A suspect militant wanted for the death of three policemen was gunned down

[Lite Beer]

A suspect militant wanted for the death of three policemen was gunned down

PATTANI: -- An armed militant wanted by police for the alleged killing of three police officers in Narathiwat’s Rueso district two years ago was shot dead by security forces in a raid of his father-in-law’s house in Pattani on Sunday.

The dead militant was identified as Masuka Ruenor Yakumo. He was suspected of involvement in a roadside bomb attack which killed Pol Lt-Col Chakkrit Wongprommet, then deputy superintendent of Rueso district police station on March 15, 2013.

Acting on a tipoff that Masuka was visiting his wife in his father-in-law’s house in Tambon Batong, Rueso district, two security force units were rushed to the scene to conduct a search.

Upon arriving in front of the house, the security forces demanded Masuka to come out and to surrender only to be shot at. The security force then returned fire.

When the gunshots from the house died down, the raiders stormed the house where they found Masuka lying dead in front of the toilet with one 11mm caliber pistol and an unexploded grenade on the floor. On army trooper was also injured.

The security force later took the victim’s father-in-law and wife into custody.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/a-suspect-militant-wanted-for-the-death-of-three-policemen-was-gunned-down

-- Thai PBS 2015-08-02

[ratcatcher]

Edited August 2, 2015 by ratcatcher

[bangkokfrog]

If this guy really was a militant who planted a roadside bomb, then good riddance. However, what I find troubling is the thought that instead of securing the house so that he couldn't escape and then waiting or trying to talk him out, the army may have simply returned his fire with no idea what other people (innocents, possibly including children) might be inside. If so, this is the kind of thinking that will prevent peace from ever coming to the South.

[Cloggie]

Still good news today

[fish fingers]

If this guy really was a militant who planted a roadside bomb, then good riddance. However, what I find troubling is the thought that instead of securing the house so that he couldn't escape and then waiting or trying to talk him out, the army may have simply returned his fire with no idea what other people (innocents, possibly including children) might be inside. If so, this is the kind of thinking that will prevent peace from ever coming to the South.

This reminds me of that classic Richard Pryor prison sketch .. maybe you shd head down south and reason with the muslims

[Bluespunk]

“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

At some point both sides in this terrible conflict are going to have to realize that violence is not going to work.

Sadly that day appears a long way off.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

The world needs more more people like Gandhi

Edited August 2, 2015 by Bluespunk

[yuv06]

1 bad guy less good

[bamnutsak]

Probably friendly fire from behind the house initiated the ?

Queue the photos of the corpse surrounded by a pile of guns and ammo. Hopefully they planted the firearm in his hand (lefty/righty) "correctly"?

[halloween]

If this guy really was a militant who planted a roadside bomb, then good riddance. However, what I find troubling is the thought that instead of securing the house so that he couldn't escape and then waiting or trying to talk him out, the army may have simply returned his fire with no idea what other people (innocents, possibly including children) might be inside. If so, this is the kind of thinking that will prevent peace from ever coming to the South.

So your suggestion is the security forces should have stood around and let a terrorist take pot shots at them until he ran out of ammunition? Because there MIGHT have been children in the house?

If there were, wouldn't the onus been on those sheltering him to send them out before he initiated gunfire? Or at least declare their presence?

[bangkokfrog]

If this guy really was a militant who planted a roadside bomb, then good riddance. However, what I find troubling is the thought that instead of securing the house so that he couldn't escape and then waiting or trying to talk him out, the army may have simply returned his fire with no idea what other people (innocents, possibly including children) might be inside. If so, this is the kind of thinking that will prevent peace from ever coming to the South.

So your suggestion is the security forces should have stood around and let a terrorist take pot shots at them until he ran out of ammunition? Because there MIGHT have been children in the house?

If there were, wouldn't the onus been on those sheltering him to send them out before he initiated gunfire? Or at least declare their presence?

You are reading too much into my comment and as I said, if he was a militant I have no sympathy for him. My question is why didn't the armed forces do what police in almost every other country do in a siege situation... secure the area first and look for a solution that avoids a shoot out. I most certainly did NOT suggest that they stand out in front of the house and give him target practice.

[yuv06]

If this guy really was a militant who planted a roadside bomb, then good riddance. However, what I find troubling is the thought that instead of securing the house so that he couldn't escape and then waiting or trying to talk him out, the army may have simply returned his fire with no idea what other people (innocents, possibly including children) might be inside. If so, this is the kind of thinking that will prevent peace from ever coming to the South.

So your suggestion is the security forces should have stood around and let a terrorist take pot shots at them until he ran out of ammunition? Because there MIGHT have been children in the house?

If there were, wouldn't the onus been on those sheltering him to send them out before he initiated gunfire? Or at least declare their presence?

You are reading too much into my comment and as I said, if he was a militant I have no sympathy for him. My question is why didn't the armed forces do what police in almost every other country do in a siege situation... secure the area first and look for a solution that avoids a shoot out. I most certainly did NOT suggest that they stand out in front of the house and give him target practice.

Usually they do they would even bring the parents or the village head to talk to them in surrendering if that doesn't work than they use force it met with gun fire but in this case I do not know what happened before the shooting started

[ronnybill]

“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

At some point both sides in this terrible conflict are going to have to realize that violence is not going to work.

Sadly that day appears a long way off.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

The world needs more more people like Gandhi

Was he not the one who divided India and millions died as a result of the partition. You might think he is some kind of hero, I think he was a criminal. The Hindu’s love him because it was the Muslim and Sikh that were dying.

Edited August 3, 2015 by ronnybill

[Bluespunk]

An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.

― Mahatma Gandhi

At some point both sides in this terrible conflict are going to have to realize that violence is not going to work.

Sadly that day appears a long way off.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

― Mahatma Gandhi

The world needs more more people like Gandhi

Was he not the one who divided India and millions died as a result of the partition. You might think he is some kind of hero, I think he was a criminal. The Hindus love him because it was the Muslim and Sikh that were dying.

No he wasn't.

He was against partition.

That happened at a political level and was down to Jinnah and the Muslim league, the British and Hindu nationalists.

Gandhi was murdered by one such fanatic who felt he was too sympathetic to India's Muslim minority.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Bluespunk

[ronnybill]

There you go, by his inaction so many died. Just because you claim he was a man of peace does not absolve him of his sins. By the way we lost half our country due to him (Punjab), we should have kept the British.

Edited August 4, 2015 by ronnybill

[Bluespunk]

There you go, by his inaction so many died. Just because you claim he was a man of peace does not absolve him of his sins. By the way we lost half our country due to him (Punjab), we should have kept the British.

Gandhi went on hunger strike to protest the mistreatment of Muslims.

Some feel this led to his murder.

He was not part of the congress' political leadership. He was not responsible for the loss of anything.

He wanted all faiths to be encompassed within congress.

Should have kept the British……..sigh

Edited August 4, 2015 by Bluespunk

[starky]

wanted for the deaths of 3 policemen.... well that was only ever going to end one way, him being carried out. Armed or not.