Thai Army Chief ready to face the court

[Nickymaster]

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.

Correct!

And as we all know, if the police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of hand. For some reason, the police were not very interested to provide law and order. It almost felt as if they were hoping for a confrontation between army and protestors.

If somebody was to blame for the mess, it should be the Thai Police. And then we have the big question: who controls the Thai Police........

(pssstt I remember Thaksin saying to Aljazeera that the army had killed many people when at that stage nobody had been killed yet because the first days they only used blanks. If somebody is interested in that interview I will look it up)

Edited October 31, 2013 by Nickymaster

[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.

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.

If a protest group anywhere in the world was known to be armed, what would the response be to clear them?

[kimamey]

Local Drunk,

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

It happens like that - they hear something they don't like and it's dropped like a hot brick, until the next time, and the next, and the...........

Maybe he's just offline right now and will reply later.

I know what you mean though. You come up with a sensible and honest reply to some post and you never hear any reply. I've had that experience as well and I'm sure if I looked I'd find I've had it with you.

PS

Actually he's just liked one of my posts so he's on another thread right now.

If you feel I haven't answered you, feel free to PM me. The current trend I'm having at the moment is requests for me to stop posting . If you're genuinely interested in the supposed "land scandal" a blogger has assembled a complete wealth of information here

http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

It's well worth reading all of it.

Sorry a bit busy just now but I will be back.

Thanks for the link. I will read all of it.

[fab4]

.

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.

Not my obligation to provide links I'm afraid. Do you think I make my quotes up? I'll do it when I remember but to be perfectly honest I could provide links until they come out of my ears and some people still won't believe me.

Here's a tip. Use google. It's called a search engine for a reason. Pick a phrase or sentence from the post you either disbelieve or haven't got a link for, copy and paste, and search through the results. Job done.

If it will help, heres a special google link, just for you

http://www.lmgtfy.com/

Try it, you might be suprised by the outcome.

[fab4]

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...

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if I am reading posts from abhisit himself on here. case in point

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

abhisit : "It was clear that the military never took aggressive action. these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

[whybother]

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if I am reading posts from abhisit himself on here. case in point

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

abhisit : "It was clear that the military never took aggressive action. these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

That may be because, in this case, that's what happened. The troops were well outside the barricades, and the protesters went out there to attack the army positions.

[fab4]

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if I am reading posts from abhisit himself on here. case in point

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

abhisit : "It was clear that the military never took aggressive action. these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

That may be because, in this case, that's what happened. The troops were well outside the barricades, and the protesters went out there to attack the army positions.

Sorry, forgot part of abhisits quote

abhisit : "All they were doing was setting up barriers to cordon off the protests. And these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

whybother : That may be because, in this case, that's what happened. The troops were well outside the barricades, and the protesters went out there to attack the army positions.

You were there I take it, as you're so sure of the circumstances.

So what's it to be? The troops were at their barricades being attacked by gun toting UDD or the troops were well outside the barricades being attacked by gun toting UDD?

[whybother]

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if I am reading posts from abhisit himself on here. case in point

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

abhisit : "It was clear that the military never took aggressive action. these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

That may be because, in this case, that's what happened. The troops were well outside the barricades, and the protesters went out there to attack the army positions.

Sorry, forgot part of abhisits quote

abhisit : "All they were doing was setting up barriers to cordon off the protests. And these checkpoints were being attacked, and they were defending themselves.”

whybother : That may be because, in this case, that's what happened. The troops were well outside the barricades, and the protesters went out there to attack the army positions.

You were there I take it, as you're so sure of the circumstances.

So what's it to be? The troops were at their barricades being attacked by gun toting UDD or the troops were well outside the barricades being attacked by gun toting UDD?

Are you denying that the red shirts went outside of their barricades to attack the army?

I think you should do a bit more research. It wasn't the army that set up the fuel soaked barricades. The army were set well back from there, particularly in Sathorn, where the protesters were setting tyres alight, and in Ratchapraprop, where the red shirt militia were shooting at the army during the nights.

[bigbamboo]

To the neutral observer there are plenty of questions for Abhisit, Suthep and the army to answer here. But there are others too.

Like why did the police fail in their duty to maintain order? Was there an influential person instrumental in their lack of response? And who was responsible for organizing the infiltration of the vast majority of peaceful protestors with armed mercenaries... and more importantly, why?

Edited October 31, 2013 by bigbamboo

[seajae]

still waiting for ballistic tests so that all bullets taken from the dead and wounded can be matched to army weapons, until this is done how in the hell can anyone be blamed for shooting anyone at all. Unless all bullets found are checked ballistically and them matched to the rifles and therefore to the soldier that it was issued to then no one can be charged with anything as it is incomplete evidence. What makes this necessary is that the black shirts were also using the same type of rifles so they could just as easily been shooting the "civillians " an d letting the army take the fall for political purposes. This is simply a set up and needs to be done correctly so that those that pulled the trigger are the ones charged. As an aussie soldier we were trained in how to react in this sort of thing when the unions blocked supply in Australia many years ago, we were actually trained how to warn/shoot civillians in case we were needed to be used, if the directives are followed to the letter this sort of thing doesnt happen.

[nicknostitz]

still waiting for ballistic tests so that all bullets taken from the dead and wounded can be matched to army weapons, until this is done how in the hell can anyone be blamed for shooting anyone at all. Unless all bullets found are checked ballistically and them matched to the rifles and therefore to the soldier that it was issued to then no one can be charged with anything as it is incomplete evidence. What makes this necessary is that the black shirts were also using the same type of rifles so they could just as easily been shooting the "civillians " an d letting the army take the fall for political purposes. This is simply a set up and needs to be done correctly so that those that pulled the trigger are the ones charged. As an aussie soldier we were trained in how to react in this sort of thing when the unions blocked supply in Australia many years ago, we were actually trained how to warn/shoot civillians in case we were needed to be used, if the directives are followed to the letter this sort of thing doesnt happen.

And i guess you also assume that the military provided the investigators with the weapons that were used?

Bullet trajectories were investigated. There were many bullet holes in road fixtures which could only have been shot from the military positions and nowhere else (most actual bullets were actually cleaned up by the military before they opened their positions to the public and to investigators).

People were shot in front of cameras standing in positions that would have not been possibly to shoot them from anywhere else than military positions (such as the Nation photographer Chaiwat - the impact of the bullet that hit him was on video - who stood in front of a wall that exposed him only to fire from the military, the only other position he was open to was impossible as i and several other journalists were crouching). You even have in several of the cases videos of soldiers shooting their rifles at the directions where victims were hit with bullets. Forensic tests were performed on impact channels on victims whose body position at the moment of being shot was photographed.

While maybe in most cases individual soldiers cannot be charged, the involved units are known. The soldier's testimony at the inquests was often rather comical - such as in one case the bullet, according to the soldiers testimony of where the alleged shooter was positioned, must have made a sharp curve midair in order to hit the victim where it did hit him. I may not be a military expert, so i could be wrong here, but i am not really aware that 5.56 nato rounds can function as guided missiles.

You can continue to defend the indefensible with spacious arguments on what you may have learned in the Australian military, but this was the Thai military in Thailand.