Infamous video 'sniper' denies shooting at Red Shirts

[jackandjim]

"its comin right for us"

[CUNJU]

We hear all these rationalization about blanks and all the rationalizations that try to make everyone think that it's the Red Shirts own fault because they were enticing the troops.

Well, one might conclude that the army's use of blanks could therefore be construed as a means to incite the Red Shirts into violence.

After all, prior to all the armed troops showing up, the scene was pretty mellow.

where in lala land did u come from?

[Yunla]

JFK syndrome or what?

Same could be said about the airport occupation other than there was no bloodbath.

Unfortunately for you, this thread isn't about JFK or the airport protest. I was replying to the OP and voicing my biggest question about the whole thing whih is why the redshirt leadership did not withdraw after getting early elections. To me, the extreme duration of the seige and the general impetus to escalate matters regardless of what concessions the Govt offered, is a very crucial point which is often overlooked. The whole thing seemed staged towards the end, like they were getting orders from above to not leave the city until some tragedy occured, which could be exploited later. Again, I see no other reason for them to stay on after being there for months, and having their demands met.

[mikemac]

Unfortunately for you, this thread isn't about JFK or the airport protest. I was replying to the OP and voicing my biggest question about the whole thing whih is why the redshirt leadership did not withdraw after getting early elections. To me, the extreme duration of the seige and the general impetus to escalate matters regardless of what concessions the Govt offered, is a very crucial point which is often overlooked. The whole thing seemed staged towards the end, like they were getting orders from above to not leave the city until some tragedy occured, which could be exploited later. Again, I see no other reason for them to stay on after being there for months, and having their demands met.

Good post, but a shame that the people with even half a brain were already aware of this, and the ones with no brains whatsoever, who support the actions of a paid terrorist group holding a city to ransom for months will not comprehend what you wrote.

[waza]

I would give it a go, although I am not a good shooter by any means, if the redshirt had a molotov cocktail in his hand !

Got any evidence of a demonstrator, with a molotov cocktail in his hand, being shot by the RTA ???

There's quite a lot of evidence of unarmed people being shot in in the head by the RTA.

Where is your evidence of molotov laden demonstrators shot by the army ???

Any body on this thread got ANY evidence to show self defence by the RTA and justifiable shooting of Thai civilians ???

The RTA kiled scores of people and wounded thousands, where is the evidence that they were "rightfully" shot ???

Show us this copius amount of evidence that the RTA shot any unarmed people in the head.

Answer the question.......................

If you can.

Your question was hypothetical because nowhere in the stated posts does anyone make that claim. However, you stated catagorically that, "There's quite a lot of evidence of unarmed people being shot in in the head by the RTA." Please show this evidence or withdraw that statement of fact.

[waza]

If you had any knowledge of the red riots you would be aware thet the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces for the remainder of the insurection. Further the more traditional methoods of crowd control such as police, riot shields and clubs and rubberbullets were either ineffective or countered with automatic weapons and granade launchers.

"the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces"

Hysterical and hilarious at the same time.

Gunshots rang out throughout the night and into the morning in central Bangkok. At daybreak, a group of protesters captured and vandalized two military water cannon trucks at the intersection of Sathorn and Rama IV roads in the heart of the business district. They ripped the cannon from its moorings and used its plastic barrel to shoot firecrackers from behind a sandbag bunker they had commandeered from soldiers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/thailand-readies-lockdown-red-shirts-says-shoot-terrorists-defy/#ixzz2fcj7CPc2

I see. My mistake. I thought when you mentioned 'rockets' you were talking about some kind of military grade weapon, when really what you actually meant was fireworks.

http://youtu.be/RK7JjoI1RJI

[metisdead]

A post containing overly graphic images has been removed, again.

[uty6543]

@MrslatersParrot your post only shows dead people it does not show who kill them. It is just your opinion that they were unjustifiable killed by the army. The inquests will answer that question though.

[MrSlatersParrot]

@MrslatersParrot your post only shows dead people it does not show who kill them. It is just your opinion that they were unjustifiable killed by the army. The inquests will answer that question though.

Well at least you've seen the images. That's a start because your post will probably now also be removed like mine again.

There is no doubt in my mind who killed them.

We are witnessing a "slow burn" civil war developing.

Neither side can be reconciled with one side resisting all attempts.

[mikemac]

If I was a mod I would remove all your posts, simply because I just don't like nasty people.

[hellodolly]

JFK syndrome or what?

Same could be said about the airport occupation other than there was no bloodbath.

Unfortunately for you, this thread isn't about JFK or the airport protest. I was replying to the OP and voicing my biggest question about the whole thing whih is why the redshirt leadership did not withdraw after getting early elections. To me, the extreme duration of the seige and the general impetus to escalate matters regardless of what concessions the Govt offered, is a very crucial point which is often overlooked. The whole thing seemed staged towards the end, like they were getting orders from above to not leave the city until some tragedy occured, which could be exploited later. Again, I see no other reason for them to stay on after being there for months, and having their demands met.

Great post cuts right through to the truth of the matter. I have never heard of a protest getting what they want and then rejecting it. Sacrificial sheep and they didn't even know it. Talk about using the uneducated for personal gains. Yet the man responsible for it will never be punished for it through legal channels.

Talk about uneducated what dies the "JFK syndrome" have to do with the whole affair if indeed there is such a thing. Thaksin used the uneducated to attempt a coup he lost. Now he should put a muzzle on them. They just make him look silly as well as a mass murderer.

[Spare]

There was no absolute prove that the bullet from this sniper actual kill the man.

Even if somehow it can trace the bullet back to shooter, there was no prove this it wasn't an accident (ie. aim at leg, but unfortunately blow off the brain or something like that).

[GentlemanJim]

You don't need a sniper scope to fire blank rounds neither do you take time to aim when firing blanks. If Firing at someone trowing Molotov cocktails that would be justifiable deadly force in my book.

Exactly!!

Sorry, I am too frustrated to read the thread and could only stomach the first page. Was this guy under orders or what? All this guy had to do was tell the truth. If someone is throwing molotov cocktails it justifies the use of lethal force, end of! The guy is even showing he is managing the situation by not firing indiscriminately. By saying this stupid story about blanks all he does now is make everything else said before and after unbelievable in every respect.

I think the problem here is (someone correct me if I am wrong) they do not have 'perjury' or 'contempt of court' as an offence. I understand that you can lie through your back teeth in court and there is no consequence. Obviously in the UK or US you would be banged up.

This country gets more bizarre by the day. ...............Looks for wall in house to bang head on.

[Curt1591]

I edit typos only, coz I have late stage MS, am 3/4 blind and its like typing with two lumps of wood.

I happened to read your post before I wrote my first reply. When I posted, I saw your edit. You didn't correct any

typo"; you added the Thaksin BS at the end.

I had to edit my post stating that I was suprised that no one had denied that the army killed anyone. But you, apparently, had simply forgotten to do that in your original, unedited post.

Well okay, some facts. I edit posts for typos, grammar errors, and cognitive errors, the latter being caused by my brain lesions which interrupt the process of memory to output.. If a sentence doesn't read right I will edit the words. This is a purely linguistic device, it is the same as typos or grammar errors. I type extremely fast, and tend to post it directly, usually I haven't made too many errors and will leave it if its just slightly glitched. I used to be a very good typist, but I really am struggling with what is the final years of my primary progressive MS and sometimes I can't see further than a few inches really..

More importantly, and this is very important, if I change the CONTENT of a piece, I will add the suffix ; "EDIT: <reason>" and explain why I changed the actual content. This is simply good manners, because somebody might have responded to the original content, so I would feel bad if I changed content and didn't underline what/why I changed. I do this on the Social Science forum I have been an original member of for 20~ years, it is especially important there because we are processing cross-referenced data and so you can not change posts without shifting the surrounding data. However, I have no need to change content in posts on a news forum. If I read a news story I already know what I think about it and just say it.

You seem to be saying that I changed something relating to Thaksin. Perhaps you could say what I originally wrote, or generally how my piece changed direction. My editing-time on that piece was perhaps 45 seconds between posting and reposting the cleaned-up edit. Are you really telling me that my opinions on Thaksin changed radically during those 45 seconds? I assure you they did not. I was in Bangkok in 2010 all year including the wonderful redshirt horde episode. I formed opinions back then, which have not changed in 3 years. In the interests of truth, I infact edited 3-4 typos and 2-3 cognitive errors that made a sentence unreadable.

Or perhaps you are criticising a minor typo edit, and calling my post BS because you genuinely don't have anything bright to say on the content of my post itself.

Nice mask by the way.

As I stated, your original post would have lead one to believe that you actually admitted that the army just may have actually killed someone. Your "correction" was an addition "Some people, including me, believe that the only snipers making killshots were foreign contractors hired by Thaksin, pro-shooters who were taking out reds and soldiers alike in an effort to escalate the situation and lead to immediate overthrow of the PM. Early elections were not enough for "some people." If you want to know who ordered the kills, look at those people first.", once again playing the mysterious dark figure card. That's why my post had to be changed; it was based on the lack of mysterious dark figures being tossed into the mix. With your addition, my original post would have made no sense whatsoever.

Forget the mysterious dark figures! I believe, and I my belief has not changed in 3 years, it was all caused by unicorns - mysterious dark unicorns .....

[Tigre101]

If you had any knowledge of the red riots you would be aware thet the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces for the remainder of the insurection. Further the more traditional methoods of crowd control such as police, riot shields and clubs and rubberbullets were either ineffective or countered with automatic weapons and granade launchers.

"the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces"

Hysterical and hilarious at the same time.

Gunshots rang out throughout the night and into the morning in central Bangkok. At daybreak, a group of protesters captured and vandalized two military water cannon trucks at the intersection of Sathorn and Rama IV roads in the heart of the business district. They ripped the cannon from its moorings and used its plastic barrel to shoot firecrackers from behind a sandbag bunker they had commandeered from soldiers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/thailand-readies-lockdown-red-shirts-says-shoot-terrorists-defy/#ixzz2fcj7CPc2

What is hysterical and hilarious is reading the red shirt defenders' posts as they backtrack when faced with factual reports.

[wolf5370]

There was no absolute prove that the bullet from this sniper actual kill the man.

Even if somehow it can trace the bullet back to shooter, there was no prove this it wasn't an accident (ie. aim at leg, but unfortunately blow off the brain or something like that).

Spare, snipers to not aim to wound - the rifles are not designed for that - the bullet is too large and travels too fast - if it hits your leg, it blows it off and you bleed out in minutes. Head shots are unlikely too (heads bob about too much and it takes time for the bullet to arrive even at high velocity) - centre of mass, kills just as good and darned sight easier to hit.

[MrSlatersParrot]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

[Sing_Sling]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

Good, there's no need to show gratuitous violence and carnage - I think we're all adult enough to imagine what it was like.

The whole thing is a sham - irrespective of what side one believes is right . . . a sniper shoots to kill

[waza]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

Whatever rings your sick little bell.

[Spare]

There was no absolute prove that the bullet from this sniper actual kill the man.

Even if somehow it can trace the bullet back to shooter, there was no prove this it wasn't an accident (ie. aim at leg, but unfortunately blow off the brain or something like that).

Spare, snipers to not aim to wound - the rifles are not designed for that - the bullet is too large and travels too fast - if it hits your leg, it blows it off and you bleed out in minutes. Head shots are unlikely too (heads bob about too much and it takes time for the bullet to arrive even at high velocity) - centre of mass, kills just as good and darned sight easier to hit.

But it is Mark's order to use life bullets to shoots at legs only, not the center of mass. Warning, but not kill.

[Spare]

Thai army personnel, like it or not, are very discipline, and have been well trained not to lie.

However stupid they might seems, the always tell the truth, although it may not sound logical to you and me.

I believe him if he say he took aim with a sight glass to fire blanks with a sniper weapon as warning shot.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Spare

[metisdead]

Off topic nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

[philw]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

Whatever rings your sick little bell.

It's called censorship, not moderation and Mr Slater's Avian is correct.

[tw25rw]

Strange story.. Especially as someone threatening to use a molotov cocktail as a weapon would be a legitimate target.

[hammered]

The Great Game of Thailand. Deals and... It has all been openly analysed and explained elsewhere. I will clue you up. If the Demos take to the streets and start using bad words, it means they are right old angry that the elusive one they didnt manage to get arrested or extradited or anything silly like that and the aging shadowy elites have cut the mother of all deals or at least a tiny one that leaves the Demos out of the picture. Of course the army aint going to get charged with anything in this scenario. I think Tarit said this already

[hellodolly]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

I for one am having trouble understanding how you can get so many injured if a bullet will tear your leg off. Defiantly lighter caliber ammunition. Any one know what caliber the black shirts were wearing? Obviously it was not a sniper that took out Si Dang. That would have taken his whole head off.

[wolf5370]

There was no absolute prove that the bullet from this sniper actual kill the man.

Even if somehow it can trace the bullet back to shooter, there was no prove this it wasn't an accident (ie. aim at leg, but unfortunately blow off the brain or something like that).

Spare, snipers to not aim to wound - the rifles are not designed for that - the bullet is too large and travels too fast - if it hits your leg, it blows it off and you bleed out in minutes. Head shots are unlikely too (heads bob about too much and it takes time for the bullet to arrive even at high velocity) - centre of mass, kills just as good and darned sight easier to hit.

But it is Mark's order to use life bullets to shoots at legs only, not the center of mass. Warning, but not kill.

I am not taking sides here at all btw. However, no one uses a sniper to wound, a high velocity bullet will likely kill even if it hits an arm or leg. For crowd control you do not use snipers - it makes no sense - you use water canon, bean bag guns and as a last (but one) resort plastic bullets. To stop people throwing Molotovs, you could just use smoke grenades, flash bangs and tear gas (again a last, but one, resort) - not a 308 Winchester round!

No army commander would give such a command as "aim to wound", firearms are for deterrents and to kill, there is no middle ground. This is what the police is for. The Ireland troubles show us how ill equipped the military is for civilian unrest - it is simply using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Snipers have one use, to take out individual surgically without collateral damage - firing to miss means risking killing someone with shrapnel and/or a ricochet - firing to would means both risking missing and killing.

If "Mark" gave the order to wound but not kill, the military would be packing bean bag guns, tear gas and plastic bullets as the only offensive rounds and flash bangs/smoke grenades/pepper spray/bombs for crowd control - not blanks and not live rounds.

A sniper should never be used against one's own people unless to save multiple lives (such as swat taking out a suicide bomber or kidnapper that has already killed at least one hostage etc). They have no reasonable use in crowd control or riots.

[wolf5370]

In answer to Wolfe

That goes some way to explain perhaps why there were around 2000 seriously injured.

Heavy weapons were used and the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

I for one am having trouble understanding how you can get so many injured if a bullet will tear your leg off. Defiantly lighter caliber ammunition. Any one know what caliber the black shirts were wearing? Obviously it was not a sniper that took out Si Dang. That would have taken his whole head off.

The video shows an M16 which takes a 5.56mmX45mm NATO round. I don't know much about the military M16 (never fired one), but I believe the sniper variants (same calibre, different grain) does not have the carry handle that is visible in the video (experts please?). Also doesn't seem to be ACOG but standard telescopic sights (again experts?). Looks like a standard A2/4 to me (???)

To me this seems to imply it is not a "sniper" at all, but a soldier using a standard assault rifle model for a sniping role.

Edited September 24, 2013 by wolf5370

[roger rederer]

The red shirt leadership wanted casualties, in a forced-martyrdom operation, to give them extra leverage with the public. Red shirt leaders were quoted during the later stages of the seige, saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause."

The redshirts had occupied for months, been given medical treatment (when they poured their own blood everywhere), food and drinks, and a place to stage peaceful protest. They got months of protest time, in contrast with most other nations where they would have had ten hours at most, before being forcibly removed in the first evening. They were granted early elections, which was what they demanded. Nonetheless they did not go home. Why? Why were they encouraged to stay in that place, a 'hot zone', after they had made their point and got their early elections. The weather was very hot, the authorities were getting stressed out after months of seige, tensions were rising, and the reds did not go home. Why? The only reason the redshirt leadership did not order a close to the seige, after getting early elections, is that they wanted martyrs. Some people, including me, believe that the only snipers making killshots were foreign contractors hired by Thaksin, pro-shooters who were taking out reds and soldiers alike in an effort to escalate the situation and lead to immediate overthrow of the PM. Early elections were not enough for "some people." If you want to know who ordered the kills, look at those people first.

What drivel! Where is there one ounce of evidence for your insulting, conspiracy theory? (Thaksin hired foreign snipers to kill his own supporters) Yeah, thought so, can't back it up. As for your contention that the Reds got an inordinate length of "protest time"; How long were the PAD Yellow shirts in control of two international airports? Oh, almost forgot. How long were the o so peaceful Yellows camped in Government House and environs before they went on the rampage and ransacked the buildings? To be critical at least be balanced. Yes, the Red shirts that went on the rampage after their brothers and sisters had been mown down by soldiers and ransacked Central World were rightly rounded up and many are languishing in jail. For balance, how many Yellow Shirts have been banged up for their crimes 2 years earlier? Balance dear boy, balance.

[waza]

The red shirt leadership wanted casualties, in a forced-martyrdom operation, to give them extra leverage with the public. Red shirt leaders were quoted during the later stages of the seige, saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause."

The redshirts had occupied for months, been given medical treatment (when they poured their own blood everywhere), food and drinks, and a place to stage peaceful protest. They got months of protest time, in contrast with most other nations where they would have had ten hours at most, before being forcibly removed in the first evening. They were granted early elections, which was what they demanded. Nonetheless they did not go home. Why? Why were they encouraged to stay in that place, a 'hot zone', after they had made their point and got their early elections. The weather was very hot, the authorities were getting stressed out after months of seige, tensions were rising, and the reds did not go home. Why? The only reason the redshirt leadership did not order a close to the seige, after getting early elections, is that they wanted martyrs. Some people, including me, believe that the only snipers making killshots were foreign contractors hired by Thaksin, pro-shooters who were taking out reds and soldiers alike in an effort to escalate the situation and lead to immediate overthrow of the PM. Early elections were not enough for "some people." If you want to know who ordered the kills, look at those people first.

What drivel! Where is there one ounce of evidence for your insulting, conspiracy theory? (Thaksin hired foreign snipers to kill his own supporters) Yeah, thought so, can't back it up. As for your contention that the Reds got an inordinate length of "protest time"; How long were the PAD Yellow shirts in control of two international airports? Oh, almost forgot. How long were the o so peaceful Yellows camped in Government House and environs before they went on the rampage and ransacked the buildings? To be critical at least be balanced. Yes, the Red shirts that went on the rampage after their brothers and sisters had been mown down by soldiers and ransacked Central World were rightly rounded up and many are languishing in jail. For balance, how many Yellow Shirts have been banged up for their crimes 2 years earlier? Balance dear boy, balance.

Speaking of drivel and unsubstanciated red spin designed to misinform and insult the intelligence, you take the cake.