Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Chris Lawrence]

Didn't think of using a water cannon first?

[mikemac]

If anything, Abhisit and Suthep should explain why they they continued to be so patient, putting up with over 2 months of intransigence before taking dynamic action (except for one incident). If Abhisit deserves to be vilified, it would be because he was too nice and too open to negotiations.

Then surely Yingluck will be qualified to be in our nice list as she was patient for 7 months and 22 days and still did not ordered the military to intervene inspite of violence at the Parliment House and at pooling stations. And she even agreed to dissolve Parliment and yet the military staged a coup. All planned, no?

Hard to believe that someone "smart" enough to become the PM of an entire country, without even one minute's worth of political experience, would fall for that old three card trick.

[Eric Loh]

Allow me to refresh your memory. The Thai court had aquited the 2 remaining Redshirts and 2 juveniles accused of burning CW. There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers. Further, the military took over the burning. So the juror is still out there as to who touched CW. Now we are on the same page.

F because they can't positively identify exactly who burnt down CW, no red shirts were involved? By that logic, the army didn't kill anyone in the wat.

I'm just wondering where you can get fire extinguishers that look like burning tyres.

The "they" you're refering is the Thai court and they ruled that the arrested Reds and charged for arson were not involved and aquited them. Again it's the court inquest that concluded that the Wat killings were from shots by the military. Your wondering can ceased also as its the court that stated that the it's fire extinguisher. The tire reference is totally absurd and illogical now that the court have their rulings. I'm sure you're a law abiding person, no?

The ''arresed reds'' were aquited. True. That still doesn't change the fact that the video released during the PDRC protest shows red shirts burning CW. Is your memory refreshed yet?

Really can't argue with someone who insist that unsubstantiated evidence not legally admissible are facts.

[SABloke]

Really can't argue with someone who insist that unsubstantiated evidence not legally admissible are facts.

"legally admissible" is not the definition of "factual"...It defines what is, as the term suggests, legally admissible in court. If the police break in to my home and find drugs their actions deem the information of my possessing drugs as legally inadmissible, however, it doesn't change the FACTS that there were drugs in my house. Get it??

[Baerboxer]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

I respectfully disagree. There are numerous eventualities in every country where a nation's army has to act against its own citizens. 2010 was a fine example.

In that case, staging a coup in 2010 will have a more peaceful result. The demonstrators would packed their bags and leave peacefully if the military stepped in and take over the government. Or like in 2008, when the Army Chief Anupong demanded that the PP government stepped down. No it didn't happen and preferred to use the most violent means to rid the demonstrators.

Eric - you know I think that Abhisit met with red shirt leaders and an agreement was made that they'd disperse in exchange for an early election. That would have resulted in a fairly peaceful solution. The next day the red shirt leaders changed their minds, cancelled the agreement and the violence escalated.

Now who do you think made that decision and why was it made? Who could have benefited? Whose purpose did it serve?

[Chris Lawrence]

Really can't argue with someone who insist that unsubstantiated evidence not legally admissible are facts.

"legally admissible" is not the definition of "factual"...It defines what is, as the term suggests, legally admissible in court. If the police break in to my home and find drugs their actions deem the information of my possessing drugs as legally inadmissible, however, it doesn't change the FACTS that there were drugs in my house. Get it??

What about the 2 blokes down south on murder charges? Sounded like what they want admissible will be admissible. And then there is the Ferrari driver that killed a policeman?

I don't mean to be smart, but this is the Thai judicial system you are talking about?

The Thai judicial system can be a bit like a lottery. If you lose, you just didn't have enough money to cover all the costs. Anything goes?

[Shawn0001]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

The problem is that you minimise the violence from one side while hugely exaggerating that from the other, while making unfounded claims about military orders. Your post #91 sounds more like the nazi invasion of Poland than 2010.

How exactly do you have "heavy machine gun fire" into a crowd of protesters with so little damage? Do you not know the difference between an semi-automatic assault rifle and a machine gun?

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

[djjamie]

You really are getting carried away with your silliness now.

If you are going to blame the 2014 protesters for creating the environment for all the deaths then you obviously must blame the reds in 2010 for all the deaths in the environment they created.

The army did step in in 2014 and stopped the killing.

Try reading the links I have posted just for you and get some education.

Yingluck was elected in 2011 and from that time until Suthep took to the streets in November 2013 there were ZERO politically inspired murders, from the time Suthep took to the streets until the coup there were 28 deaths and 800 casualties - you think that's a coincidence?

Yes, both groups of street mobs created very similar environments - the question is why did the army slaughter one group and, not just leave untouched, but actually go out of their way and protect the other group?

Why the double standard?

Think my friend think, for once you answer the above question you will have unravelled the mystery of the past 14 years of political turmoil in the LOS.

The reds were held to account because of what I stated above. The PDRC did not do that.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

And if you feel the army should have gone in then you can blame yingluck as the defense minister for not doing anything about it. She was the boss remember!

So you would seriously like to blame the PDRC for all the deaths by the red shirts because they were sat at Lumpini park after having to retreat there because of all the deaths the red shirts caused elsewhere? Seriously? Blame the PDRC for the red shirts killing them? Serious? Think about it...

That is like saying it is a coincidence that a woman happened to be present when the rape occurred. It defies logic and epitomizes the reds lack of any accountability and there is nothing that highlights further why reform is needed. It is as ludicrous as the other excuse of "The PDRC bombed themselves to make it look like red shirts did it". It seems logic and sanity are left at the door when defending the UDD.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

Fortunately they didn't. All they got for sitting in a park was 24 dead and 700 injured by the people that did do the above.

The rape victim is never to blame. It is always the rapists fault. If the rapist wore a red shirt it makes no difference. And I shake my head to even have to explain it and it is not due to shaky head syndrome.

[mikemac]

Shawn0001 only joined the forum yesterday but he must have spent the last five years in Thailand researching Thaksin's failed coup of 2010.

............."Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.".......................

Seems to have all the pertinent questions, and the answers to go with them !

He is wasting his talents here on TVF and should be practicing law.

[Shawn0001]

.................."There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers"......................

And the head orc of the redshirts said - "You idiots ! I said bring bottles of gasoline to Bangkok, not bloody fire extinguishers !"

Thanks Eric, I needed a good laugh !

The good laugh courtesy of the Thai court. You are welcome.

You do realise that fire extinguishers packed with fertilizer as improvised bombs were recovered after the incident? What the courts could not prove was that the fire extinguisher this man was seen carrying into the Mall was indeed a bomb or actually a regular fire extinguisher and so the case was dropped for lack of evidence. Surely you are not so taken as to believe ALL the false flag claims. If so then there are just as many from the other side, the military claim that the Red Shirts had on their uniforms and it was them who were doing all the shooting and the Red Shirts claim that the military were wearing the Red Shirts and it was them who were doing all the shooting. All a load of bull, they were BOTH doing the shooting and BOTH are guilty in this one, I do not excuse the heavy handedness of the military nor do I excuse the actions of the Red Shirts, equally horrific inhumane and inexcusable actions in my opinion.

[Docno]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I would say Doc that had the protesters in 2014 been firing grenades and shooting out of their positions then the govt of the day would have been justified in using the same tactics against them.

However they were not, in fact the grenades and shooting were being done at the protesters.

Incidentally you want to try to learn a little about the 2014 protests before writing about 'Suthep and his mob'. But of course the hate must be continued as it is the cornerstone of Thaksin power.

Try this for the start of your education and go from there : http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

Not sure what your point is with that article (hint: if you want to provide an education, begin by outlining your learning objectives). Yes, I am well aware that the amnesty bill was also unpopular among many Red Shirts (I don't know if that's the point you wanted to make) because it would let those responsible for the 2010 deaths off the hook. If I recall correctly, the Senate killed the bill and Yingluck said that she would not try to revive it... and the Red Shirts were all back onside at that point. But Suthep saw his chance and rather than ending the protests, stepped them up with the intent of shutting down Bangkok and forcing YL to step down. Her response was to call a snap election and let the people decide rather than a demagogue. That's the democratic thing to do. However, Suthep was saying that it would be him who would determine Thailand's future leadership and vowed to block the elections; Abhasit said the Democrats would not participate. Now think of your own home country. How would your government react if, during an election, protesters prevented people from voting (including using implicit and explicit threats of violence)? I doubt that they would stand by and watch it happen ... but that's how it turned out in Thailand, right? YL didn't not want to resort to force of arms, as had been done in 2010, and in any event, the army was not going to help her because they were waiting for their chance to come in.

[Shawn0001]

Shawn0001 only joined the forum yesterday but he must have spent the last five years in Thailand researching Thaksin's failed coup of 2010.

............."Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.".......................

Seems to have all the pertinent questions, and the answers to go with them !

He is wasting his talents here on TVF and should be practicing law.

Well, it certainly wasn't the best wording I could have chosen but in my opinion both of those scenarios, indiscriminate fire or the targeting of medics and journalists, do amount to murder and the international conventions that Thailand is party to do also confirm this. You really do not have to study law to be aware that medics and journalists are not a legitimate target or that firing indiscriminately into a crowd is an unlawful response to civil unrest.

You might also care to note that I did actually pose a question, not an answer, before posting more snide remarks accusing me of having all the answers, I am more than willing to consider any other potential scenarios I may have overlooked.

[Fat Haggis]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

The problem is that you minimise the violence from one side while hugely exaggerating that from the other, while making unfounded claims about military orders. Your post #91 sounds more like the nazi invasion of Poland than 2010.

How exactly do you have "heavy machine gun fire" into a crowd of protesters with so little damage? Do you not know the difference between an semi-automatic assault rifle and a machine gun?

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

Sorry mate but the M16 is classed as an assault rifle or automatic rifle, it's never been referee to as a LIGHT Machine Gun, those are normally weapons such as the SAW/Minimi types chambered for the same round as the assault rifles this case for 5.56mm

The Heavier calibre 7.62 is for the heavier barrel weapons such as the M240/GPMG, the soviet type weapon are different where the RPK with a longer barrel fires the same round as re standard AK which the RPK is just a longer barrelled version they share the same working parts internally, that would be classed as a support or light machine gun.

Only in the movies does a high velocity kill two people with one shots, normally if a round hits bone, it's redirected elsewhere out if the body, hence why were taught to look all over in the primary survey for exit wounds. Shot in the arm can have the round exit through the shoulder or back in some cases.

Sniper type weapons are again normally chambered for specialist ammo, designed for the weapons system itself, a scope on an M16 doesn't really it a sniper rifle, that's just poor research and journalistic print.

[Shawn0001]

Sorry mate but the M16 is classed as an assault rifle or automatic rifle, it's never been referee to as a LIGHT Machine Gun, those are normally weapons such as the SAW/Minimi types chambered for the same round as the assault rifles this case for 5.56mm

The Heavier calibre 7.62 is for the heavier barrel weapons such as the M240/GPMG, the soviet type weapon are different where the RPK with a longer barrel fires the same round as re standard AK which the RPK is just a longer barrelled version they share the same working parts internally, that would be classed as a support or light machine gun.

Only in the movies does a high velocity kill two people with one shots, normally if a round hits bone, it's redirected elsewhere out if the body, hence why were taught to look all over in the primary survey for exit wounds. Shot in the arm can have the round exit through the shoulder or back in some cases.

Sniper type weapons are again normally chambered for specialist ammo, designed for the weapons system itself, a scope on an M16 doesn't really it a sniper rifle, that's just poor research and journalistic print.

Never? What about the Colt M16 LMG? The abbreviation LMG being, Light Machine Gun. Anyway, automatics are machine guns, that is basically what it means and whether some are classed as assault rifles or not the Thai military were armed with automatic weapons.

As for the comment I made about bullets potentially killing more than one person. This was in reference to the heavy machine guns that were seen mounted to vehicles, these don't change direction when they hit bone, the bone just disintegrates. And what difference would a change of trajectory make in a crowd of people away, the point is that they could be hitting an innocent by mistake when aiming at armed people within a crowd. When looking for an exit wound from a vehicle mounted machine gun it's going to be quite obvious, those guns rip limbs straight off.

The wording "snipers" comes straight from 'The Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation', not from journalists, they admitted authorizing "snipers" in a report in 2012.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Shawn0001

[Fat Haggis]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

[Shawn0001]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

[rubl]

& let us not forget the meetings between Suthep, Newin & others hosted by Anupong at the army barracks just before AV was 'elected' the new PM

Oh, don't worry, with the frequent reminder it's just as difficult to forget as the case of a criminal fugitive selecting a PM and skyping in into cabinet meetings to give orders.

Mind you, the fight for democracy the UDD was busy with was against Abhisit/Suthep. Somehow they got so discouraged they didn't dare to rise again against Yingluck/Thaksin.

[rubl]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

[chooka]

The investigation should also be focusing on the senior military officers at the time. They also should be held accountable.

[rubl]

My memory is excellent thank you, It was never proven that the army shot into the temple the inquest stated that the shots that killed those in the temple came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol. Video and still photos showed that there were also men in black who were in a position from which they could have shot into the temple. The only definite conclusion was that the shots were fired from military grade weapons which both sides were armed with.

The truth according to who ? If the army had been shooting randomly into crowds there would have been hundreds killed. Machine gun fire into the crowd ? you are getting carried away

Sea deang who you refer to, was shot because he was saying he had talked to Thaksin on the phone and Thaksin had sacked the red leaders and put him in charge. This was because the leaders had accepted Abhisits offer of an early election

This was doing three things, 1/ it was causing the red leaders to lose face, 2/ It was proving that Thaksin was in charge as he was in the position to hire and fire the leaders. 3/ It was disrupting the red leadership which was working in favor of the govt and the army.

Sae Deang had to go as he was compromising both the positions of the red leaders and Thaksin. Which one of the two ordered his killing ?

Because of point 3/ the army and the govt had every reason to want him alive to carry on the disruption.

The country had democracy, it had a legally constituted Govt. Why would it be reasonable to expect them to call an early election ? Which is something that was offered.

Is this within your interpretation of 'not proven'?

"According to the findings of the court inquest announced today, there was no evidence that Blackshirt militants were present inside or around the temple during the shooting. The entire area had been secured by the military, the court said, and it was difficult to believe that so many journalists - some of them foreigners – had simply failed to spot the gunmen.

The soldiers' testimony that they were simply returning fire from Blackshirts in the temple also contradicted the accounts of other soldiers in the area who testified they that did not see any armed militants with the demonstrators, the court said.

The judge also noted that in the video footage of soldiers on the Skytrain track shooting at the temple, the officers did not try to take cover or react to supposed attacks from the Blackshirts.

As for the weapons allegedly found inside the temple and shown to the press later, the court said there was no evidence that the firearms were found inside the temple immediately after the incident."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1375784432&section=11

On 2013-03-22 we had a Bangkok Post article stating the a witness at the Inquest had said to have seen gun muzzles on the second floor of the temples living quarters earlier in the evening. Furthermore he said that armed men were firing towards the military on the BTS tracks.

Interesting is that this statement seems to have been disregarded, maybe 'too circumstantial' for an inquest?

[rubl]

The investigation should also be focusing on the senior military officers at the time. They also should be held accountable.

and UDD leaders and a few other people.

Mind you let's start this case of 'abuse of power' against Abhisit/Suthep only. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders has the jurisdiction for that.

[waitforusalso]

My memory is excellent thank you, It was never proven that the army shot into the temple the inquest stated that the shots that killed those in the temple came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol. Video and still photos showed that there were also men in black who were in a position from which they could have shot into the temple. The only definite conclusion was that the shots were fired from military grade weapons which both sides were armed with.

The truth according to who ? If the army had been shooting randomly into crowds there would have been hundreds killed. Machine gun fire into the crowd ? you are getting carried away

Sea deang who you refer to, was shot because he was saying he had talked to Thaksin on the phone and Thaksin had sacked the red leaders and put him in charge. This was because the leaders had accepted Abhisits offer of an early election

This was doing three things, 1/ it was causing the red leaders to lose face, 2/ It was proving that Thaksin was in charge as he was in the position to hire and fire the leaders. 3/ It was disrupting the red leadership which was working in favor of the govt and the army.

Sae Deang had to go as he was compromising both the positions of the red leaders and Thaksin. Which one of the two ordered his killing ?

Because of point 3/ the army and the govt had every reason to want him alive to carry on the disruption.

The country had democracy, it had a legally constituted Govt. Why would it be reasonable to expect them to call an early election ? Which is something that was offered.

Is this within your interpretation of 'not proven'?

"According to the findings of the court inquest announced today, there was no evidence that Blackshirt militants were present inside or around the temple during the shooting. The entire area had been secured by the military, the court said, and it was difficult to believe that so many journalists - some of them foreigners – had simply failed to spot the gunmen.

The soldiers' testimony that they were simply returning fire from Blackshirts in the temple also contradicted the accounts of other soldiers in the area who testified they that did not see any armed militants with the demonstrators, the court said.

The judge also noted that in the video footage of soldiers on the Skytrain track shooting at the temple, the officers did not try to take cover or react to supposed attacks from the Blackshirts.

As for the weapons allegedly found inside the temple and shown to the press later, the court said there was no evidence that the firearms were found inside the temple immediately after the incident."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1375784432&section=11

On 2013-03-22 we had a Bangkok Post article stating the a witness at the Inquest had said to have seen gun muzzles on the second floor of the temples living quarters earlier in the evening. Furthermore he said that armed men were firing towards the military on the BTS tracks.

Interesting is that this statement seems to have been disregarded, maybe 'too circumstantial' for an inquest?

The court's verdict above sets it out quite clearly Rubi. " it was difficult to believe that so many journalists - some of them foreigners – had simply failed to spot the gunmen."

Apart from this; if there were men shooting at the army on the skytrain track there must be bullet marks on the tracks, but alas there were none found.

[Robby nz]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

[Shawn0001]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

The report submitted to the ICC is based on the rules of engagement as laid out by Abhisit, it is not a general overview of events documented by journalists. The point of the report was to bring to light Abhisit's violations of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, not all violations committed by the army. Very different things. Perhaps the facts I have posted are inaccurate but, I do not expect them to all be in the report as they were not in the obtained secret government document and therefore there is no link to Abhisit and so are irrelevant in the case against him.

[Shawn0001]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

"You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere."

No, I haven't forgotten that, I am just concentrating on writing about the army as this is about Abhisit and Suthep, not about the Red Shirts. A lot of apologists on here keep coming back with the same weak argument, "but the Reds were doing it too". Well the military is supposed to have the honor not to retaliate in a similar fashion, they are supposed to keep their dignity and aim at legitimate targets. They went in there to demoralize by targeting the unarmed, non-violent protesters in the hope that all of them would give up and the armed and violent protesters would no longer be able to hide amongst them. You may think that is a good tactic but it is also an international crime.

The journalist may well have been shot by mistake, but why were they shooting people in the back who were running away whether they thought they were Red Shirts or not? He was certainly not armed, he was a photographer, so just why was this unarmed man who had not been seen committing any crime being shot at just because they thought he was a Red Shirt? Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?

[Fat Haggis]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

The GPMG is just an abbreviation for General Purpose Machine Gun, I'd have to check up, but I believe the Vehicle mounted 7.62's were possible M60's commonly mounted on utility vehicles such as HUMVEES, and other 4x4 types.

The vehicle in the picture looks like a Chinese type 85 APC, and I'd throw an educated guess that it's a 12.7mm (.50) calibre mounted weapon.

The size difference can be compared to say the nasal things most thais seem to sniff about the size of lip salve or female lipstick is close to .50 in size, if you get hit with that, it will tear you apart...literally it would be pretty easy to see if a victim had been shit by a 5.56mm as to a .50 cal it makes a mega mess. 5.56 is about the size of a pencil, leaves a small entry wound, but the exit can be substantial, depending on what it hit and gathered on the way in. It can take a few rounds of 5.56mm to drop a target, as opposed to 7.62, that is a bigger punching round altogether.

I carry an AK daily in Iraq, I prefer the lighter M4, but it makes not much difference as in the old days we carried what ammo we could, now it's all controlled by the Iraqi Laws, and we're limited to what we can carry, for sure the AK has the punch, but it lacks accuracy over 300M's the round tumbles too much, with an M4 I was able to hit targets with a reasonable degree of accurcy and success at over 400Ms when the conditions were right.

as for accuracy on full automatic, that takes some serious serious practice to keep every round and muzzle control to stop the rounds from going everywhere, it's good fun, but it's best used for noise and suppressive fir, where you're keeping the bad guys head down. It's also poor fire discipline blatting off a full mag on automatic, well aimed shots and fire discipline is what kills bad guys.

In the Brit Mil we were taught to only react to "effective enemy fire" obviously the question is how do you determine if it's effective or not? The short and blunt answer, is when you start taking casualties, it's then effective.

Rules of Engagements varies from Country to country, some might not even have any, but there is normally lines included that are to the effect.

Positively Identify there is a threat (getting shot at is a threat in itself )

Positively Identify a target

Fire only aimed shots

Do not fire into areas where civilian casualties can occur.

Some might even state positively identify a weapon. this was always a big big big deal no matter where I served, pre NI training you were on ranges where civilian targets all electronically controlled were randomnly introduce into the scenarios, many a times a bank manager target carrying an umbrella was engaged.

some ROE's include the manner in which a weapon is carried and is it interpreted as a hostile act ?, of course it's illegal to carry weapons in Thailand in public places, so yes, they carriers were not out on a pheasant shoot!!

[rubl]

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

"You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere."

No, I haven't forgotten that, I am just concentrating on writing about the army as this is about Abhisit and Suthep, not about the Red Shirts. A lot of apologists on here keep coming back with the same weak argument, "but the Reds were doing it too". Well the military is supposed to have the honor not to retaliate in a similar fashion, they are supposed to keep their dignity and aim at legitimate targets. They went in there to demoralize by targeting the unarmed, non-violent protesters in the hope that all of them would give up and the armed and violent protesters would no longer be able to hide amongst them. You may think that is a good tactic but it is also an international crime.

The journalist may well have been shot by mistake, but why were they shooting people in the back who were running away whether they thought they were Red Shirts or not? He was certainly not armed, he was a photographer, so just why was this unarmed man who had not been seen committing any crime being shot at just because they thought he was a Red Shirt? Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?

Well if the cowardly militants hiding amongst unarmed real protesters and used any position to fire on the soldiers or drop the odd grenade, then obviously the chance of unarmed civilians being shot by soldiers defending themselves or even defending protesters would increase substantially.

Your opinion of 'explicit targeting' to draw out militants is not only your opinion only, but also somewhat disgusting. You then go on based on your opinion as if it's obvious fact.

The journalist you refer to may be the Japanese guy. That's from the 10th of April 2010 when the army having taken a few grenades on their Command Centre (killing the colonel in charge and four others) had to withdraw (some say in near panic) under heavy fire while returning fire. Peaceful those protesters, really.

BTW "Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?". I assume you refer to the 'life fire zones'? The areas where the soldiers were really getting into fire fights with lovable militants?

[Shawn0001]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

The GPMG is just an abbreviation for General Purpose Machine Gun, I'd have to check up, but I believe the Vehicle mounted 7.62's were possible M60's commonly mounted on utility vehicles such as HUMVEES, and other 4x4 types.

The vehicle in the picture looks like a Chinese type 85 APC, and I'd throw an educated guess that it's a 12.7mm (.50) calibre mounted weapon.

The size difference can be compared to say the nasal things most thais seem to sniff about the size of lip salve or female lipstick is close to .50 in size, if you get hit with that, it will tear you apart...literally it would be pretty easy to see if a victim had been shit by a 5.56mm as to a .50 cal it makes a mega mess. 5.56 is about the size of a pencil, leaves a small entry wound, but the exit can be substantial, depending on what it hit and gathered on the way in. It can take a few rounds of 5.56mm to drop a target, as opposed to 7.62, that is a bigger punching round altogether.

I carry an AK daily in Iraq, I prefer the lighter M4, but it makes not much difference as in the old days we carried what ammo we could, now it's all controlled by the Iraqi Laws, and we're limited to what we can carry, for sure the AK has the punch, but it lacks accuracy over 300M's the round tumbles too much, with an M4 I was able to hit targets with a reasonable degree of accurcy and success at over 400Ms when the conditions were right.

as for accuracy on full automatic, that takes some serious serious practice to keep every round and muzzle control to stop the rounds from going everywhere, it's good fun, but it's best used for noise and suppressive fir, where you're keeping the bad guys head down. It's also poor fire discipline blatting off a full mag on automatic, well aimed shots and fire discipline is what kills bad guys.

In the Brit Mil we were taught to only react to "effective enemy fire" obviously the question is how do you determine if it's effective or not? The short and blunt answer, is when you start taking casualties, it's then effective.

Rules of Engagements varies from Country to country, some might not even have any, but there is normally lines included that are to the effect.

Positively Identify there is a threat (getting shot at is a threat in itself )

Positively Identify a target

Fire only aimed shots

Do not fire into areas where civilian casualties can occur.

Some might even state positively identify a weapon. this was always a big big big deal no matter where I served, pre NI training you were on ranges where civilian targets all electronically controlled were randomnly introduce into the scenarios, many a times a bank manager target carrying an umbrella was engaged.

some ROE's include the manner in which a weapon is carried and is it interpreted as a hostile act ?, of course it's illegal to carry weapons in Thailand in public places, so yes, they carriers were not out on a pheasant shoot!!

Thanks, that's very clear.

Abhisit's Rules of Engagement as alleged in the report given to the International Criminal Court were a bit different to the UK's!

"The modified rules of engagement authorized security forces to use live ammunition against: 1) Anyone seen carrying weapons who disregarded a no trespassing order, posed any danger to others, or prepared to use the weapons against officials or the general public; 2) Unarmed civilians moving in a large crowd who contravened a no trespassing order and were perceived to pose an unspecified “danger;” 3) Anyone who resisted arrest or refused to submit to a search."

[Shawn0001]

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

"You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere."

No, I haven't forgotten that, I am just concentrating on writing about the army as this is about Abhisit and Suthep, not about the Red Shirts. A lot of apologists on here keep coming back with the same weak argument, "but the Reds were doing it too". Well the military is supposed to have the honor not to retaliate in a similar fashion, they are supposed to keep their dignity and aim at legitimate targets. They went in there to demoralize by targeting the unarmed, non-violent protesters in the hope that all of them would give up and the armed and violent protesters would no longer be able to hide amongst them. You may think that is a good tactic but it is also an international crime.

The journalist may well have been shot by mistake, but why were they shooting people in the back who were running away whether they thought they were Red Shirts or not? He was certainly not armed, he was a photographer, so just why was this unarmed man who had not been seen committing any crime being shot at just because they thought he was a Red Shirt? Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?

Well if the cowardly militants hiding amongst unarmed real protesters and used any position to fire on the soldiers or drop the odd grenade, then obviously the chance of unarmed civilians being shot by soldiers defending themselves or even defending protesters would increase substantially.

Your opinion of 'explicit targeting' to draw out militants is not only your opinion only, but also somewhat disgusting. You then go on based on your opinion as if it's obvious fact.

The journalist you refer to may be the Japanese guy. That's from the 10th of April 2010 when the army having taken a few grenades on their Command Centre (killing the colonel in charge and four others) had to withdraw (some say in near panic) under heavy fire while returning fire. Peaceful those protesters, really.

BTW "Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?". I assume you refer to the 'life fire zones'? The areas where the soldiers were really getting into fire fights with lovable militants?

Have you read the "secret document" quotes from which were submitted to the ICC? That is what I refer to. I feel that shooting someone who refuses a search, shooting someone who is providing medical attention to a militant, shooting someone who resists arrest, are all " somewhat disgusting" tactics. The tactic of targeting civilians to demoralize is one which has been used in many conflicts since the British thought of the idea in WWII. Nothing unusual, and it really would appear that that was exactly what they were doing going by the international journalists reports. There are countless reports and video evidence of the army firing from distance into a crowd of people and far less of snipers lawfully targeting legitimate targets. And I refer to Fabio Polenghi, the Italian journalist who the military tried to pretend had been killed by a Red Shirt grenade before the autopsy and report by a German journalist proved otherwise and it was determined that he was indeed shot in the back by the Thai Army as he ran for cover as they advanced shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

[waitforusalso]

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

Where is "photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple" from May 19th? Porkies!