Thai Army Chief ready to face the court

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.

[aussieinthailand]

The only thing I can see the general is guilty of is sending either, ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained or all of the above, soldiers into a very complex situation where it was always going to end badly.

Police and soldiers were also shot. That places hostile forces within the protesting crowd. The way these people are making it out is that the soldiers just opened up on the crowd, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. What a load of BS ???????

OK I get what you are saying and agree with most of it, BUT, in my post I asked the question, WHO gave the order to use LIVE ROUNDS on the people???

also how do you explain the shooting of nurse,(first aid ) giving help to people and shot and killed while doing so??? tell me what crime did she do to take a bullet? and then justifie that to her family, would you accept it if it was your daughter??? I think not.

[aussieinthailand]

The only thing I can see the general is guilty of is sending either, ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained or all of the above, soldiers into a very complex situation where it was always going to end badly.

Police and soldiers were also shot. That places hostile forces within the protesting crowd. The way these people are making it out is that the soldiers just opened up on the crowd, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. What a load of BS ???????

OK I get what you are saying and agree with most of it, BUT, in my post I asked the question, WHO gave the order to use LIVE ROUNDS on the people???

also how do you explain the shooting of nurse,(first aid ) giving help to people and shot and killed while doing so??? tell me what crime did she do to take a bullet? and then justifie that to her family, would you accept it if it was your daughter??? I think not.

coma,

I wonder about your thinking, The key word is accountability,,, If the highest in command of any government,t military, or privet (unit, company, or even a civilian working group) were sent into a volatile situation, being as you say poorly trained, is now what??? did he do his job as instructed? or would you think again? it's ok we'll just blame the people, they asked for it by protesting?

[Local Drunk]

Local Drunk,

hey man you asked the question,,, you got the answer,,, so now all's quiet, history can be a pain huh.

Hey man I was out drinking... you got the answer? Tell me about the history, come on... tell us the truth?

[Thai at Heart]

Indeed. The logic is that abhisit should have known that the army is incapable of following orders so he shouldn't have ordered them.

[coma]

The only thing I can see the general is guilty of is sending either, ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained or all of the above, soldiers into a very complex situation where it was always going to end badly.

Police and soldiers were also shot. That places hostile forces within the protesting crowd. The way these people are making it out is that the soldiers just opened up on the crowd, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. What a load of BS ???????

OK I get what you are saying and agree with most of it, BUT, in my post I asked the question, WHO gave the order to use LIVE ROUNDS on the people???

also how do you explain the shooting of nurse,(first aid ) giving help to people and shot and killed while doing so??? tell me what crime did she do to take a bullet? and then justifie that to her family, would you accept it if it was your daughter??? I think not.

All militarys around the world work by a set of Rules Of Engagement[ ROE'S]. All unique to a particular operation / theatre / war. These are recommended by the top brass and are usually scrutinized,decided upon, [with possible amendments] and then signed off by the PM/ President after consulting his / her War Committe which is usually made up of top top ministers in the cabinet. It is the soldier's and their commander's that are bound by these ROE's. This is where I am saying ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained soldiers are more to blame. And maybe some gungho types.

Taking this into consideration, one can hardly think that Mark or his number 2 picked up a phone personally and gave individual orders to individual soldier at individual incidents across the city to open fire at armed or unarmed people in the crowd. By the time troops were deployed, they had their ROE's and mission, and from then on politicians have no influence on the situation at a tactical level. Troops reacted to the situations as they seen it. And without a doubt I believe that there were many rules of engagement broken during the crisis. Whether it was from troops panicking, poor shooting, itchy trigger fingers or not fluent in their ROE's we may never know.

Edited October 30, 2013 by coma

[h90]

would be nice if most army generals were checked on corruption.....that would be bad enough.

[whybother]

We can all look forward to his defence. A previous quote of Prayuths'

"My subordinates did not kill anyone, but they were shot at," he said.

and backed up by abhisits laughable suggestion that

“It was clear that the military never took aggressive action,” Abhisit said yesterday in an interview. “We didn’t even allow them to go in to disperse the protests in the main protest site. All they were doing was setting up barriers to cordon off the protests. And these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

That second quote is actually true prior to May 19. The army did set up cordons around the protest area and the red shirts did go outside their barricades to attack the army checkpoints.

The Ratchapraprop area, where the "live fire zones" were set up, was well outside the barricaded protest area, but the red shirts were out there attacking the army as well. They also had their armed militia there shooting at the army, which was why the army set up the live fire zone.

[FangFerang]

"I am ready to face the court. After all, half of them are on my payroll. Please call my sister as first witness for the State. I am certain all testimonies will be equally unbiased."

Resume rants.

Edited October 30, 2013 by FangFerang

[centrala]

Human Rights Watch said today. Amnesty legislation being proposed by leading members of the ruling Pheu Thai Party would shield perpetrators of serious abuses from accountability and should be rejected.

.

And yet one other Human Rights Watch recommendation can be added to his list that Thaksin will ignore.

.

[Thai at Heart]

*Deleted posts edited out*

No need to remove the site quote from my message either. There's no need for you to edit anything on my message what so ever.

Abhisut said what he said, that's fact. Pretty stupid thing to say in my opinion.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[wolf5370]

Army Chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha mearly doing his job shooting Thai protesters, was this in his job description shoot Thai citizens. So whom dose he swear his allegiance to the people of Thailand I presume he will be more than willing to name the person who gave instructions to murder Thai citizens. Shoot to kill policy.

I can see your point, but this all hinges on when it is acceptable to kill a citizen. Police across the world often shoot and kill people committing crimes and in self defence. It is always an unsafe step to call the army in to acts as the police; in reality it shows how little respect and confidence the government at the time had in the Thai police being able to handle the incident. Once that step is made, and rioters are firing on police and soldiers, are the citizens still protected by oath of allegiance - or are they deemed terrorists? Which country will not take out a terrorist in their own borders even if it is one of their own citizens?

As I said, it all hinges on at what point a citizen is no longer the subject of the oath, and a threat to it.

Forget it being Thailand, forget your petty allegiance to shirt colours, take a step back - where in the world would such rioting and criminality be allowed for so long; troops and police being fired upon be allowed to stand without defence; building/businesses/banks being targeted by bombs and robbery; hospitals being invaded? Answer: None.

Add to that the knowledge that there is no way to peacefully stop the "protect" as even acquiescing to their demands, i.e. the election promise, they still refused to disperse. Therefore, lawlessness, violence and destruction for sake of it.

It is obvious there was no shoot to kill order, otherwise the death count would not be 90 but hundreds or thousands - and there would have been tanks rather than unarmoured troop carriers - from where young conscripts were dragged from behind the wheel and beaten and kicked in unconsciousness by red shirted thugs! Some soldiers lost it - it happens - the fault in my book lies squarely with the police for failing to keep order and allowing armed groups of thugs to congregate in the first place.

[wolf5370]

The only thing I can see the general is guilty of is sending either, ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained or all of the above, soldiers into a very complex situation where it was always going to end badly.

Police and soldiers were also shot. That places hostile forces within the protesting crowd. The way these people are making it out is that the soldiers just opened up on the crowd, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. What a load of BS ???????

OK I get what you are saying and agree with most of it, BUT, in my post I asked the question, WHO gave the order to use LIVE ROUNDS on the people???

also how do you explain the shooting of nurse,(first aid ) giving help to people and shot and killed while doing so??? tell me what crime did she do to take a bullet? and then justifie that to her family, would you accept it if it was your daughter??? I think not.

coma,

I wonder about your thinking, The key word is accountability,,, If the highest in command of any government,t military, or privet (unit, company, or even a civilian working group) were sent into a volatile situation, being as you say poorly trained, is now what??? did he do his job as instructed? or would you think again? it's ok we'll just blame the people, they asked for it by protesting?

Accountability can only go so far - otherwise every government in the world would topple every time a government employee broke the law. In the first Gulf War American pilots lit up a British convoy even though it had transponders, was on a pre-arranged and cleared route and clearly marked (flags painted on roof) - the USA would not even allow the British authorities to question the pilots and refused to give names to allow for extradition - yet did Bush end up in gaol? Responsibility goes down to Mens Rea, and the misadventure of some protectors - as well as individual responsibility to those soldiers that strayed from their standing orders (and lost it). It has been said over and over, with plenty of evidence at the time, some "protesters" went past the barricades to the outer live fire zones and engaged the army - at a minimum this is misadventure, more it is incitement and at worse it is treason.

Did he do his job as instructed? It seems so on the surface of it - set up barricades, set up external life fire zones, put a standing order to only shoot in defence and at armed assailants. If there were other orders, that countermanded the orders of his superiors or the laws of the state (given the state of emergency), then not. The evidence of hindsight suggests this was not the case unless a strange policy of letting some soldiers kill indiscriminately while other were to sit back and act as extra sandbags was employed. If there were order by his superiors that were within the laws of the state (given state of emergency) then the buck does not stop with him whatever. There may be evidence we don't know to take in to account, but with the world's press on the scene, it seems unlikely to be anything major.

[bigbamboo]

Is this also part of the 'timing' to do with other events currently taking place?

Could this trial end with more boney fingers pointing at a certain couple who have been indicted recently to add a little extra pressure?

Who knows the secrets of the black magic box?

It does sound as if the last refuge of the army officer, "I was only following orders", is about to make an appearance soon unlike the ethereal men in black they were brought in to counter who have disappeared like ghosts in the Thai political machine.

[centrala]

1. We don't know if he, or anyone for that matter, said that.

2. If it was said, we don't know when it was said.

3. If it was said, we don't the context of what was said.

That's why basic net etiquette dictates a proper format in order to prevent selective, misrepresentative abusive quotes that waste discussion time and effort.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

.

Thanks for providing the link that fab4 failed to provide in his post. Hopefully, he'll comply in the future.

No need to remove the site quote from my message either. There's no need for you to edit anything on my message what so ever.

.

Your full post remains for those wishing to discuss the other portions of your post. I was simply interested in the link which wasn't included in fab4's post so that a valid source for his quote could be verified.

As per above, we can see from this exchange, posters not including links when posting supposed quotations create side discussions that otherwise would not be necessary.

Thanks again for fulfilling his obligation by providing the link.

[nicknostitz]

Accountability can only go so far - otherwise every government in the world would topple every time a government employee broke the law. In the first Gulf War American pilots lit up a British convoy even though it had transponders, was on a pre-arranged and cleared route and clearly marked (flags painted on roof) - the USA would not even allow the British authorities to question the pilots and refused to give names to allow for extradition - yet did Bush end up in gaol? Responsibility goes down to Mens Rea, and the misadventure of some protectors - as well as individual responsibility to those soldiers that strayed from their standing orders (and lost it). It has been said over and over, with plenty of evidence at the time, some "protesters" went past the barricades to the outer live fire zones and engaged the army - at a minimum this is misadventure, more it is incitement and at worse it is treason.

Did he do his job as instructed? It seems so on the surface of it - set up barricades, set up external life fire zones, put a standing order to only shoot in defence and at armed assailants. If there were other orders, that countermanded the orders of his superiors or the laws of the state (given the state of emergency), then not. The evidence of hindsight suggests this was not the case unless a strange policy of letting some soldiers kill indiscriminately while other were to sit back and act as extra sandbags was employed. If there were order by his superiors that were within the laws of the state (given state of emergency) then the buck does not stop with him whatever. There may be evidence we don't know to take in to account, but with the world's press on the scene, it seems unlikely to be anything major.

While some (not all) members of the world's press have seen armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters, the world's press has seen as well that in a systematic fashion live fire was used against unarmed protesters from May 13 until may 19. Systematic means that you could go from front line to front line, and could count on getting images of protesters without arms being killed and wounded by fire from the military, most of the time without the presence of armed militants, and therefore no direct threat against the life of the security forces. Regardless of these reports and images the modus operandi of the government and the military did not change.

For stating these facts, many members of the world's press were discredited badly by members of the Democrat Party and people close to this party. Dan Rivers from CNN had to bear the brunt of it, and had to leave Thailand as it was simply not safe anymore for him, BBC reporters were also publicly discredited. Uncomfortable articles exposing such incidents were blocked on the internet for some time (including one of yours truly).

Also on this forum here members of the media were discredited, insulted and serial accused of being in Thaksin's employ.

Some members of both the local and the international media have also come forward as witnesses in relevant cases.

This is the evidence we know of.

The evidence we do not yet know of is the inner workings of CRES, how orders were given, which orders were given, if all orders were documented, and/or some may have been only verbal. What went on in CRES is still shrouded in mystery. But given the picture on the ground - that over 6 days systematically unarmed protesters were shot in front of our eyes in situations where lethal violence was clearly disproportionate, it is quite implausible that CRES was not aware of the situation, and that is was not just a few individual soldiers breaking the ROE.

There is no debate over the fact that in situations when soldiers were fired upon by armed militants, or if they have seen armed militants, that they were within the ROE and the legal frame to use live fire against them. But, as we have seen on the ground, there were far more situations in which unarmed protesters were targeted, even rescue vehicles (i have seen that myself), and clearly identifiable journalists in daylight.

And this, i am sorry to say, is something that both CRES and the military have to answer for.

[wolf5370]

Accountability can only go so far - otherwise every government in the world would topple every time a government employee broke the law. In the first Gulf War American pilots lit up a British convoy even though it had transponders, was on a pre-arranged and cleared route and clearly marked (flags painted on roof) - the USA would not even allow the British authorities to question the pilots and refused to give names to allow for extradition - yet did Bush end up in gaol? Responsibility goes down to Mens Rea, and the misadventure of some protectors - as well as individual responsibility to those soldiers that strayed from their standing orders (and lost it). It has been said over and over, with plenty of evidence at the time, some "protesters" went past the barricades to the outer live fire zones and engaged the army - at a minimum this is misadventure, more it is incitement and at worse it is treason.

Did he do his job as instructed? It seems so on the surface of it - set up barricades, set up external life fire zones, put a standing order to only shoot in defence and at armed assailants. If there were other orders, that countermanded the orders of his superiors or the laws of the state (given the state of emergency), then not. The evidence of hindsight suggests this was not the case unless a strange policy of letting some soldiers kill indiscriminately while other were to sit back and act as extra sandbags was employed. If there were order by his superiors that were within the laws of the state (given state of emergency) then the buck does not stop with him whatever. There may be evidence we don't know to take in to account, but with the world's press on the scene, it seems unlikely to be anything major.

While some (not all) members of the world's press have seen armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters, the world's press has seen as well that in a systematic fashion live fire was used against unarmed protesters from May 13 until may 19. Systematic means that you could go from front line to front line, and could count on getting images of protesters without arms being killed and wounded by fire from the military, most of the time without the presence of armed militants, and therefore no direct threat against the life of the security forces. Regardless of these reports and images the modus operandi of the government and the military did not change.

For stating these facts, many members of the world's press were discredited badly by members of the Democrat Party and people close to this party. Dan Rivers from CNN had to bear the brunt of it, and had to leave Thailand as it was simply not safe anymore for him, BBC reporters were also publicly discredited. Uncomfortable articles exposing such incidents were blocked on the internet for some time (including one of yours truly).

Also on this forum here members of the media were discredited, insulted and serial accused of being in Thaksin's employ.

Some members of both the local and the international media have also come forward as witnesses in relevant cases.

This is the evidence we know of.

The evidence we do not yet know of is the inner workings of CRES, how orders were given, which orders were given, if all orders were documented, and/or some may have been only verbal. What went on in CRES is still shrouded in mystery. But given the picture on the ground - that over 6 days systematically unarmed protesters were shot in front of our eyes in situations where lethal violence was clearly disproportionate, it is quite implausible that CRES was not aware of the situation, and that is was not just a few individual soldiers breaking the ROE.

There is no debate over the fact that in situations when soldiers were fired upon by armed militants, or if they have seen armed militants, that they were within the ROE and the legal frame to use live fire against them. But, as we have seen on the ground, there were far more situations in which unarmed protesters were targeted, even rescue vehicles (i have seen that myself), and clearly identifiable journalists in daylight.

And this, i am sorry to say, is something that both CRES and the military have to answer for.

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

[nicknostitz]

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

Thank you as well.

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

What was not difficult to see protesters killed and wounded by fire from the military. It was actually impossible not to see that.

[Thaddeus]

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

Thank you as well.

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

What was not difficult to see protesters killed and wounded by fire from the military. It was actually impossible not to see that.

So, you managed to see one thing, but not the other..... and yet were still able to come to a conclusion.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Thaddeus

[Thaddeus]

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

Thank you as well.

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

What was not difficult to see protesters killed and wounded by fire from the military. It was actually impossible not to see that.

So, you managed to see one thing, but not the other..... and yet were still able to come to a conclusion.

[nicknostitz]

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

Thank you as well.

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

What was not difficult to see protesters killed and wounded by fire from the military. It was actually impossible not to see that.

So, you managed to see one thing, but not the other..... and yet were still able to come to a conclusion.

Because "the thing" that many of you fantasize about here on the net has simply not taken place other than in your rather wild imagination.

Tell us then what you have seen with your own eyes, not filtered by political views and opinions. If you have seen what i haven't, then put your money where your mouth is and give evidence as witness.

[Bkungbank]

Here have guardian angels ' Siamthevartheerat ' to look after good people thing will get better from time to time and Mr. Black in jungle will hunted by their own shadow for the rest of their life.

[Thaddeus]

This is a good, thoughtful and well made reply - food for thought - thank you.

Thank you as well.

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

What was not difficult to see protesters killed and wounded by fire from the military. It was actually impossible not to see that.

So, you managed to see one thing, but not the other..... and yet were still able to come to a conclusion.

Because "the thing" that many of you fantasize about here on the net has simply not taken place other than in your rather wild imagination.

Tell us then what you have seen with your own eyes, not filtered by political views and opinions. If you have seen what i haven't, then put your money where your mouth is and give evidence as witness.

I don't have a wild imagination, mine is rather dull and boring in fact, but at least it is all mine.

[centrala]

Different than the impression that is given here - it was actually very difficult to see armed militants operating. There were very few, and they did not go and pose for the media. For the most part they operated at night, and very briefly at the most dangerous spots. The vast majority of journalists did not work in those spots as it was simply too dangerous there, and too dark to get any images or footage. Just not worth the risk. That is why there is so little footage of them.

I have seen them operating only once, at a place so dangerous that i had no desire whatsoever to do that again.

That the hired men in black excelled at cover and concealment and covert night ops is hardly surprising. That was their purpose and reflected their supeior training and resources compared to the average foot soldier on the opposing RTA.

Those aspects that they were rarely detectable does nothing to lessen their impact. It actually increases it.

[coma]

The only thing I can see the general is guilty of is sending either, ill prepared, ill disciplined, poorly trained or all of the above, soldiers into a very complex situation where it was always going to end badly.

Police and soldiers were also shot. That places hostile forces within the protesting crowd. The way these people are making it out is that the soldiers just opened up on the crowd, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. What a load of BS ???????

OK I get what you are saying and agree with most of it, BUT, in my post I asked the question, WHO gave the order to use LIVE ROUNDS on the people???

also how do you explain the shooting of nurse,(first aid ) giving help to people and shot and killed while doing so??? tell me what crime did she do to take a bullet? and then justifie that to her family, would you accept it if it was your daughter??? I think not.

coma,

I wonder about your thinking, The key word is accountability,,, If the highest in command of any government,t military, or privet (unit, company, or even a civilian working group) were sent into a volatile situation, being as you say poorly trained, is now what??? did he do his job as instructed? or would you think again? it's ok we'll just blame the people, they asked for it by protesting?

Accountability can only go so far - otherwise every government in the world would topple every time a government employee broke the law. In the first Gulf War American pilots lit up a British convoy even though it had transponders, was on a pre-arranged and cleared route and clearly marked (flags painted on roof) - the USA would not even allow the British authorities to question the pilots and refused to give names to allow for extradition - yet did Bush end up in gaol? Responsibility goes down to Mens Rea, and the misadventure of some protectors - as well as individual responsibility to those soldiers that strayed from their standing orders (and lost it). It has been said over and over, with plenty of evidence at the time, some "protesters" went past the barricades to the outer live fire zones and engaged the army - at a minimum this is misadventure, more it is incitement and at worse it is treason.

Did he do his job as instructed? It seems so on the surface of it - set up barricades, set up external life fire zones, put a standing order to only shoot in defence and at armed assailants. If there were other orders, that countermanded the orders of his superiors or the laws of the state (given the state of emergency), then not. The evidence of hindsight suggests this was not the case unless a strange policy of letting some soldiers kill indiscriminately while other were to sit back and act as extra sandbags was employed. If there were order by his superiors that were within the laws of the state (given state of emergency) then the buck does not stop with him whatever. There may be evidence we don't know to take in to account, but with the world's press on the scene, it seems unlikely to be anything major.

Well said !

[fab4]

Local Drunk,

hey man you asked the question,,, you got the answer,,, so now all's quiet, history can be a pain huh.

Hey man I was out drinking... you got the answer? Tell me about the history, come on... tell us the truth?

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/ The link has been published several times. Try reading it.

[fab4]

Indeed. The logic is that abhisit should have known that the army is incapable of following orders so he shouldn't have ordered them.

It seems more likely that despite the large number of deaths on April 10th abhisit heightened the chances of further deaths occurring by signing off on the use of snipers, live fire zones and a form of kettling (like the UK police but this time marching forwards and firing live ammunition). That kind of thinking might lead the Courts into believing that the response was disproportionate.

[fab4]

We can all look forward to his defence. A previous quote of Prayuths'

"My subordinates did not kill anyone, but they were shot at," he said.

and backed up by abhisits laughable suggestion that

“It was clear that the military never took aggressive action,” Abhisit said yesterday in an interview. “We didn’t even allow them to go in to disperse the protests in the main protest site. All they were doing was setting up barriers to cordon off the protests. And these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

That second quote is actually true prior to May 19. The army did set up cordons around the protest area and the red shirts did go outside their barricades to attack the army checkpoints.

The Ratchapraprop area, where the "live fire zones" were set up, was well outside the barricaded protest area, but the red shirts were out there attacking the army as well. They also had their armed militia there shooting at the army, which was why the army set up the live fire zone.

Attack the checkpoints with what, Rocks, fireworks? So you accept abhisits remarks as quite normal , in fact, the simple truth?

Why did they set up the live firing zones at Ratchaprapop? What strategic reason? To starve out the main rally stage that's why. It was a lethal variation of the UK Polices "bottling" tactics prior to the major assault on the stage area.

Read this to see how "the military never took aggressive action". I cannot believe you swallow abhisits BS so readily.

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

[whybother]

Attack the checkpoints with what, Rocks, fireworks? So you accept abhisits remarks as quite normal , in fact, the simple truth?

Why did they set up the live firing zones at Ratchaprapop? What strategic reason? To starve out the main rally stage that's why. It was a lethal variation of the UK Polices "bottling" tactics prior to the major assault on the stage area.

Read this to see how "the military never took aggressive action". I cannot believe you swallow abhisits BS so readily.

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

It's not about swallowing what Abhisit said. It's about what happened.

In the Ratchapraprop area there was plenty of evidence of armed protesters firing at the army, even from a journalist that regularly posts on this site. That's why they set up a live firing zone there, and it's the only place they set up a live firing zone.

In other areas, which weren't live firing zones, the protesters did go out from their petrol soaked barricades to attack the army with sling shots (which can be deadly), rockets and stones.

The troops didn't attack the protesters. The protesters came out to attack them.

[nicknostitz]

Attack the checkpoints with what, Rocks, fireworks? So you accept abhisits remarks as quite normal , in fact, the simple truth?

Why did they set up the live firing zones at Ratchaprapop? What strategic reason? To starve out the main rally stage that's why. It was a lethal variation of the UK Polices "bottling" tactics prior to the major assault on the stage area.

Read this to see how "the military never took aggressive action". I cannot believe you swallow abhisits BS so readily.

http://www.businessinsider.com/thailand-red-shirt-protest-din-daeng-violence-2010-5

It's not about swallowing what Abhisit said. It's about what happened.

In the Ratchapraprop area there was plenty of evidence of armed protesters firing at the army, even from a journalist that regularly posts on this site. That's why they set up a live firing zone there, and it's the only place they set up a live firing zone.

In other areas, which weren't live firing zones, the protesters did go out from their petrol soaked barricades to attack the army with sling shots (which can be deadly), rockets and stones.

The troops didn't attack the protesters. The protesters came out to attack them.

I somewhat recall that this "journalist that regularly posts on this side" has also argued that while the military may have been justified to fire at armed militants under the Red Shirts, it has managed to kill and injure only unarmed protesters and a journalist in situations where they were not under threat against their life in Ratchaparop Road, and have used disproportionate use of violence against protesters.

This "journalist that regularly posts on this side" has also expressed bewilderment over the legalities of the establishment of "live firing zones", as signified by a small sign easily overlooked posted at the razor wire at military bunkers, by the military in a urban area full of local population that has not been evacuated, supplied with necessities such as food, and was stuck in their homes for almost a full week.

But what would i know...