' Bullets Came From Thai Military Side': Witness To The Death Of Italian Journalist 2010

[hellodolly]

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

How come none ( MIB) have been caught, charged or arrested ????

30,000 + plus troops in a couple of square kilometres even failed to nail whoever set the fires.

How can that be ?? ( clue, kansas is to the west..)

Please do keep on flogging the same dead horse of the MIB and the massively armed aliens who provoked the army....

Fact is most of the people shot ( murdered ) by the RTA were unarmed Thai civilians.

Like it or not, that is the fact.

An enquiry and apportionment of responsibility is a necessity for the country to go forwards.

Nice try. fact is most of the soldiers in war are not in the front lines fighting. Keep on inferring false hoods and no one will say you said that.

They were every much a part of it as the armed members who were shooting and killing honest people doing the job they were hired to do.

Be precise and tell us all what Thaksin hired the red shirts to do and called in encouragement for them. Or follow your usual pattern and disappear. Your choice. No I am not interested in other things at the moment. So stick to the question.

Doll off dolly........

"The front lines fighting ' ????

It wasn't quite the Somme.

Answer the real question, why have there been so few , if ANY, arrests of the armed the armed insurrectionists / terrorists / red shirted gun toting loonies ???

500 heavily armed MIB ???

My Mother's the Pope............

Terrorist arsonists who created such mayhem, boiled down to two kids arrested and not convicted for shoplifting..................

People like you are fast to call others in the pay of Thaksin and frankly it just shows your disingenuity.

The Army shot and accountability is required.

From the top to the bottom.

Would you agree ???

You are so predictable.

[khunken]

I've already pointed it out. Who is being 'thick' now?

If you can't or won't explain what I am being accused of lying about, nothing more to discuss.But for the record:

This was your accusation -

"You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when

deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you

said 'deliberate'."

I explained carefully in response I did not accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists.The construct of "deliberate targetting" (I made it clear from whatever side) was in distinction to deaths incurred in the general fog of war.We don't know for sure under what set of circumstances the journalist died, nor which group was responsible.

The truth has yet to be resolved.I have no idea why you and other usual suspects reacted so childishly and aggressively to what was actually a non controversial proposition.

Delay in responding due to power cut.

You did accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists - your post cannot be read in any other way, no matter how you spin it.

No one acted childishly (arrogance again) because it was clear what you wrote. If you had retracted what you said instead of defending it, it would have avoided all your attempts to manipulate the truth.

As I said before, you have lost any credibility because of your, quite frankly, nasty distortion of the Op.

[Soi Sauce]

Is, "hellodolly" how the terrorists and robbers, ie Thailand's rulers, greet the P.M. ?

[rubl]

It's amazing that with red-shirt militants and other armed troublemakers there are still people who say "why didn't they get caught" and implying they didn't exist.

A few journalists and reporters have told about encountering armed militants IN THE NIGHT. Our local journalist NN posted here on it.

Mind you, anyone who claims his mother is the Pope may not be the most reliable source of information :-)

[OzMick]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Do you have an inkling of your own boorish condescension, coupled with innate ability to insult while agreeing with what I said? Accepting "professional risk" is taking responsibility for placing yourself in a dangerous situation.

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

Can you please explain again how "deliberately targetted" doesn't mean deliberately targetted? My BS meter went off scale and had to be recalibrated.

[jayboy]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Do you have an inkling of your own boorish condescension, coupled with innate ability to insult while agreeing with what I said? Accepting "professional risk" is taking responsibility for placing yourself in a dangerous situation.

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

Can you please explain again how "deliberately targetted" doesn't mean deliberately targetted? My BS meter went off scale and had to be recalibrated.

"Deliberately targetted" means just that.Surely any half way intelligent person reading my post would see the clear meaning that journalists deaths in this kind of conflict occur in two broad ways - where victims are deliberately targetted or where deaths occur in the "general fog of war", ie unfortunate but essentually accidental.In all of this I was careful not to suggest or in any way imply the deaths were caused by one side or the other - that has yet to be determined.

The trouble with you people is that you are keen to see malice and bias, where there is in fact none - I made a completely uncontroversial proposition.This propensity to take offence compounded by no obvious sign of analytical thought produces your frankly absurd reaction.Anyway perhaps having a few of the usual suspects "liking" your incoherent post is enough for you?

Edited March 17, 2013 by jayboy

[OzMick]

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Do you have an inkling of your own boorish condescension, coupled with innate ability to insult while agreeing with what I said? Accepting "professional risk" is taking responsibility for placing yourself in a dangerous situation.

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

Can you please explain again how "deliberately targetted" doesn't mean deliberately targetted? My BS meter went off scale and had to be recalibrated.

"Deliberately targetted" means just that.Surely any half way intelligent person reading my post would see the clear meaning that journalists deaths in this kind of conflict occur in two broad ways - where victims are deliberately targetted or where deaths occur in the "general fog of war", ie unfortunate but essentually accidental.In all of this I was careful not to suggest or in any way imply the deaths were caused by one side or the other - that has yet to be determined.

The trouble with you people is that you are keen to see malice and bias, where there is in fact none - I made a completely uncontroversial proposition.This propensity to take offence compounded by no obvious sign of analytical thought produces your frankly absurd reaction.Anyway perhaps having a few of the usual suspects "liking" your incoherent post is enough for you?

Has anyone, but yourself, ever suggested that journalists were deliberately targetted?

"This propensity to take offence" might be lessened if you reduced the number of insults you dispense. Opening a reply with "Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity?" is hardly a way to encourage amicable argument. But hey, we are lesser persons with "no obvious sign of analytical thought" and "absurd reaction." so that's OK even if flaming contravenes a forum rule or two.

Edited March 17, 2013 by OzMick

[OzMick]

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

[Robby nz]

Answer the real question, why have there been so few , if ANY, arrests of the armed the armed insurrectionists / terrorists / red shirted gun toting loonies ???

Phil what do you think those on the red side would do if one of their armed faction had been shot?

Do you think they would have left the body complete with fire arm for everyone to see, to be broadcast to the world?

Or is it more likely that the fire arm would be passed on to be used by someone else?.

Should the injured or dead have been, as you put it a "terrorists / red shirted gun toting loonie", wearing black, how difficult would it have been to remove the black outer garments then they would become an innocent protester.

You see Phil there were constant denials that these people existed so it would have been imperative that no evidence was shown that they did.

You of course are still denying that they existed in spite of all the evidence that they did

[jayboy]

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

[AleG]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

How come none ( MIB) have been caught, charged or arrested ????

30,000 + plus troops in a couple of square kilometres even failed to nail whoever set the fires.

How can that be ?? ( clue, kansas is to the west..)

Please do keep on flogging the same dead horse of the MIB and the massively armed aliens who provoked the army....

Fact is most of the people shot ( murdered ) by the RTA were unarmed Thai civilians.

Like it or not, that is the fact.

An enquiry and apportionment of responsibility is a necessity for the country to go forwards.

Posting lies knowingly is against forum rules, did you know that?

You always repeat the same lie, no "Black Shirts" ever arrested, I have personally replied to that with citations that indeed, armed men aligned with the Red Shirts (AKA "Black Shirts") have been arrested, just as one example:

“Mr Surachai admitted to being involved in two violent attacks during the protest. One was the May 8 shooting at a police security checkpoint at Sala-Daeng intersection where one police officer was killed and two others injured. The other was a grenade attack on a Lumpini police flat on May 19. Pol Col Panurat said Mr Surachai implicated Maj Gen Khattiya, widely known as Seh Daeng, as the mastermind of the attacks. He was quoted by police as saying Maj Gen Khattiya trained him and the ‘Men in Black’ in the use of weapons”.

Still you will keep telling lies, pathetic.

[Anon999]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Another simpleton. You have obviously never spent time in any military organisation and have no idea of what it is like to be under threat from 3rd parties hiding among a crowd.

[oldsailor35]

A cowardly act, shooting men in the back as they flee.

This the Thai Army we are dealing with here! Surely you have heard of their reputation

[OzMick]

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

With no respect at all, you have no concept of politeness, which would exclude phrases such as "you and your kind" and accusations that everybody, besides yourself, "respond incoherently".

Would you consider it acceptable if I wrote false statements about you, defending them by saying that they can't be ruled out as a possibility?

[oldsailor35]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Edited March 17, 2013 by oldsailor35

[OzMick]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Possibly because on the same day there were 7 soldiers killed, and many more wounded, by protesters. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Edited March 17, 2013 by OzMick

[AleG]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Do you think security forces in the South should be issued with only rubber bullets? If they kill someone down there, should Yingluck be charged with murder too?

Would you like to, as a soldier, face with rubber bullets armed men who have already killed some of your fellow soldiers?

As for what happens in other parts of the world, security forces are issued with live ammunition all the time. Or do you think police officers carry water pistols?

Edited March 17, 2013 by AleG

[Robby nz]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Very simple really:

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

If you are prepared to attack an army with weapons of war ,as the red terrorists did, you must expect retaliation with weapons of war.

And it had nothing to do with 'crowd control' as your 'protesters' were hiding behind barracades and had an armed faction amongst them that had already killed army personel.

[rixalex]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

The rubber bullet is indeed used for crowd control in most civilized countries, and should have been used by Thai authorities in the first week or so when protesters took over central Bangkok. The problem was, the protesters were looking for any opportunity to accuse authorities of not allowing free speech, and the authorities were desperate to avoid falling into this pitfall, and so made the mistake of going far too easy on protesters and allowing them to become entrenched in their position. Once the thing had dragged on into the second and third week, with the protesters becoming increasingly heavily armed with the likes of rocket launchers, grenades and guns, it was too late and too dangerous to try and tackle them with water guns and rubber bullets. That moment had passed.

So whilst i think it is justifiable to blame authorities for not dealing with the situation quicker, it is not justifiable to blame them for trying to tackle a heavily armed mob with anything less than proper arms themselves. Easy of course for the armchair observers sat safely behind their PCs to speculate on how many lives might possibly have been saved were authorities not armed in the way they were, but the armchair observers weren't the ones out there putting their own necks on the line.

[jayboy]

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

With no respect at all, you have no concept of politeness, which would exclude phrases such as "you and your kind" and accusations that everybody, besides yourself, "respond incoherently".

Would you consider it acceptable if I wrote false statements about you, defending them by saying that they can't be ruled out as a possibility?

By this I take it you cannot accept even as a remote possibility the deliberate murder of journalists.I think we already knew this.

The rest of your post and the muddled thinking in it simply serve to confirm my earlier observations.

Can you not manage a post without an insult? My "muddled thinking" can certainly accept the deliberate murder of journalists as a very remote possibility, and my logical thinking will immediately discount it when there is not a shred of evidence to support it. The next question is "Why would somebody suggest such a thing?" or even mention it as an unlikely "remotely possible" "option". But I wouldn't want to insult you with an answer, even if it was only a "remote possibility."

So now you change your mind.There is now according to you a remote possibility of journalists being deliberately targetted - that's all I ever suggested.You can say you discount it immediately - that's your prerogative but as an option it is beyond dipute.As to the possible involvement of the Thai Military in this there will I am sure be different views depending on one's opinion of its accountability for its many crimes,its record of violence against civilians, its discipline and its past history in dealing with crowds of demonstrators.My own position is that the jury is still out.

[oldsailor35]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Do you think security forces in the South should be issued with only rubber bullets? If they kill someone down there, should Yingluck be charged with murder too?

Would you like to face, as a soldier, armed men who have already killed some of your fellow soldiers?

As for what happens in other parts of the world, security forces are issued with live ammunition all the time. Or do you think police officers carry water pistols?

What a bloody stupid statement. But then perhaps you don't know that down south they are dealing with terrorists who are killing both male and female school teachers just to frighten the population. Rubbish! civilised counties do not issue live ammo to control protesting crowds, get you facts right, In fact they are more likely to use tear gas or rubber

bullets.

As for facing armed men who have killed some of your fellow soldiers, i have been there in both riot and war situations, but never did i face rioters with live ammo.

[AleG]

If there was any consideration at all for their fellow Thai's. Why did the army use real live killer bullets and not as in other places in the world, the RUBBER bullet which is used for crowd control in most 'civilised' countries. Surely, anyone who authorised the use of these bullets should be charged with murder. This was not a war situation, merely the attempt by authority to control protestors. What a despicable thing to do to ones own people.

Do you think security forces in the South should be issued with only rubber bullets? If they kill someone down there, should Yingluck be charged with murder too?

Would you like to face, as a soldier, armed men who have already killed some of your fellow soldiers?

As for what happens in other parts of the world, security forces are issued with live ammunition all the time. Or do you think police officers carry water pistols?

What a bloody stupid statement. But then perhaps you don't know that down south they are dealing with terrorists who are killing both male and female school teachers just to frighten the population. Rubbish! civilised counties do not issue live ammo to control protesting crowds, get you facts right, In fact they are more likely to use tear gas or rubber

bullets.

As for facing armed men who have killed some of your fellow soldiers, i have been there in both riot and war situations, but never did i face rioters with live ammo.

Yes, you never faced armed "rioters". If they would had been armed, would you have been issued with rubber or live bullets? Because that's the situation under discussion here.

[Robby nz]

but never did i face rioters with live ammo.

But in this case the rioters did have live amo and were using it against the army.

How effective do you think the army would have been in the situation they faced without live amo?

[OzMick]

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

With no respect at all, you have no concept of politeness, which would exclude phrases such as "you and your kind" and accusations that everybody, besides yourself, "respond incoherently".

Would you consider it acceptable if I wrote false statements about you, defending them by saying that they can't be ruled out as a possibility?

By this I take it you cannot accept even as a remote possibility the deliberate murder of journalists.I think we already knew this.

The rest of your post and the muddled thinking in it simply serve to confirm my earlier observations.

Can you not manage a post without an insult? My "muddled thinking" can certainly accept the deliberate murder of journalists as a very remote possibility, and my logical thinking will immediately discount it when there is not a shred of evidence to support it. The next question is "Why would somebody suggest such a thing?" or even mention it as an unlikely "remotely possible" "option". But I wouldn't want to insult you with an answer, even if it was only a "remote possibility."

So now you change your mind.There is now according to you a remote possibility of journalists being deliberately targetted - that's all I ever suggested.You can say you discount it immediately - that's your prerogative but as an option it is beyond dipute.As to the possible involvement of the Thai Military in this there will I am sure be different views depending on one's opinion of its accountability for its many crimes,its record of violence against civilians, its discipline and its past history in dealing with crowds of demonstrators.My own position is that the jury is still out.

Oh really. I have never denied anything as a remote possibility, and it took you many weaselling posts before you claimed this statement "There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side." was only referring to a remote possibility.

Feel free to indicate where the words "remote possibility" should have been inserted, or where a reader would understand that you meant them to be.

[FarangTalk]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

[Pimay1]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

Number one do you have a link to that video and number two how can you tell when an M16 is firing live ammo rather than blanks from a video. Not winding you up, I would just like to know.

[dcutman]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

I would agree with you on your last statement, but as to your first

statement, I believe their excuse for using live ammunition, was the Red

Shirts disgraceful record, of attacking military and

civilians with hand grenades

[OzMick]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

Number one do you have a link to that video and number two how can you tell when an M16 is firing live ammo rather than blanks from a video. Not winding you up, I would just like to know.

A BFA allows blanks to be fired in semi-auto or full auto mode, and precludes the use of live ammunition as the barrel is partially blocked.

Without a BFA, either live or blank ammunition can be fired, but without a projectile there is insufficient gas pressure in the barrel to work the gas operating system even on it's highest setting. When firing blanks, the cocking handle has to be used to eject and reload each round.

BTW too long ago, so can't remember if the M-16 gas system is variable same as SLR7.62.

[Pimay1]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

Number one do you have a link to that video and number two how can you tell when an M16 is firing live ammo rather than blanks from a video. Not winding you up, I would just like to know.

A BFA allows blanks to be fired in semi-auto or full auto mode, and precludes the use of live ammunition as the barrel is partially blocked.

Without a BFA, either live or blank ammunition can be fired, but without a projectile there is insufficient gas pressure in the barrel to work the gas operating system even on it's highest setting. When firing blanks, the cocking handle has to be used to eject and reload each round.

BTW too long ago, so can't remember if the M-16 gas system is variable same as SLR7.62.

Thank you.

[rixalex]

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

With regards the protests in 2010, some of us don't need to take the military's word for anything, because we were here in Bangkok and saw with our own eyes exactly what the situation was and exactly what the dangers were out there.

And with regards the military's "disgraceful human rights record", there is not much the military can do now about things that happened 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, things that happened before many of them were even born, they can only deal with the now and try and do what is right at this moment; and judging events over the last decade, it's not the military the ones with the disgraceful human rights record, it's the politicians, the protest leaders and the protesters themselves who have clearly taken that particular mantle.