Two troops shot, injured allegedly by STR guards

[Fat Haggis]

Khunken

Actually they don't have the right, as there's apparently a law that prevents the carrying of a weapon in a public place. It's very different from owning a legal weapon, and you're carrying it within a safe locked container from your home to a range.

There's no law that permits the carrying of a weapons in public in Thailand, I've been informed of this several times now.

[khunken]

Being a soldier, regardless of what ever country you come from carries inherent risks, the function of a soldier, trained in combat is to close in and kill the enemy, soldiers are never trained for peace, they're trained for war, the old saying goes in peace you train for war and in war you fight for peace.

Being a soldier means that you have to from time to time accept that there's a possibility you will be placed in harms way, and that also could result in your death or serious injury, it's very different for conscripted troops as they had no choice about "joining up" A volunteer is different, as an Infantry soldier, you have one single mission and purpose, and that's a trained killing machine, in the BritMil it was "The Mean Lean Green Killing Machine" as that's what you are, you're not trained to wound, you're trained to kill.. the slogan back in the 80's when being taught to shoot was something along the lines of "Shoot to Kill"

There's no such thing as "just shoot him in the leg, that'll stop him" as there's no guarantee that a high velocity round hitting you in the thigh will not hit a bone and be deflected out your back/ass/head.. or even sever your femoral artery, same with an arm shot and the bracial artery, you aim for centre mass..period.

Untrained civilians armed with illegally held High Velocity weapons, for the better part lack the understanding of combat shooting, or combat field care/first aid.

As for apportioning blame as to what the incident happened and saying someone higher up should be held accountable, why? If they were following orders/Instructions why would they be held to account? If your boss sent you across town to collect a parcel and you got hit by a car and were seriously injured, would your boss be held accountable? No he wouldn't but the person who was in the car would!!

I don't disagree with most of what you said. However soldiers have been called upon to undertake peace-keeping duties in various conflicts in the world. Before allowing them to take part they need some basic training in less lethal than shoot-to-kill duties. They also need to be recognisable as soldiers and not on patrol out of uniform. So, the officer who sent them on patrol does bear some responsibility for them being shot.

Having said that, the trigger-happy guards with unknown training are the main culprits. Yes, they have been under attack from Ko Tee's mob and others who the police won't act against, but a random shooting of men on a motorbike is never justified.

The shooters should be arrested (along with many others who have killed protestors) and the army officer subjected to disciplinary action for putting his men in a dangerous position.

Yes, you're correct about the Peace Keeping roles, but their primary role is still an Infantry soldier, it's when Soldiers are sent in to conduct Internal Security Roles that hits all the bumps and ruts, different rules, and have to have a more softly softly role, where it's more about the presence, and it's not easy trying to restore civil order either.

Why do they need to be recognisable as soldiers? Not if they were on a covert mission, they may have something in place so that other soldiers would be able to identify them as to minimise a blue on blue (friendly fire) They will have been carrying their ID's, do undercover policemen make themselves recongniseable? Do they wear "Look at me, I'm an undercover drugs/vice officer t-shirt" They only make themselves known when they've either been sussed, or making the busts.

It's called OPSEC.

Sorry but the officer who sent them on a mission bares no responsibility at all, as the orders were not unlawful, and done out of malice, again if your boss sends you to collect documents from across town, and you get struck down by a car driven by a drunk, without a licence, he's some what responsible for your accident?

Unless we are aware of the mission brief and the orders process, then all we can do is assume, but things like "threats" in certain areas should have been covered, the last thing these guys expected, was to go out on a mission and be shot, that's for sure, this is why I'm very much against the arming of these protesters, especially with illegally held weapons, as there's no accountability what so ever.

If you want to go down that route, then go right to the top and blame General Prayuth, as he's overall in Command of the Army, and accountability starts at the top, not the bottom, or the middle, he then can apportion blame back to the Government, who ordered the Army onto the streets, but the simple fact here is that soldiers were shot and seriously wounded in the line of duty with an illegally held weapon, within a movement that has NO accountability as to the actions of the guards, no accountability over where these weapons came from, and no accountability of the state of mind of the said guard as well.

The leadership of the Students Union should be the ones held accountable, in that they have knowingly hired guards who are poorly trained, and armed with illegal weapons, some of these stolen military type weapons. It's called turning a blind eye in that direction, you know it's there, you know it's happening, but it's for your benefit, and the benefit of the others, it's a necessary evil, but one you've sanctioned, sorry but that to me is every bit as bad as corruption, you want to talk about reforms, and reforming the police but are having to use illegal weapons as a means in which to push these reforms through, you want the laws to be changed and made tougher, but blatantly break the law, by sanctioning the use of illegally held weapons at the same time? There's a huge amount of irony and hypocrisy in doing so.

We all know the reasons why there's armed guards, but if you're the one hiring them to protect you, then you're the one who needs to be held accountable if something was to go wrong, as it clearly did here, if you want to point fingers at the Army Chain of Command, then use the same principle and call into account the student leadership over this.

Sorry Fat Haggis but you've lost the plot. The leader of the students group is responsible but the leader of the army guys is not - double standards (hypocrisy).

No army personnel should be on 'special missions' in civilian clothes on the streets of Bangkok. Yes, police need to do undercover work in civvies but that's irrelevant to this case. Gen Prayuth only should be responsible if he had knowledge of the operation or gave the order. Whoever gave the order is responsible.

Did the leader of the students give the order to shoot randomly at men on a motorcycle? Just hiring the guards is not culpability. As the students network is not a formal organisation, the individual guards have to bear responsibility.

Your comments about reform are ridiculous. The root cause of people being killed at the protests is the unwillingness of the police, led by those CAPO stooges, to either make an effort to protect protestors or arrest those responsible for the attacks on them. They know full well who some of the armed mobs are and Ko Tee is a good example of instead of arresting him the BIB escorted him out of Bangkok after the Laksi fracas.

I would much prefer to see no armed guards but having them to defend the bulk of the protestors is completely justified. Here, they overstepped the mark and should be arrested - only when the police start arresting others who have overstepped the mark - lethally- much earlier. It's called no double standards.

Yes, no one has accountability - from Thaksin down to the humble protest guard. Asking for one-sided accountability is just more hypocrisy.

[Smokemachine]

Anyone follow up this news?

Heard the army have provide clarification publicly in the Thai news that the unknown shooters are not the STR guards.

[Mr Yim]

Staggering hypocrisy from the Suthep mob and the acolyte supporters on this forum: they beg for support / security from the army and when it is offered, apparently shoot them as they please. These scumbag guards need to be sent to prison for a very long time. No one is safe from their indiscriminate, trigger-happy lunacy

Really you should keep quiet as you have no idea what is going on at these protest sites... This is something for Thai people to sort out for themselves. If Farang don't like what is happening here, there is a Malaysian 777 waiting to take you to another destination. We can Never understand Thai mentality, so better shut up and stay dumb... If you were not so stupid, you would be a politician in your home country, and here you are , a walking ATM machine for some Thai lady... Reap what you sow..!

Idiotic response of the day. No other comment needed.

[Tatsujin]

Hopefully whoever shot the soldiers will be held fully accountable for their actions.

I in no way want to excuse this despicable shooting but a question that has to be asked is why were soldiers on patrol in civilian clothes?

"watermelon" soldiers? I wonder if they were armed also?

Really? The army deployed these people and you now claim "watermelon".

Brilliant. Is this the best you can do to justify the use of high powered assault weapons on people? Are you aware that the STR thugs fired first? No challenge, no warning.

Damn you're a drama queen. I didn't "claim" anything, I asked a question you blind <deleted> <deleted>.

The rest of your rant is speculation, same as mine.

EDIT: seems the latest news on Thai TV is contradicting your claim that it was STR that fired first and that indeed it wasn't them at all, so keep your hair on and wait til some things are verified before going off on one.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Tatsujin

[Fat Haggis]

Being a soldier, regardless of what ever country you come from carries inherent risks, the function of a soldier, trained in combat is to close in and kill the enemy, soldiers are never trained for peace, they're trained for war, the old saying goes in peace you train for war and in war you fight for peace.

Being a soldier means that you have to from time to time accept that there's a possibility you will be placed in harms way, and that also could result in your death or serious injury, it's very different for conscripted troops as they had no choice about "joining up" A volunteer is different, as an Infantry soldier, you have one single mission and purpose, and that's a trained killing machine, in the BritMil it was "The Mean Lean Green Killing Machine" as that's what you are, you're not trained to wound, you're trained to kill.. the slogan back in the 80's when being taught to shoot was something along the lines of "Shoot to Kill"

There's no such thing as "just shoot him in the leg, that'll stop him" as there's no guarantee that a high velocity round hitting you in the thigh will not hit a bone and be deflected out your back/ass/head.. or even sever your femoral artery, same with an arm shot and the bracial artery, you aim for centre mass..period.

Untrained civilians armed with illegally held High Velocity weapons, for the better part lack the understanding of combat shooting, or combat field care/first aid.

As for apportioning blame as to what the incident happened and saying someone higher up should be held accountable, why? If they were following orders/Instructions why would they be held to account? If your boss sent you across town to collect a parcel and you got hit by a car and were seriously injured, would your boss be held accountable? No he wouldn't but the person who was in the car would!!

I don't disagree with most of what you said. However soldiers have been called upon to undertake peace-keeping duties in various conflicts in the world. Before allowing them to take part they need some basic training in less lethal than shoot-to-kill duties. They also need to be recognisable as soldiers and not on patrol out of uniform. So, the officer who sent them on patrol does bear some responsibility for them being shot.

Having said that, the trigger-happy guards with unknown training are the main culprits. Yes, they have been under attack from Ko Tee's mob and others who the police won't act against, but a random shooting of men on a motorbike is never justified.

The shooters should be arrested (along with many others who have killed protestors) and the army officer subjected to disciplinary action for putting his men in a dangerous position.

Yes, you're correct about the Peace Keeping roles, but their primary role is still an Infantry soldier, it's when Soldiers are sent in to conduct Internal Security Roles that hits all the bumps and ruts, different rules, and have to have a more softly softly role, where it's more about the presence, and it's not easy trying to restore civil order either.

Why do they need to be recognisable as soldiers? Not if they were on a covert mission, they may have something in place so that other soldiers would be able to identify them as to minimise a blue on blue (friendly fire) They will have been carrying their ID's, do undercover policemen make themselves recongniseable? Do they wear "Look at me, I'm an undercover drugs/vice officer t-shirt" They only make themselves known when they've either been sussed, or making the busts.

It's called OPSEC.

Sorry but the officer who sent them on a mission bares no responsibility at all, as the orders were not unlawful, and done out of malice, again if your boss sends you to collect documents from across town, and you get struck down by a car driven by a drunk, without a licence, he's some what responsible for your accident?

Unless we are aware of the mission brief and the orders process, then all we can do is assume, but things like "threats" in certain areas should have been covered, the last thing these guys expected, was to go out on a mission and be shot, that's for sure, this is why I'm very much against the arming of these protesters, especially with illegally held weapons, as there's no accountability what so ever.

If you want to go down that route, then go right to the top and blame General Prayuth, as he's overall in Command of the Army, and accountability starts at the top, not the bottom, or the middle, he then can apportion blame back to the Government, who ordered the Army onto the streets, but the simple fact here is that soldiers were shot and seriously wounded in the line of duty with an illegally held weapon, within a movement that has NO accountability as to the actions of the guards, no accountability over where these weapons came from, and no accountability of the state of mind of the said guard as well.

The leadership of the Students Union should be the ones held accountable, in that they have knowingly hired guards who are poorly trained, and armed with illegal weapons, some of these stolen military type weapons. It's called turning a blind eye in that direction, you know it's there, you know it's happening, but it's for your benefit, and the benefit of the others, it's a necessary evil, but one you've sanctioned, sorry but that to me is every bit as bad as corruption, you want to talk about reforms, and reforming the police but are having to use illegal weapons as a means in which to push these reforms through, you want the laws to be changed and made tougher, but blatantly break the law, by sanctioning the use of illegally held weapons at the same time? There's a huge amount of irony and hypocrisy in doing so.

We all know the reasons why there's armed guards, but if you're the one hiring them to protect you, then you're the one who needs to be held accountable if something was to go wrong, as it clearly did here, if you want to point fingers at the Army Chain of Command, then use the same principle and call into account the student leadership over this.

Sorry Fat Haggis but you've lost the plot. The leader of the students group is responsible but the leader of the army guys is not - double standards (hypocrisy).

No army personnel should be on 'special missions' in civilian clothes on the streets of Bangkok. Yes, police need to do undercover work in civvies but that's irrelevant to this case. Gen Prayuth only should be responsible if he had knowledge of the operation or gave the order. Whoever gave the order is responsible.

Did the leader of the students give the order to shoot randomly at men on a motorcycle? Just hiring the guards is not culpability. As the students network is not a formal organisation, the individual guards have to bear responsibility.

Your comments about reform are ridiculous. The root cause of people being killed at the protests is the unwillingness of the police, led by those CAPO stooges, to either make an effort to protect protestors or arrest those responsible for the attacks on them. They know full well who some of the armed mobs are and Ko Tee is a good example of instead of arresting him the BIB escorted him out of Bangkok after the Laksi fracas.

I would much prefer to see no armed guards but having them to defend the bulk of the protestors is completely justified. Here, they overstepped the mark and should be arrested - only when the police start arresting others who have overstepped the mark - lethally- much earlier. It's called no double standards.

Yes, no one has accountability - from Thaksin down to the humble protest guard. Asking for one-sided accountability is just more hypocrisy.

You've obviously never served in the Armed Forces or you'd understand a lot more about Orders etc. How have I lost the plot? You're the one who said the officer who issued the mission orders should be held accountable... I've asked several times why... you cannot give an answer, it's simple, if you're a soldier and a superior gives you an order/mission, you follow these without question.

I've said if you want to hold the OIC accountable, then it works both ways, in my book, accountability starts at the TOP, not the bottom, as it's always the case of "I was only doing as I was told/following orders

Until the orders for this specific mission are out in the open, then you're making assumptions, covert operations happen all over the globe by Armed Forces, Armed and Unarmed, depending on the laws of the land, the idea of covert activity is so that you DONT look like Soldiers, and are inconspicuous in name and nature. Are you Naive enough to not understand that Thai Military Intelligence conducts most of its work gathering intelligence when they're OUT of uniform and doing so covertly ??? You are Naive enough to not understand that Thai Military Intelligence gathers said information on many many different groups, places and people? That is their job. The mission details here in this case will never be made public as once again, it's called OPSEC, a concept you're clearly not aware of, it's the same as the Thai Navy SEAL's, not one of their missions were ever made public after the 2 were caught moonlighting, and their Commander has since been removed from his post, as I said what should happen at the time.

Again, I'll put in in lay mans terms and try and answer it instead of trying to dodge the question, your boss sends you across town to collect a parcel and you get knocked off your moped, by a drunk tuk tuk driver, is your boss responsible and therefore accountable as to what happened to you? .. a straight yes or no is suffice

WHO gave the orders to the guards in that they were free to engage "civilians" ? Who gave these guards these illegal weapons? Who hired these guards? Who trained these guards in said use of the weapons, who is accountable for their actions?

Someone must have set up procedures that allowed the guards to engage targets, who? Someone must have given them some kind of training to define "Suspicious" activity.... a lot of who's there, I sound like a &lt;deleted&gt; owl, but you're wanting to put the blame on the OIC of this mission, and yet you don't seem to be too interested in all the questions I've asked?? Are you turning a "blind eye" towards the actions of the guard the?

I mentioned the reforms purely because people have stated that the law needs to be overhauled as well, but these reforms that you want, you're allowing illegal weapons being used and not for the first time where there's been people hit by gunshots , I'm not here to debate the reason behind WHY they're armed, this is about what happened, and who is accountable, you are blaming the Army, and not seeing that there's 2 sides who IF there was blame to be apportioned, need to have fingers pointed at them.

The comment about General Prayuth and orders, ok, it's called the Chain of Command, the Officer who sent these guys out didn't just dream up "Oh I think I'll send my men out tonight in civvies" did he?, he himself would have received a mission notification, someone somewhere planned the mission, these missions are normally Generated by a Higher Command, the Brigade Commander will have seen a need for a certain mission, and will have passed it down, and in the end, the OIC will have carried out his own orders.

I don't see how you don't understand this?

[smedly]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

you are delusional if you are seriously comparing what is going on in BKK 2014 with what went on in 2010, the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them then you need to take a real hard look at what you are reading, also have a look at the difference between offence and defence

As has been explained to you time and time again - were the police refuse to do their duty and act for all of the Thai people then these guards have got to take it upon themselves to provide their own protection/defence against attacks from bombs grenades and assault rifles they have no choice, if they weren't under constant attack by red terrorists then there would be no need to have arms for protection

The OP on this thread is a police report - and therefore is scripted by the government, I for one do not believe the disclosed details of this incident as I trust nothing they have to say

If these soldiers were on official duty then their commanders need a serious reprimand for putting them in danger, if they were not on duty then I would question their motives for being there in the first place or perhaps they were not soldiers at all - like I said I trust nothing that comes from this administration - we know they tell lies and distort the truth

and worth noting - the OP refers to these men as troops - if they were not in uniform by every convention and rules of engagement - they were not troops if in plain clothes

Edited April 6, 2014 by smedly

[fab4]

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

you are delusional if you are seriously comparing what is going on in BKK 2014 with what went on in 2010, the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them then you need to take a real hard look at what you are reading, also have a look at the difference between offence and defence

As has been explained to you time and time again - were the police refuse to do their duty and act for all of the Thai people then these guards have got to take it upon themselves to provide their own protection/defence against attacks from bombs grenades and assault rifles they have no choice, if they weren't under constant attack by red terrorists then there would be no need to have arms for protection

The OP on this thread is a police report - and therefore is scripted by the government, I for one do not believe the disclosed details of this incident as I trust nothing they have to say

If these soldiers were on official duty then their commanders need a serious reprimand for putting them in danger, if they were not on duty then I would question their motives for being there in the first place or perhaps they were not soldiers at all - like I said I trust nothing that comes from this administration - we know they tell lies and distort the truth

and worth noting - the OP refers to these men as troops - if they were not in uniform by every convention and rules of engagement - they were not troops if in plain clothes

"the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them"

[khunken]

I don't disagree with most of what you said. However soldiers have been called upon to undertake peace-keeping duties in various conflicts in the world. Before allowing them to take part they need some basic training in less lethal than shoot-to-kill duties. They also need to be recognisable as soldiers and not on patrol out of uniform. So, the officer who sent them on patrol does bear some responsibility for them being shot.

Having said that, the trigger-happy guards with unknown training are the main culprits. Yes, they have been under attack from Ko Tee's mob and others who the police won't act against, but a random shooting of men on a motorbike is never justified.

The shooters should be arrested (along with many others who have killed protestors) and the army officer subjected to disciplinary action for putting his men in a dangerous position.

Yes, you're correct about the Peace Keeping roles, but their primary role is still an Infantry soldier, it's when Soldiers are sent in to conduct Internal Security Roles that hits all the bumps and ruts, different rules, and have to have a more softly softly role, where it's more about the presence, and it's not easy trying to restore civil order either.

Why do they need to be recognisable as soldiers? Not if they were on a covert mission, they may have something in place so that other soldiers would be able to identify them as to minimise a blue on blue (friendly fire) They will have been carrying their ID's, do undercover policemen make themselves recongniseable? Do they wear "Look at me, I'm an undercover drugs/vice officer t-shirt" They only make themselves known when they've either been sussed, or making the busts.

It's called OPSEC.

Sorry but the officer who sent them on a mission bares no responsibility at all, as the orders were not unlawful, and done out of malice, again if your boss sends you to collect documents from across town, and you get struck down by a car driven by a drunk, without a licence, he's some what responsible for your accident?

Unless we are aware of the mission brief and the orders process, then all we can do is assume, but things like "threats" in certain areas should have been covered, the last thing these guys expected, was to go out on a mission and be shot, that's for sure, this is why I'm very much against the arming of these protesters, especially with illegally held weapons, as there's no accountability what so ever.

If you want to go down that route, then go right to the top and blame General Prayuth, as he's overall in Command of the Army, and accountability starts at the top, not the bottom, or the middle, he then can apportion blame back to the Government, who ordered the Army onto the streets, but the simple fact here is that soldiers were shot and seriously wounded in the line of duty with an illegally held weapon, within a movement that has NO accountability as to the actions of the guards, no accountability over where these weapons came from, and no accountability of the state of mind of the said guard as well.

The leadership of the Students Union should be the ones held accountable, in that they have knowingly hired guards who are poorly trained, and armed with illegal weapons, some of these stolen military type weapons. It's called turning a blind eye in that direction, you know it's there, you know it's happening, but it's for your benefit, and the benefit of the others, it's a necessary evil, but one you've sanctioned, sorry but that to me is every bit as bad as corruption, you want to talk about reforms, and reforming the police but are having to use illegal weapons as a means in which to push these reforms through, you want the laws to be changed and made tougher, but blatantly break the law, by sanctioning the use of illegally held weapons at the same time? There's a huge amount of irony and hypocrisy in doing so.

We all know the reasons why there's armed guards, but if you're the one hiring them to protect you, then you're the one who needs to be held accountable if something was to go wrong, as it clearly did here, if you want to point fingers at the Army Chain of Command, then use the same principle and call into account the student leadership over this.

Sorry Fat Haggis but you've lost the plot. The leader of the students group is responsible but the leader of the army guys is not - double standards (hypocrisy).

No army personnel should be on 'special missions' in civilian clothes on the streets of Bangkok. Yes, police need to do undercover work in civvies but that's irrelevant to this case. Gen Prayuth only should be responsible if he had knowledge of the operation or gave the order. Whoever gave the order is responsible.

Did the leader of the students give the order to shoot randomly at men on a motorcycle? Just hiring the guards is not culpability. As the students network is not a formal organisation, the individual guards have to bear responsibility.

Your comments about reform are ridiculous. The root cause of people being killed at the protests is the unwillingness of the police, led by those CAPO stooges, to either make an effort to protect protestors or arrest those responsible for the attacks on them. They know full well who some of the armed mobs are and Ko Tee is a good example of instead of arresting him the BIB escorted him out of Bangkok after the Laksi fracas.

I would much prefer to see no armed guards but having them to defend the bulk of the protestors is completely justified. Here, they overstepped the mark and should be arrested - only when the police start arresting others who have overstepped the mark - lethally- much earlier. It's called no double standards.

Yes, no one has accountability - from Thaksin down to the humble protest guard. Asking for one-sided accountability is just more hypocrisy.

You've obviously never served in the Armed Forces or you'd understand a lot more about Orders etc. How have I lost the plot? You're the one who said the officer who issued the mission orders should be held accountable... I've asked several times why... you cannot give an answer, it's simple, if you're a soldier and a superior gives you an order/mission, you follow these without question.

I've said if you want to hold the OIC accountable, then it works both ways, in my book, accountability starts at the TOP, not the bottom, as it's always the case of "I was only doing as I was told/following orders

Until the orders for this specific mission are out in the open, then you're making assumptions, covert operations happen all over the globe by Armed Forces, Armed and Unarmed, depending on the laws of the land, the idea of covert activity is so that you DONT look like Soldiers, and are inconspicuous in name and nature. Are you Naive enough to not understand that Thai Military Intelligence conducts most of its work gathering intelligence when they're OUT of uniform and doing so covertly ??? You are Naive enough to not understand that Thai Military Intelligence gathers said information on many many different groups, places and people? That is their job. The mission details here in this case will never be made public as once again, it's called OPSEC, a concept you're clearly not aware of, it's the same as the Thai Navy SEAL's, not one of their missions were ever made public after the 2 were caught moonlighting, and their Commander has since been removed from his post, as I said what should happen at the time.

Again, I'll put in in lay mans terms and try and answer it instead of trying to dodge the question, your boss sends you across town to collect a parcel and you get knocked off your moped, by a drunk tuk tuk driver, is your boss responsible and therefore accountable as to what happened to you? .. a straight yes or no is suffice

WHO gave the orders to the guards in that they were free to engage "civilians" ? Who gave these guards these illegal weapons? Who hired these guards? Who trained these guards in said use of the weapons, who is accountable for their actions?

Someone must have set up procedures that allowed the guards to engage targets, who? Someone must have given them some kind of training to define "Suspicious" activity.... a lot of who's there, I sound like a <deleted> owl, but you're wanting to put the blame on the OIC of this mission, and yet you don't seem to be too interested in all the questions I've asked?? Are you turning a "blind eye" towards the actions of the guard the?

I mentioned the reforms purely because people have stated that the law needs to be overhauled as well, but these reforms that you want, you're allowing illegal weapons being used and not for the first time where there's been people hit by gunshots , I'm not here to debate the reason behind WHY they're armed, this is about what happened, and who is accountable, you are blaming the Army, and not seeing that there's 2 sides who IF there was blame to be apportioned, need to have fingers pointed at them.

The comment about General Prayuth and orders, ok, it's called the Chain of Command, the Officer who sent these guys out didn't just dream up "Oh I think I'll send my men out tonight in civvies" did he?, he himself would have received a mission notification, someone somewhere planned the mission, these missions are normally Generated by a Higher Command, the Brigade Commander will have seen a need for a certain mission, and will have passed it down, and in the end, the OIC will have carried out his own orders.

I don't see how you don't understand this?

One word of advice - don't assume that someone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of how an army functions. I did serve and can only take your comment as pure arrogance. I thought you were one of the more thoughtful red/PTP-leaning posters - but it seems I was wrong.

All your comments about army orders, chain of command are just theoretical. Your comparisons are based on an army in another country (the UK?). You apparently have no idea how the Thai army operates and are just making assumptions. My knowledge of the Thai army is the same so all your efforts are just BS.

I didn't respond to your analogy because it is senseless and bears no relation to the case here.

The two moonlighting navy seals has as much relevance to the Op as Major Mike Hoare.

Let me make it simple for you to understand, Whoever gave the order to send out the two army personnel is partly responsible for what happened to them. (back to square one) If the student guards were told to shoot at men on motorcycles, whoever gave the order is partly culpable but the shooters are the ultimate perpetrators.

No, you cannot debate why they're armed because that brings up the lack of law enforcement and red shirt supporting BIB that is not on your agenda. To say I'm blaming the army is either a lie or you haven't read my posts. Go and read them - I said that the army were partly culpable but the shooters were the more blameworthy. Please don't twist what I said.

If what other posters are saying that the SRT group were not to blame is true - some egg on face may result.

[Fat Haggis]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

you are delusional if you are seriously comparing what is going on in BKK 2014 with what went on in 2010, the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them then you need to take a real hard look at what you are reading, also have a look at the difference between offence and defence

As has been explained to you time and time again - were the police refuse to do their duty and act for all of the Thai people then these guards have got to take it upon themselves to provide their own protection/defence against attacks from bombs grenades and assault rifles they have no choice, if they weren't under constant attack by red terrorists then there would be no need to have arms for protection

The OP on this thread is a police report - and therefore is scripted by the government, I for one do not believe the disclosed details of this incident as I trust nothing they have to say

If these soldiers were on official duty then their commanders need a serious reprimand for putting them in danger, if they were not on duty then I would question their motives for being there in the first place or perhaps they were not soldiers at all - like I said I trust nothing that comes from this administration - we know they tell lies and distort the truth

and worth noting - the OP refers to these men as troops - if they were not in uniform by every convention and rules of engagement - they were not troops if in plain clothes

What a load of &lt;deleted&gt; that you've written there especially the part in Bold!!!

Armed Forces of all branches do tonnes off operational duties in civilian clothing!! Special Forces, Intelligence, PsyOps, all conduct missions as and when it dictates in civilian clothing, it's called Covert Ops.. I can't believe you wrote that, you clearly know nothing about ROE's as that's got &lt;deleted&gt; all to do with the wearing of a uniform, it's about the use of weapons.

What convention would that be? The Geneva Convention? Not all Armed Forces signed up to that.. Most of the time neither has your enemy!!

[Fat Haggis]

One word of advice - don't assume that someone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of how an army functions. I did serve and can only take your comment as pure arrogance. I thought you were one of the more thoughtful red/PTP-leaning posters - but it seems I was wrong.

All your comments about army orders, chain of command are just theoretical. Your comparisons are based on an army in another country (the UK?). You apparently have no idea how the Thai army operates and are just making assumptions. My knowledge of the Thai army is the same so all your efforts are just BS.

I didn't respond to your analogy because it is senseless and bears no relation to the case here.

The two moonlighting navy seals has as much relevance to the Op as Major Mike Hoare.

Let me make it simple for you to understand, Whoever gave the order to send out the two army personnel is partly responsible for what happened to them. (back to square one) If the student guards were told to shoot at men on motorcycles, whoever gave the order is partly culpable but the shooters are the ultimate perpetrators.

No, you cannot debate why they're armed because that brings up the lack of law enforcement and red shirt supporting BIB that is not on your agenda. To say I'm blaming the army is either a lie or you haven't read my posts. Go and read them - I said that the army were partly culpable but the shooters were the more blameworthy. Please don't twist what I said.

If what other posters are saying that the SRT group were not to blame is true - some egg on face may result.

I'll give you that point on the assumption, but if you served, then you know all about conducting orders and Chain of Command and who and where orders come from;)

Now you've done the very same thing is assuming I'm a Red/PTP person, I'm not, If I was Thai. I'd be an Abhisit follower, just because I'm critical of how the PDRC has acted, you've assumed that I'm a Red Pro Government fanboy, WRONG!!!! I couldn't care less about Thaksin or the PTP/UDD/Reds, whites, or Yellows.

I you know nothing, same as myself about the RTA, then that would make all your comments equally bullshit, as WE know nothing about how their Army operates and in particular the Command Structure, and who is the Operations Officer, who plans and executes the missions as handed down to him

The two moonlight SEAL's are relevant as they too claimed they were following orders, and in civilian clothes, they were lucky, they didn't get shot Again, it comes down to accountability and responsibility.

Once again, you seem to be almost exonerating the Guards, if it was them, from having any accountability, the ones who fired the shot are indeed culpable, but who's orders were they following to be accountable?

Round and round and round we go I know where you're coming from, though, I'm looking at this from a very different direction from you, you're a Suthep follower, I'm not, I'm looking at this from the outside, you're not.

I will however apologise to you for wrongly assuming you've never served, I'll just have to take your word for it, same as you will have to take mine

IF it's found out that these were not SRT Guards, then I'm sorry, it wont matter to me, no egg on my face, more egg on the face of the Army and the Police, and would highlight that nobody can be trusted, it's like someone once told me "How do you know when a Thai is lying? " ...their lips are moving.

There has been over the past 4 months exaggerations, gross exaggerations, distortions and gross distortions of the truth, coming from the Armed Forces, the Army Special Forces guys caught with weapons and ammunition in a PDRC area, and the well documented Navy SEAL's cases.

Mike Hoare? is that the best you could come up with? Bob Dennard would had the same effect....none

I would like to thank you though for the debate, it's passed my afternoon nicely indeed.. thanks

[khunken]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

you are delusional if you are seriously comparing what is going on in BKK 2014 with what went on in 2010, the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them then you need to take a real hard look at what you are reading, also have a look at the difference between offence and defence

As has been explained to you time and time again - were the police refuse to do their duty and act for all of the Thai people then these guards have got to take it upon themselves to provide their own protection/defence against attacks from bombs grenades and assault rifles they have no choice, if they weren't under constant attack by red terrorists then there would be no need to have arms for protection

The OP on this thread is a police report - and therefore is scripted by the government, I for one do not believe the disclosed details of this incident as I trust nothing they have to say

If these soldiers were on official duty then their commanders need a serious reprimand for putting them in danger, if they were not on duty then I would question their motives for being there in the first place or perhaps they were not soldiers at all - like I said I trust nothing that comes from this administration - we know they tell lies and distort the truth

and worth noting - the OP refers to these men as troops - if they were not in uniform by every convention and rules of engagement - they were not troops if in plain clothes

What a load of <deleted> that you've written there especially the part in Bold!!!

Armed Forces of all branches do tonnes off operational duties in civilian clothing!! Special Forces, Intelligence, PsyOps, all conduct missions as and when it dictates in civilian clothing, it's called Covert Ops.. I can't believe you wrote that, you clearly know nothing about ROE's as that's got <deleted> all to do with the wearing of a uniform, it's about the use of weapons.

What convention would that be? The Geneva Convention? Not all Armed Forces signed up to that.. Most of the time neither has your enemy!!

Here you are posting the same rubbish that you used to reply to my posts. Smedly is absolutely correct in what he says. Soldiers moonlighting - under orders or not - as civilians are nothing but civilians and are under common law. Yes, the army may well protect them (not unusual here. Read up on the Kwanchai shooting case where arrests have been issued for military personnel, acting as contract enforcers for some big-wig.

Your comment about the Geneva Convention highlights your lack of knowledge as it is signed & ratified by governments not armies.

[Robby nz]

Should also be noted that at about the same time unarmed troops were attacked and wounded by gunfire and a grenade.

Posted Today, 06:49

Two soldiers injured in gun and bomb attack

BANGKOK: -- Two soldiers standing guard at a security bunker near Benchamabophit Temple were seriously injured when unknown number of armed men opened fire and threw a hand grenade at their bunker Saturday night.

The Erawan emergency centre said the two soldiers were rushed to Ramathibodi hospital for emergency operation.

Both were wounded on the chest and doctors have to insert tubes to drain blood from their chests.

The scene of attack is near the Royal Plaza where a police tow truck was damaged when two men riding on a motorcycle planted a TNT explosive beneath the vehicle and escaped Friday night. Shortly after they fled the bomb exploded.

Nobody was injured but the explosion caused a crater on the concrete road and punctured the tyre of the truck.

The Center said since the political violence broke out at end of November last year until Saturday, 21 people have been killed and 736 injured

Source: http://englishnews.t...gun-bomb-attack

[khunken]

One word of advice - don't assume that someone who disagrees with you has no knowledge of how an army functions. I did serve and can only take your comment as pure arrogance. I thought you were one of the more thoughtful red/PTP-leaning posters - but it seems I was wrong.

All your comments about army orders, chain of command are just theoretical. Your comparisons are based on an army in another country (the UK?). You apparently have no idea how the Thai army operates and are just making assumptions. My knowledge of the Thai army is the same so all your efforts are just BS.

I didn't respond to your analogy because it is senseless and bears no relation to the case here.

The two moonlighting navy seals has as much relevance to the Op as Major Mike Hoare.

Let me make it simple for you to understand, Whoever gave the order to send out the two army personnel is partly responsible for what happened to them. (back to square one) If the student guards were told to shoot at men on motorcycles, whoever gave the order is partly culpable but the shooters are the ultimate perpetrators.

No, you cannot debate why they're armed because that brings up the lack of law enforcement and red shirt supporting BIB that is not on your agenda. To say I'm blaming the army is either a lie or you haven't read my posts. Go and read them - I said that the army were partly culpable but the shooters were the more blameworthy. Please don't twist what I said.

If what other posters are saying that the SRT group were not to blame is true - some egg on face may result.

I'll give you that point on the assumption, but if you served, then you know all about conducting orders and Chain of Command and who and where orders come from;)

Now you've done the very same thing is assuming I'm a Red/PTP person, I'm not, If I was Thai. I'd be an Abhisit follower, just because I'm critical of how the PDRC has acted, you've assumed that I'm a Red Pro Government fanboy, WRONG!!!! I couldn't care less about Thaksin or the PTP/UDD/Reds, whites, or Yellows.

I you know nothing, same as myself about the RTA, then that would make all your comments equally bullshit, as WE know nothing about how their Army operates and in particular the Command Structure, and who is the Operations Officer, who plans and executes the missions as handed down to him

The two moonlight SEAL's are relevant as they too claimed they were following orders, and in civilian clothes, they were lucky, they didn't get shot Again, it comes down to accountability and responsibility.

Once again, you seem to be almost exonerating the Guards, if it was them, from having any accountability, the ones who fired the shot are indeed culpable, but who's orders were they following to be accountable?

Round and round and round we go I know where you're coming from, though, I'm looking at this from a very different direction from you, you're a Suthep follower, I'm not, I'm looking at this from the outside, you're not.

I will however apologise to you for wrongly assuming you've never served, I'll just have to take your word for it, same as you will have to take mine

IF it's found out that these were not SRT Guards, then I'm sorry, it wont matter to me, no egg on my face, more egg on the face of the Army and the Police, and would highlight that nobody can be trusted, it's like someone once told me "How do you know when a Thai is lying? " ...their lips are moving.

There has been over the past 4 months exaggerations, gross exaggerations, distortions and gross distortions of the truth, coming from the Armed Forces, the Army Special Forces guys caught with weapons and ammunition in a PDRC area, and the well documented Navy SEAL's cases.

Mike Hoare? is that the best you could come up with? Bob Dennard would had the same effect....none

I would like to thank you though for the debate, it's passed my afternoon nicely indeed.. thanks

Well as you seem to be signing off I'll spare you a detailed reply. I've enjoyed the debate too - thank you.

I can't let two of your comments pass however. I'm not a Suthep follower or supporter but I do agree with a number of his proposals which I have outlined in other threads.

You claim not to be a red/PTP supporter but your posts tell a different story even though you are far from the worst of them.

[Fat Haggis]

Oh pardon me for getting it wrong about the GC's.. I stand corrected, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt too.

WRONG!!! Smedly said soldiers are not soldiers if they're operating in civilian clothing.... utter garbage, IF they're on a Mission, with orders, and that mission states the dress code is civilian attire, they're still soldiers. British Special Forces particularly the SBS wore civilian clothing pretty much through all of their Operations in Afghanistan... again covert ops, and the non wearing of uniform doesn't make you any less a soldier than when standing doing public duties in No.1's !!!!!

Tell me this, how many Senior Officers who were not on the ground, have been charged with accountability during all the recent court cases involving British Soldiers charged with War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan? .. round it up or down, doesn't matter.

Then the same question about the US Chain of Command being held accountable?

[sweatalot]

The Army should take heed that where ever it deploys its soldiers, it should check-in with the local private armed militias to get clearance and assure its presence is monitored so as not to create accidentals shootings. If fact why is the Army even showing itself in public. The STR and PDRC militias seem more than capable of keeping THEIR peace and practice their brand of justice as they see fit. Frankly, the idea of allowing private militias in public political protests is another step into a lawless society and follow a path away from democracy. Thailand may become the next "liberated" Libya. The Army should not be operating as a law enforcement agency within Thailand and the private militias need to be banned. How's that for Reform?

he private militias need to be banned. How's that for Reform?

but the private grenade attackers and bomb throwers should be banned first - no militia necessary then

this also accounts to the private red shirt milita

an unbiased capable police force should be in place first of all

[smedly]

you are delusional if you are seriously comparing what is going on in BKK 2014 with what went on in 2010, the red terrorist mobs were threatening violence and destruction and carrying out their threats, if you believe for one moment they were not armed and attacking all around them then you need to take a real hard look at what you are reading, also have a look at the difference between offence and defence

As has been explained to you time and time again - were the police refuse to do their duty and act for all of the Thai people then these guards have got to take it upon themselves to provide their own protection/defence against attacks from bombs grenades and assault rifles they have no choice, if they weren't under constant attack by red terrorists then there would be no need to have arms for protection

The OP on this thread is a police report - and therefore is scripted by the government, I for one do not believe the disclosed details of this incident as I trust nothing they have to say

If these soldiers were on official duty then their commanders need a serious reprimand for putting them in danger, if they were not on duty then I would question their motives for being there in the first place or perhaps they were not soldiers at all - like I said I trust nothing that comes from this administration - we know they tell lies and distort the truth

and worth noting - the OP refers to these men as troops - if they were not in uniform by every convention and rules of engagement - they were not troops if in plain clothes

What a load of <deleted> that you've written there especially the part in Bold!!!

Armed Forces of all branches do tonnes off operational duties in civilian clothing!! Special Forces, Intelligence, PsyOps, all conduct missions as and when it dictates in civilian clothing, it's called Covert Ops.. I can't believe you wrote that, you clearly know nothing about ROE's as that's got <deleted> all to do with the wearing of a uniform, it's about the use of weapons.

What convention would that be? The Geneva Convention? Not all Armed Forces signed up to that.. Most of the time neither has your enemy!!

My background might surprise you - but I can assure you I know exactly what I said why I said it and that I am 100% correct - and I have worked in plain clothes, I know the form

on another note it seems my scepticism of the OP on this thread was correct based on the second report of the incident - go figure

and you are indeed as your name suggests - a mass producer of dung

Edited April 6, 2014 by smedly

[khunken]

Oh pardon me for getting it wrong about the GC's.. I stand corrected, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt too.

WRONG!!! Smedly said soldiers are not soldiers if they're operating in civilian clothing.... utter garbage, IF they're on a Mission, with orders, and that mission states the dress code is civilian attire, they're still soldiers. British Special Forces particularly the SBS wore civilian clothing pretty much through all of their Operations in Afghanistan... again covert ops, and the non wearing of uniform doesn't make you any less a soldier than when standing doing public duties in No.1's !!!!!

Tell me this, how many Senior Officers who were not on the ground, have been charged with accountability during all the recent court cases involving British Soldiers charged with War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan? .. round it up or down, doesn't matter.

Then the same question about the US Chain of Command being held accountable?

I've no idea how many have been charged as the UK & US military get away with committing crimes against civilians in invasions because they are protected by their governments.

I do remember a civilian case filed against the British army in Iraq over torture and death of a number of hotel workers in Basra. The case failed because the soldiers all refused to name the torturers and killers. The whole bloody group should have been jailed.

Accountability in those areas is a sick joke.

[Fat Haggis]

I'm not 100% sure on that, as in they might still be getting charged, I think this was the Baha Musa case ? But yes, using war as an excuse for such acts of barbarity is nothing short of ignorance, and put the honus on the rest of the Armed Forces..

I will apologise to Smedley as I have misread his post, and I now know what he meant when he said they were not Troops, I wrongly took it that soldiers were soldiers no matter what they were wearing, I can now see that what he was saying was that to any other person how would they have known they were soldiers in the first place, as they were in civilian clothes, therefor not "Troops"

I will put my hands up and eat some humble pie.. pass me another cup of "I'm a dick" too

Edited April 6, 2014 by Fat Haggis

[shiok]

for those of you who are pro red take a look at how they bribe 'supporters'

เอาบัตรปชช.มาแสดง.

แจกกันจะจะ เสื้อแดง รับหัวละสองพัน (แชร์ด่วน)

[than]

Police could not confirme that shots come from NSPRT part, because according to police, assailant were no visible and the area in dark

[WoopyDoo]

Well the BP actually has a more detailed story running where the police and army are claiming that there was no way of knowing who they werre being attacked by.

The confrontation actually started when someone fired a grenade at the rally area and the soldiers went to confront them and were shot at.

No mention of shooting coming from the NSPRT bunker at all.

So looking more like reds trying to attack the NSPRT camp yet again and were interrupted by the soldiers who they then attacked.

Time to arm the soldiers..... long past time to arm them.

Twice now reds have shot at them.

Let the army defend itself..... absolutely pathetic having them patrol unarmed against armed terrorists.

[Mackie]

for those of you who are pro red take a look at how they bribe 'supporters'

เอาบัตรปชช.มาแสดง.

แจกกันจะจะ เสื้อแดง รับหัวละสองพัน (แชร์ด่วน)

That's blatant bribery. Who is paying for it? Thai tax payer? How much money were they handing over to each individual? 1,000 baht or 2,000 baht? Those people have no shame whatsoever. Anything to get their numbers. Literally anything.

[thaiguzzi]

for those of you who are pro red take a look at how they bribe 'supporters'

เอาบัตรปชช.มาแสดง.

แจกกันจะจะ เสื้อแดง รับหัวละสองพัน (แชร์ด่วน)

Yawn... and the Southerners are not getting paid by the PRDC/PDRC? Both sides get paid. Get real!

[fullcave]

for those of you who are pro red take a look at how they bribe 'supporters'

เอาบัตรปชช.มาแสดง.

แจกกันจะจะ เสื้อแดง รับหัวละสองพัน (แชร์ด่วน)

The local grassroots, rent a mob...