2010 unrest: Thai Court says military gunfire kills protester

[webfact]

2010 Unrest: Court Says Military Gunfire Kills Protester

By Khaosod English



BANGKOK: -- Court inquest indicates that yet another Redshirts protester has been killed by gunfire from the military position during the 2010 crackdown in downtown Bangkok.

According to the South Bangkok Criminal Court, Mr. Narin Srichomphu was apparently shot and killed by military-issued weaponry which was fired from a group of soldiers at Saladaeng Intersection in the Ratchadamri district during the final military assault against Redshirts protesters on 19 May 2010.

The inquest is a part of legal procedure to identify those responsible for over 90 deaths caused by the unrest in March-May 2010.

Former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban are also facing murder trials due to their oversight of the 2010 military crackdown. Both former leaders, and high-ranking military commanders, have publicly denied that the security forces caused any deaths in 2010, blaming them on shadowy armed militants known as the "black-shirts".

However, in the court inquest read out today, the judges noted that much evidence points to the army's use of live ammunition against Redshirts protesters on 19 May 2010, such as bullet types, video clips of the clashes, testimony by members of the security forces, and ballistic investigation.

The judges also noted that although Col. Noppasit Sitthipongsophon, commander of the troops around Saladaeng at the time, insisted that his unit was only armed with blank rounds, soldiers in his unit have testified to the court that they did fire live ammunition at the protesters.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that Mr. Narin was shot in the same vicinity where an Italian photojournalist, Mr. Fabio Polenghi, was shot and killed on 19 May 2010, whose death the court had previously ruled as caused by the military gunfire.

"Therefore ... the court found that the deceased was killed by high-velocity bullet which penetrated his head and nerve system," the court inquest concluded, "A bullet fired from the direction of the military personnel who were operating under orders of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES)".

However, the court did not specifically identify the particular soldier responsible for Mr. Narin's death, citing insufficient evidence, but a lawyer representing Mr. Narin's family says his clients are already satisfied by the inquest result.

"It is yet more proof that nearly every death of Redshirts demonstrators and the civilian deaths in the crackdown were caused by the military," Mr. Chokechai Angkaew told reporters.

Many of previous inquests have pointed to the military's role in 2010 crackdown deaths, such as the incident where six civilians were shot and killed inside Wat Pathumwanararm Temple on 19 May 2010, when the court explicitly identified soldiers stationed in the nearby area as perpetrators.

Although some inquests were inconclusive and unable to identify the perpetrators, none of the previous inquests has blamed the "black-shirts" militants for the crackdown deaths.

Source: http://en.khaosod.co.th/detail.php?newsid=1395733824&section=11


-- Khaosod English 2014-03-26

[RogueExpat]

This case is based completely on circumstantial evidence.

What they are all forgetting is the Reds were armed with the same weapons that the army use thanks to the nefarious preparations for battle made by Seh Dairng and his minions who were busily removing munitions from army supply.

Maybe a full inventory of missing weapons from army barracks would be a good start.

Appears to me that closure is/was the order of the day here, and so a speculative judgement was handed down blaming the easiest target.

[Mango Bob]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This case is based completely on circumstantial evidence.

What they are all forgetting is the Reds were armed with the same weapons that the army use thanks to the nefarious preparations for battle made by Seh Dairng and his minions who were busily removing munitions from army supply.

Maybe a full inventory of missing weapons from army barracks would be a good start.

Appears to me that closure is/was the order of the day here, and so a speculative judgement was handed down blaming the easiest target.

Your answer is based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

[ChrisY1]

"Therefore ... the court found that the deceased was killed by high-velocity bullet which penetrated his head and nerve system," the court inquest concluded, "A bullet fired from the direction of the military personnel who were operating under orders of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES)".

Nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers are under the command of the military???....so a civilian authority, according to this court, orders the army to shoot to kill....brilliant !

[ChrisY1]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This case is based completely on circumstantial evidence.

What they are all forgetting is the Reds were armed with the same weapons that the army use thanks to the nefarious preparations for battle made by Seh Dairng and his minions who were busily removing munitions from army supply.

Maybe a full inventory of missing weapons from army barracks would be a good start.

Appears to me that closure is/was the order of the day here, and so a speculative judgement was handed down blaming the easiest target.

Your answer is based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

Obviously you havn't seen the footage of the reds in 2010.....

[renaissanc]

What was the Red Shirt doing at the time he was shot? Was he firing at the soldiers? Was he about to throw a grenade? This is relevant information. The Red Shirts who were killed were, I feel sure, not just standing around with a beer and having a chat about the weather.

[expat888]

I would think the court took all of that into consideration.

Edited March 26, 2014 by expat888

[aussieinthailand]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

[GeckosDiving]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your answer is BS and based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

[pisico]

"Therefore ... the court found that the deceased was killed by high-velocity bullet which penetrated his head and nerve system," the court inquest concluded, "A bullet fired from the direction of the military personnel who were operating under orders of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES)".

Nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers are under the command of the military???....so a civilian authority, according to this court, orders the army to shoot to kill....brilliant !

According to principles of British Common Law to this egregious instance of abuse of power, the Principal (PM and his DPM) are responsible for the actions of their agents: the Army.

The Thai court (not truly consistently neutral in cases involving Reds and/or Yellows) had no other alternative than to conclude that the unarmed civilians (whether protesters or not, as in the case of the Italian journalist) were killed by soldiers of the Royal Army UNDER ORDERS of the DPM in charge of CRES. That finding means only one thing: those who ordered the army to repress the protestors are guilty of the crimes committed by their agent: the army.

In a true democracy that is one of the checks and balances to limit the power of civilians in government.

Then again, TIT and this is TV, where laws, principles and precedents are but a suggestion, same as traffic laws and ordinances.

Edited March 26, 2014 by pisico

[gemini81]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your membership date matches your arrival date; after 2010. Sheesh, just look at loads of videos on youtube, notice who killed soldiers, stole ammunition, received graft payments, eye witness accounts documented of red/black shirts firing in and around the temple and burned 37 buildings for crying out loud.

Can't be this daft are you? Those are the facts, just look with your own eyes at the video footage. Those of us in the 'bamboo camp zone' around Sukhumvit who had trouble going in and out remember the violence and havoc of the red buffalo savages like it was yesterday. Think how ludicrous it is that all that went on along Sukhumvit! The only question that lurks in my mind is why the democratic party were so patient, whereas anywhere around the globe, there were have been loads more casualties and repercussions.

Edited March 26, 2014 by gemini81

[ChrisY1]

"Therefore ... the court found that the deceased was killed by high-velocity bullet which penetrated his head and nerve system," the court inquest concluded, "A bullet fired from the direction of the military personnel who were operating under orders of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES)".

Nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers are under the command of the military???....so a civilian authority, according to this court, orders the army to shoot to kill....brilliant !

According to principles of British Common Law to this egregious instance of abuse of power, the Principal (PM and his DPM) are responsible for the actions of their agents: the Army.

The Thai court (not truly consistently neutral in cases involving Reds and/or Yellows) had no other alternative than to conclude that the unarmed civilians (whether protesters or not, as in the case of the Italian journalist) were killed by soldiers of the Royal Army UNDER ORDERS of the DPM in charge of CRES. That finding means only one thing: those who ordered the army to repress the protestors are guilty of the crimes committed by their agent: the army.

In a true democracy that is one of the checks and balances to limit the power of civilians in government.

Then again, TIT and this is TV, where laws, principles and precedents are but a suggestion, same as traffic laws and ordinances.

Ok....that makes sense...thanks

[Baerboxer]

"Therefore ... the court found that the deceased was killed by high-velocity bullet which penetrated his head and nerve system," the court inquest concluded, "A bullet fired from the direction of the military personnel who were operating under orders of the Centre for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES)".

Nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers are under the command of the military???....so a civilian authority, according to this court, orders the army to shoot to kill....brilliant !

According to principles of British Common Law to this egregious instance of abuse of power, the Principal (PM and his DPM) are responsible for the actions of their agents: the Army.

The Thai court (not truly consistently neutral in cases involving Reds and/or Yellows) had no other alternative than to conclude that the unarmed civilians (whether protesters or not, as in the case of the Italian journalist) were killed by soldiers of the Royal Army UNDER ORDERS of the DPM in charge of CRES. That finding means only one thing: those who ordered the army to repress the protestors are guilty of the crimes committed by their agent: the army.

In a true democracy that is one of the checks and balances to limit the power of civilians in government.

Then again, TIT and this is TV, where laws, principles and precedents are but a suggestion, same as traffic laws and ordinances.

Your comments show your understanding of law is even lower than your grasp of politics,

Try doing some research before posting nonsense. Hint - there is no such thing as "British Common Law" - it doesn't exist. This is Thailand so even if there was something called "British Common Law", which there isn't, then it wouldn't apply, Thai law would.

[fab4]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your answer is BS and based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

I don't believe there was an answer in that post, it consists of questions. Questions that you plainly are uncomfortable with, judging by your reply.

I can answer one of the questions. It was suthep who signed the order authorising the troops to use live rounds.

[Evilbaz]

In the photo the soldiers are all looking upwards - as if looking for a sniper.

Or were the protesters shot all giants?

[ginjag]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your answer is BS and based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

I don't believe there was an answer in that post, it consists of questions. Questions that you plainly are uncomfortable with, judging by your reply.

I can answer one of the questions. It was suthep who signed the order authorising the troops to use live rounds.

WAS IT ??? if shot at with live rounds the troops are there to also defend themselves. another one sided post as per normal.

We never did anything wrong---it was the army---sick

[rametindallas]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

[fab4]

Well that's that, now just who gave the order to soldiers to use live rounds? so far all the top brass are saying no, not me, as is mark and well Suthep is just to busy to even appear and say No'p not me, But someone is responsible and that someone must be held accountable.

Now here's a question I hope someone with FACTS could answer, the 2010 deaths, (and not all were protesters one of which was a young nurse trying to aid the injured) inside the temple were attributed to the military, But I was under the impression that a temple is like a kind of sanctuary? and police can not enter to remove a person inside, because the land is now owned by whom? Is it owned by the head monk of Thailand? Is it now royal land? and it was fired upon.

No surprise everyone is saying no wasn't me who gave the order huh...

Your answer is BS and based completely on circumstantial BS just the fact please.

I don't believe there was an answer in that post, it consists of questions. Questions that you plainly are uncomfortable with, judging by your reply.

I can answer one of the questions. It was suthep who signed the order authorising the troops to use live rounds.

WAS IT ??? if shot at with live rounds the troops are there to also defend themselves. another one sided post as per normal.

We never did anything wrong---it was the army---sick

Are you referring to my post? I say nothing about troops being shot at with live rounds defending themselves - that's just your rant by extension.

How can a post that states the truth, acknowledged by the most non partisan people as being so,

"suthep signed the order authorising the troops to use live rounds"

be one sided?

You may not like to hear it but that is what happened.

[fab4]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

You are joking, right?

[pisico]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

[gemini81]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Why not do your own research? Unravel the truth, look at images, and watch a few youtube videos- showing live ammunition as a last and necessary resort.

Edited March 26, 2014 by gemini81

[rametindallas]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Sheer speculation. Which part is speculation?

If your theory holds water, There is no theory; only logic, which seems to escape you using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us: Seems you're the emotional one.

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

Facts and Data, PLEASE!! Where are YOUR facts?

[gemini81]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Sheer speculation. Which part is speculation?

If your theory holds water, There is no theory; only logic, which seems to escape you using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us: Seems you're the emotional one.

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

Facts and Data, PLEASE!! Where are YOUR facts?

Since he doesn't know, can't support anything and wasn't here and did no research-logic seems to be one who has no business discussing it then by trying to heckle other posters, eh?!

Edited March 26, 2014 by gemini81

[amerasian]

When u use the military, people die. Simple as that. They ate not security guards,or police. Just sayin

[gemini81]

When u use the military, people die. Simple as that. They ate not security guards,or police. Just sayin

Yeah, good thing they're not cannibals who 'ate' anyone.

Military personnel were victims firstly, which led to rubber bullets, which led to fire zones.

Your need to research is as great as your need to spell & communicate.

[whybother]

When u use the military, people die. Simple as that. They ate not security guards,or police. Just sayin

Recent experience shows that when you use the police, people die too.

[pisico]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Why not do your own research? Unravel the truth, look at images, and watch a few youtube videos- showing live ammunition as a last and necessary resort.

Instead of advising me to do a Youtube "research" Why can't you provide figures to back up claims that the Red shirts were an overpowering menace to the army?

Please, provide data, figures and facts.

I have seen countless videos and I was in the area too (from Rhatchadamnoeng, where it all began, to Rachatphrasong, where it all ended) and I saw a disproportionate level of force by the Army as opposed to what the Red shirts had in that regard.

I oppose the protest a la Red Shirt the same way I oppose this ongoing protest. To hold part of the city such as Bangkok hostage to political interests (in Suthep's case to evade a criminal court) only shows a complete disregard for the welfare of the people of Thailand. Tourism which accounts for 7 plus % of Thai economy is sharply declining, to mention only the most obvious example. Foreign investment is also contracting. Less revenue and investment means fewer jobs for Thais. This is what Suthep's "protest" is causing.

I am clear about this: I oppose protracted mass gatherings to show civil dissatisfaction.

Fair, unbiased and peaceful elections are the best way to oust a government that is a detriment to the good of the country.

[pisico]

"Fired from the direction of..." means nothing. I watched a video of masked gunmen on a balcony on Kok Wua intersection. One put a laser marker on Colonel Romklao and soon thereafter a grenade landed nearby and killed him. The balcony shooters were shooting at protesters (from the direction of the army) and at the army (from the direction of the protesters). There is also plenty of video and photos of heavily armed 'men in black' on-the-ground at Kok Wua. The calibre of the round is meaningless as more than 6,000 war weapons and ammunition had been stolen from and army depot six weeks before. Video of the army firing would not be able to distinguish between live rounds or blanks or rubber bullets. What bolsters the army's claim of not using live ammunition is that, if they were, the casualties would be in the thousands with deaths in the hundreds.

Sheer speculation.

If your theory holds water, using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us:

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest?

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period?

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period?

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period?

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period?

Facts and Data, PLEASE!!

Sheer speculation. Which part is speculation?

If your theory holds water, There is no theory; only logic, which seems to escape you using only facts and not emotional opinions, please tell us: Seems you're the emotional one.

1-how many Red Shirts were killed during the 2010 protest? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

2- how many soldiers were killed during the same period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

3- How many civilians (people in the Wat, nurses, journalists, etc) died during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

4- how many soldiers were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

5- How many civilians (red shirts or not) were wounded during that period? Irrelevant to the case in the OP

Facts and Data, PLEASE!! Where are YOUR facts?

All your comment is speculation. But, since you are the one making the speculation that your "logic" is tantamount to data, why not answer the specific questions I asked?

So... according to your logic, all the deaths and casualties are irrelevant because it does not suit your comment. Capricious and not logical.

You asserted (NOT ME) that if the army had used live ammo the casualties would be in the hundreds.

Then my questions are relevant: how many casualties including deaths? How many hundreds????

It's OK, I know that data and facts are like anathema.

[pisico]

It's strange that the DSI, prosecutors and courts go to so much trouble to confirm the obvious that red shirt protestors rioting in front of armed soldiers in a state of emergency were killed by the military who were given complete immunity from prosecution. That means that no action can be taken apart from frivolous murder prosecutions against politicians which have nil chance of success because the prosecution has to prove that they intended the kill the named victims, even though they were unaware of their existence on the planet.

Meanwhile thousands of people have been killed in the South, since Thaksin poured gasoline on the flames when he was PM, many of whom have allegedly been killed by military death squads in plain clothes. No action is taken over these murders, even though the military has no immunity from prosecution while operating in plain clothes, even under the state of emergency. This is not to mention the countless forced disappearances. I guess this type of violence is acceptable in the South, particularly when it is perpetrated against Malay Muslims who are regarded as second class citizens.

Totally agree with your comment. Summarizes Thainess in action...in the courts, where the prevailing winds rule..

Thainess is quirky, self-absorbed, one sided (most of the time) and xenophobic.

[Jawnie]

It is the duty of the State, ie., the Army, to act reasonably even when others do not. It is not reasonable for Army soldiers to shoot into crowds of mostly unarmed protesters.