-16 without proper training results in poor marksmanship.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Pimay1

[whybother]

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

They must have been ex-army. The army seemed to be pretty lousy marksmen too. Apparently they fired 10's of thousands of rounds into the crowds. Not many hit their supposed target.

[rubl]

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

Not worse than the army which rumour has it, fired thousands of round into a densely packed group of protesters and hardly managed to kill a good dozen.

Now with this remarkable observation can we return to the OP ?

[Buchholz]

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army?

Red Shirts

Stop Trolling.

Since when is stating the truth trolling?

Since it conflicted with his version of the truth.

.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Buchholz

[Hugo6]

Stop Trolling.

Since when is stating the truth trolling?

Since it conflicted with his version of the truth.

.

or maybe just because its not true and it is just trolling

much like earlier today

Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[cdnvic]

As much as I hate trolls, people who call others trolls are just as bad. If you don't like what others have to say, just ignore it and go read something else. If it's a serious violation of forum rules, report it. Calling troll will get you sent off just as fast as being a troll. Now discuss the subject and stop attacking each other please.

[muttley]

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

Not worse than the army which rumour has it, fired thousands of round into a densely packed group of protesters and hardly managed to kill a good dozen.

Now with this remarkable observation can we return to the OP ?

I heard a bunch of army soldiers were firing at a van and managed to kill two bystanders, not exactly Wyatt Earp material either, but yes we can now return to the OP after my remarkable observation.

[rubl]

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

Not worse than the army which rumour has it, fired thousands of round into a densely packed group of protesters and hardly managed to kill a good dozen.

Now with this remarkable observation can we return to the OP ?

I heard a bunch of army soldiers were firing at a van and managed to kill two bystanders, not exactly Wyatt Earp material either, but yes we can now return to the OP after my remarkable observation.

One of the two killed even had to help the army by dashing out of the house crossing the gunfire, imagine!

Anyway the topic from which a fruitcake tried to distract us is "inquest not conclusive", no one charged, not even k. Abhisit/Suthep

[Moruya]

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army? 'martyrs for the just cause fighting amat and their tools'?

As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure

I would call them something like contesters of united nations treaties

[yoshiwara]

With you writing

"It appears as though 4 witnesses and a forensic report was not enough to prove that it was the army that fired the fateful bullet. Oh, well, according to some posters on here that can only mean the red shirts were responsible for his death but that's not what the inquest verdict states."

You suggest something is wrong with the 'appears', 'not enough', 'Oh well'. You don't say what might be wrong, but you merely hint at it.

So back to the OP with a clear statement on the forensics and reasoning why the inquest has led to an inconclusive result. The victim seemed to remember being shot at a shop, but was found at a petrol station nearby. The army was fighting armed terrorists who were also shooting. It takes an expert interviewer to get proper details from witnesses. Probably the first account was not too clear.

You may easily see

"he was shot by the army'

'he was shot, and 'the army was shooting'

'he was shot' and 'the army was shooting nearby'

'he was shot' and 'nearby army was exchanging fire with militants'

'he was shot' and 'militants nearby were shooting at the army'

'he was shot' and 'bulltets were flying back and forth'

Conclusion: Oh well, 88 more cases we will try to pin on k. 'kill me some' Abhisit and k. 'running into it' Suthep.

When I say it appears etc, it seems that sarcasm doesn't transfer well. But still rather than copy and paste, I have opinions. I have a bit of difficulty about what the nation reports as to what the inquest result was. The other paper has a more believable version in that the court basically decided there was not enough evidence on who fired the bullet that (eventually) killed Boonmee without the rest of the embellishments.

Likewise these "armed terrorists" you say that the army were shooting at in this instance - more from your imagination?

As for the 'he was shot' rap, <deleted>?

What would you call 'peaceful protesters' who just happen to be shooting at the army? 'martyrs for the just cause fighting amat and their tools'?

As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure

See there you go again - you and your "peaceful protesters" shooting at the army b/s. How many times does it have to spelled out to you that some of us on here who happen to have differing ideas to you are not stupid.

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters so therefore they should not be regarded as such - the only people that regard them as "peaceful" are people like yourself who seem to derive some satisfaction with repeating the term ad nauseam.

Likewise I do not call them terrorists either. This was a term first used by Abhisit as presumably part of his "charm offensive" to get the people onside and against the redshirts along with various other snide propaganda efforts.

"As for the 'he was shot', well that seems to be the only thing we know for sure"

Well you certainly don't act like it

It must be that time of the day/week/month/year to wheel out the 'fake reds' label.

[muttley]

All i know is that this army of m-16 wielding terrorists who terrorized the army and the whole of Bangkok, must be pretty lousy marksman.

Not worse than the army which rumour has it, fired thousands of round into a densely packed group of protesters and hardly managed to kill a good dozen.

Now with this remarkable observation can we return to the OP ?

I heard a bunch of army soldiers were firing at a van and managed to kill two bystanders, not exactly Wyatt Earp material either, but yes we can now return to the OP after my remarkable observation.

One of the two killed even had to help the army by dashing out of the house crossing the gunfire, imagine!

Anyway the topic from which a fruitcake tried to distract us is "inquest not conclusive", no one charged, not even k. Abhisit/Suthep

Well according to the civilian witnesses (not the army ones obviously) he didn't dash out, that was a "the nation" attribution. Nor was he "crossing" the gunfire. Imagine! the army being as incompetent as that and people give them guns and expect them to follow orders?

[Buchholz]

I am well aware that there were other people out there firing at the army. I do not know who they were and nor do you. They are obviously not peaceful protesters like the vast majority of the UDD protesters

It must be that time of the day/week/month/year to wheel out the 'fake reds' label.

It sure does seem to be cyclic.

.