CRES authorized use of snipers during crackdown in 2010
The Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation officially approved the use of snipers during its crackdown on the red shirts in 2010, according to one of its own classified documents, despite the Army Chief’s recent ‘no snipers’ claim.
The document, stamped as classified and very urgent, was submitted to the CRES on 17 April 2010 by its Military Operations Section, asking for approval of a modified plan for military action against the red-shirt protesters, in light of the unanticipated loss of lives and injuries inflicted on the military side on 10 April 2010, which has always officially been attributed to ‘black shirts’ by both the military and the then-in-power Abhisit Vejjajiva government.
According to Point 2.5 in the document,
‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’
The document was approved by the CRES on 18 April 2010, signed by then Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsuban, among other high-ranking military officers.
In his interview with the media on 16 Aug, Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha denied that the army had employed any snipers during the crackdown.
In response to a question about the fact that the Department of Special Investigation will summon military snipers seen in publicly available video clips for investigation, he retorted, ‘What is a sniper? What person would use snipers? And do you know who the snipers are? Those who appeared to be soldiers [in the photographs or video clips] were just equipped with an enhanced scope. And the enhanced scope and the gun are not a sniper type. If you say what you don’t know, you’d better shut up. These things, which are used for marksmanship and are available for sale at informal markets for the purpose of shooting birds, are not sniper stuff. Don’t just ramble on.’
As for the DSI’s claim that several deaths during the 2010 crackdown were attributed to the security forces, he said, ‘Everything is subject to the judicial process. If the cases are not yet finished, no one should come out to speak. I have already begged the DSI Director General Tharit Pengdit regarding this issue. He promised me to have a look into this, and apologized’, adding that the government has also responded that it will downplay this issue.
According to an investigation by the House Committee on Military Affairs in March last year, only 880 sniper rounds out of 3,000 were returned to the army after disbursement during the crackdown.
'If 3,000 rounds were disbursed and 300 were returned, does it mean that 2,700 people were killed? Where are the dead? You have to go ask the House Committee. I'm not the committee,' he said.
He said that he had asked his subordinates as to whether they had ever shot at anyone, but they just answered that they had only been shot at.
DSI Director General Tharit Pendit told Matichon Online on 20 Aug that, although he was a committee member of the now defunct CRES, he had only recently learned of the CRES order about snipers through the media.
As far as he was concerned, he was only aware that the CRES was divided into 4 sections: key politicians including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of national security and other relevant cabinet members; police as the law enforcement authority; military personnel as the key security forces; and civil servants, including Permanent Secretaries of all Ministries and Directors-General of relevant government departments.
On a daily basis, the CRES would hold one or two plenary meetings, and also have separate meetings with the security personnel, he said.
The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings, he said.
‘Only the separate meetings [with CRES sections] were considered important. As far as I know, there were meetings with the Military Operations Section, Intelligence Section and others. The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants. Therefore, I only participated in the plenary meetings. As far as I know, after each meeting of the Military Operations Section, written orders would be issued dealing with each topic, which should probably include orders to use force in different operations,’ he said.
He, however, saw that the CRES had properly handled the critical situation at that time, despite all criticisms, as it finally managed to bring the country back to normalcy. Although there was loss of life and injuries among the authorities and civilians, further carnage and brutality was prevented, he said.
He insisted that the issuance of such orders did not need to be approved by the CRES plenary meeting.
The Military Operations Section meetings would be chaired by the CRES Director, sometimes in the presence of Prime Minister, he said.
Army spokesperson Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd admitted that the classified document was authentic, but expressed doubts about the real motivation of those who had leaked it.
He said that there was nothing new about it, as he, as the CRES spokesperson at the time, had already explained to the public about the authorities’ adherence to international standard practices in dealing with protesters.
Only when the authorities could not prevent illegal harm from happening to innocent people, did they resort to the use of marksmen, he said.
‘The army never used snipers. We call the officers who carry out orders marksmen. Other people can call them whatever name they wish. Mostly, they try to use the term ‘snipers’ which sounds scarier,’ he said.
During the past couple of weeks, certain groups of people have tried to spread news to mislead the public into understanding that the military had used excessive force and harmed the protesters. However, the military is not worried, because this is nothing new and everything has already been explained, he said.
Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd explained on 'snipers' clip on 16 May 2010, calling the soldiers in question as 'marksmen' or 'sharpshooters'
Print version
Send by email
Comments
So glad that Col. Sanserm has
So glad that Col. Sanserm has clarified. The army didn't use "snipers", it used "marksmen". So that's fine then.
The army may be coy about
The army may be coy about their use of (or at least, the authorization to use) snipers. But after the violence of April 10, as the only security force in Thailand capable of keeping some kind of order, they had every right to authorize the use of snipers/sharpshooters/whatever considering there were now professionally trained and armed killers among the red shirt protesters. Obviously the use of snipers in such circumstances would have to be restricted, and as we can see from the documents, this was also the case with the Thai army. The only real issue is the chronic inability of Thai authorities to be honest and direct about their actions, even when they are fully justified.
@bangkokdave: what if - in
@bangkokdave: what if - in whatever the country you come from - legal shooters would kill protesters in full impunity? It is easy to express your inner violence and frustration when you are not deeply touched in your flesh. It would be time for you to go home.
Hi Dave, Thanks for a very
Hi Dave,
Thanks for a very neat proof and demonstration that some people will believe whatever it suits them to believe and ignore evidence to the contrary, consigning it to a convenient and comfortable lacuna.
Evidence is, to any person, what they are prepared to believe. What they are not prepared to believe is therefore rejected as fraudulent or falsified irrespective of reality.
Though I can't help having a small twinge of disappointment that some foreigners are as willing to luxuriate in a bed of falsehood and delusion. This is much more common among Thais, but of course they mostly don't have a foreign education so don't know any better than their cultural system imposes upon them. In my experience, many foreigners who support the iniquities of the Thai establishment are American of course, which always helps in the 'willingness to embrace delusion' stakes. Not all of course, there are rednecks in all nations.
I bet it's nice and warm and comfy in your world...
Despite the rather bizarre
Despite the rather bizarre comment above there is no legal basis whatsoever in either Thai or international law to shoot unarmed civilians because there might be an armed militant nearby. It doesn't matter if this is done using snipers or not.
Any such illegal action by an army on a civilian population would actually, and conversely, legitimate the use of defensive force by that population against that army.
Furthermore, given that the Thai Army have a very long record of slaughtering unarmed civilians who peacefully protest - the list is long, well-documented and in the public domain - it is not too much of a surprise that a legitimate protest movement, seeking democracy, would be radicalized, organized and ready to act defensively.
The Red Shirts had a clear legitimate grievance, which was further legitimated when the Pheu Thai party won a resounding election victory in 2011.
Obviously if the Thai Army had nothing to hide and acted completely lawfully they wouldn't have lied and they wouldn't have blocked an investigation. The truth would've been their best defense.
But they have lied, have blocked a legitimate investigation, did kill obviously unarmed civilians in situations where there was no threat to themselves or anyone else and did so to sustain the position of an unelected, unpopular and undemocratic govt
Quite. Well noted.
Quite. Well noted.
Brilliantly put.
Brilliantly put.
Dan Black's comment covers
Dan Black's comment covers the situation quite well. Snipers, drones, same thing ... "there is no legal basis whatsoever in either Thai or international law to shoot unarmed civilians because there might be an armed militant nearby."
I'll just say ... very good to see the excellent reporting you've done rendered here in English.
Thanks. And please keep up the good work.
Let the chips fall where they
Let the chips fall where they may. In each instance, if the evidence proves the sniper/marksman shot someone, then he and his immediate supervisor, and those up the ladder, get to reap the fruits of wrongdoing.
I heard it said that Prayuth could not hold an honest job on this planet. Of course the foul-mouth ignoramus who said this does not "know the situation" in Thailand and "needs to be informed" of what "is really happening."
Let the chips fall where they
Let the chips fall where they may. In each instance, if the evidence proves the sniper/marksman shot someone, then he and his immediate supervisor, and those up the ladder, get to reap the fruits of wrongdoing.
Well, that's the way it should work. Its certainly the way it would work in a non-banana republic. But in Thailand, the law is only for the kwai - oops, sorry, I meant prai. Still, there are signs that Thailand is maturing beyond the level of a school-kid lately, so lets hope that's the way it will work in Thailand this time. We'll know if that happens, because wherever we are, we'll all hear the clatter generated by 33 million pairs of testicles as they drop into 33 million scrota. Thais have no sense of relevance except as members of a group, so perhaps a national puberty is approaching. Better stock up on the pimple cream I suppose - make a fortune.
I heard it said that Prayuth could not hold an honest job on this planet. Of course the foul-mouth ignoramus who said this does not "know the situation" in Thailand and "needs to be informed" of what "is really happening."
Perhaps someone will 'explain' or 'clarify' it for them. That's the way lies are usually made into truth or inconvenient facts disappeared in Thailand.
Bangkokdave The army is not
Bangkokdave
The army is not being "coy", as you put it. They are in a state of total denial.
They did not shoot anyone, according to them. The have been, it seems to me obstructing proper investigation, and are not interested in establishing the truth of the situation. Gen. Prayuth wants reporters to stop digging for the facts because this will not end the rift. They rely on their traditional impunity and their status of being above the law.
Indeed, led by the detestable
Indeed, led by the detestable nakleng Suthep Thaugsuban who straight-facedly claims that those who died 'ran into the bullets'. Sheer recklessness and stupidity, they should be prosecuted. Oh - they're dead already. Damn.
Presumably they are the same bullets the army never fired because they never had any, in fact they never even had guns or rifles at all, it was the men in black. Film evidence? Doctored, all of them.
Only in Thailand.
Follow-on (damn 'submit'
Follow-on (damn 'submit' button...).
I notice that nobody has publicly queried why the very expensive and incompetent Thai army fired approx 120,000 bullets and never actually hit anyone. No wonder they asked the Amricans for sniper training.
Oops, I'm not allowed to say that - that completely amazing oaf Prayuth will prolly sue me or something.
Where do they find these people and what did he do with his red nose?
Straw man arguments galore,
Straw man arguments galore, guys. No one is justifying shooting unarmed civilians. What I said was: Based on the well-documented existence of armed groups among protesters, authorizing the use of force - which may include snipers, was justified. And I added, that the use of snipers would have to be restricted. From the translation of the army document above:
"In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities..."
This clearly spells out the restrictions on the uses of firepowers and snipers, and it states that civilian casualties were to be avoided -- and this is what I fully agree with. I am not claiming the Thai army followed this directive to the letter, or that they were not often careless -- I am saying the directive targeting armed men or groups was valid. Some of you are arguing from the point of view that killings of civilians were intentional, which is your gut belief -- but there's no evidence for this.
No straw man arguments here
No straw man arguments here Dave. Do you know what a straw man argument is? If unsure check out Schopenhauer on the art of controversy, then you'll know.
" Some of you are arguing from the point of view that killings of civilians were intentional, which is your gut belief -- but there's no evidence for this."
What nonsense, there's a mountain of evidence that the 'marksmen' and other soldiers targeted and killed unarmed civilians. In fact, unarmed civilians is all they killed - to the best of my knowledge there is not a single instance of someone being shot by the military having a firearm. Taxi drivers yes, ambulance drivers , yes, nurses, yes, people trying to help the dead and wounded, yes, civilians seeking shelter in a wat, yes. But armed civilians, not a one. You are probably going to emulate that idiot Vichai N now and pretend that the red-shirts burned Bangkok to the ground. By which he means some apolitical lads burned down one shopping centre so the owner could claim the insurance.
Is your real name Tony by any chance? I only ask because - well, you probably already know about Tony.
There are quite a few cases
There are quite a few cases where unarmed individuals were intentionally shot. Or where negligence allowed them to be accidently shot. But some where definately intentionally murdered, such as what happened in the temple where a nurse and some others were intentionally killed.
Or are you going to say shooting Seh Daeng in the head when he was clearly unarmed and posing no threat was just an accident? You're foolish.
Yep BangkokDave's right, the
Yep BangkokDave's right, the lads were a bit careless.I mean shooting so many innocent victims with direct shots to the head ?? .. careless, .and wounding another two thousand !! very careless indeed of the boys.Of course had they been able to have a good nights kip beforehand,well things would have been different,but that bloody racket coming from the redshirt stage,I mean how could anyone sleep??? "daeng----daeng-daeng ---daeng daeng daeng daeng daeng daeng"....I blame the speaker system personally.
(Part 1) Never sure what this
(Part 1)
Never sure what this "strawman" thing actually means. Oh well. Never heard it from anyone anywhere apart from expats who seek to rationalise the slaughter of Thais.
Obvious questions to ask - if the Army did shoot armed militants where are their bodies? Where are their weapons? Where are the documented and proven connections to armed factions? No, a report produced by an obviously biased and compromised human rights organisation and based on the testimony of two journalists who saw something at distance is not credible evidence and nor would such testimony stand up even in a Thai court. Can we see details of these "armed militants" actions on a case by case basis where the use of live fire zones and snipers was necessitated? Can we interview each and every soldier involved in a fatal incident? Can we inspect their weapons, their ammunition and also interview their commanding officers? Can we see their orders and any logs that were kept on the day? These guys have nothing to hide so why can't this be done?
Surely, if the people who were killed were armed militants, the Abhisit govt and the Army would've been fully able to get all the evidence together and prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that the nurses they shot, the 16yr old boys they executed and the men holding flags who had their brains blown out, were, contrary to all other evidence, actually hardened militants, well-armed and ready for revolution.
What we get instead is the Dems and the Army actually blocking any investigation. It's a curious thing.
And lets not beat around the bush here - the Thai Army have a long and bloody record of shooting unarmed civilians that stretches back for decades. And usually with US weapons.
(Part 2) Some, like the
(Part 2)
Some, like the bizarre commentary above, equivocate, pander to and rationalise such murder.
But even their own logic falls under its own weight.
If there were "armed militants" among the protesters and the well-trained and disciplined Thai Army, using utmost restraint, sanctioned the use of marksmen and snipers how then did nurses, children and flag wavers get killed? The use of marksmen/snipers is a practise that requires the precise targeting of individuals not the random spraying of machine gun fire into a mob. The guns fired by the sniper/marksmen were not shot in the heat of battle where mistakes can be made but at distance, almost at leisure and with a cold calculation. Any professional soldier would also be able to report, clearly, why each target was chosen and how the terms of engagement were relied upon for each incident. That such deaths took place several dozen times, with over 90civilians killed with not one single victim proven to be a member of any "professional armed militia", how and why were they all killed?
Some claim the Men in Black shot them. Ok, let's investigate that. Hasn't happened because the Army have blocked it.
Some claim that all 90 of the dead were actually militants themselves. Ok, let's investigate and prove that. Won't and hasn't happened because the Army have blocked that as well.
Some just make stuff up as they go along because they have found themselves in the unenviable position of defending the murder of unarmed civilians.
History is never kind to collaborators.
From wikipedia: "A straw man,
From wikipedia: "A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Some of you continue opposing a position I never took based on your dogmatic beliefs and refusals to even entertain the notion that you could be wrong. No one here can convincingly refute the position that it is illegitimate for a security agency to defend itself by shooting at armed assailants (especially when they open fire and kill several of your men dead).
The HRW report documented two cases of unidentified shootings on April 10: at 4pm someone from the protest (probably a red guard) shot into an army helicopter that was spraying tear gas, wounding 2 soldiers. Later around 7pm, someone started shooting just when soldiers & protesters were both "engaging amicably," leading to a riot, with armed men striking out at soldiers, killing several. No evidence of soldiers engaging first with deadly force or attacking civilians. Again, after such events, adopting some kind of a policy of using deadly force, including snipers, against armed men would be SOP in most countries.
Correction: ...the position
Correction: ...the position that it is *legitimate* for a security agency to defend itself by shooting at armed assailants (especially when they open fire and kill several of your men dead).
And to defend the security of the nation and its people, I might add.
Correction: the position that
Correction: the position that it is *LEGITIMATE* for a security agency to defend itself by shooting at armed assailants (especially when they open fire and kill several of your men dead).
And to defend the security of the state and its people, I might add.
Dave, You seem like
Dave,
You seem like reasonable guy, we need more reasonable people here to replace the likes of the ridiculous Tony Cartalucci and the racist spammer John Francis Lee (the 'Francis is so important dontcha know), so let me offer a word to the wise.
You are on a hiding to nothing with the line you're taking - it's just more palace propaganda you'll be putting a sticker on your car next saying how much you love the old boy.
No matter how much lipstick you put on the Thai royalist pig, it's still a pig. No matter how hard you try to justify what the army and the royalist Democrat party did, it was still criminal, and Prayuth, Daopong, Abhisit and Suthep are terrified right now because they know they are criminals and they fear that (this time, for the first time) a come-uppance is coming.
You're on a hiding to nothing trying to justify the habitually murderous actions of the Thai establishment and the Thai army. Better to just take a more realistic view and see them as most other people do - as common criminals. If you're in a hole, stop digging.
Annie.
ps. its better to stop accusing others of putting up straw men when that's what you're doing yourself and when you don't understand what a straw man argument is anyway.
(Part 1) Wasn't it a firework
(Part 1)
Wasn't it a firework that was fired at a helicopter? Isn't there also a record of the Thai Army using helicopters to machine gun unarmed civilians? What injuries were sustained by the men in the helicopter? Can we see their hospital reports? What weapons were fired at them?
There's no point relying on a vague pronouncement in a report from HRW which is so full of flaws, misrepresentations and contradictions the "evidence" it contains would be inadmissible in any court on earth. And that's before we get onto the proven and discredited liars at HRW Thailand who produced this nonsense.
In the UK riots last year there was an incident of a rioter pointing a pistol at a police helicopter and firing directly at it. The commentator above might find it odd but the UK army didn't respond by shooting dozens of unarmed civilians in response.
And regardless of who initiated first "armed" contact what was an unelected, undemocratic govt doing in power in the first place? Why did the govt respond to peaceful protests with 1000s of heavily armed troops? Why did it attack at night, something expressly forbidden while policing civilian protests in this manner? Why were snipers placed on the roof tops at Kok Wua and why did obviously unarmed civilians have their brains blown out? Another pertinent question is also do civilians have a right to organize resistance against an army with such a brutal and vicious reputation as the Thai Army? Should they just stand there and be shot, beaten and imprisoned, allowing an unelected and deeply unpopular govt to remain in power? If these people peacefully vote for their govt of choice it is removed by force - an organized and defensive response to that is an act of democratic intervention, not a riot.
(part 2) And to contextualize
(part 2)
And to contextualize this entire situation further why was there such a disproportionality of force used when comparing the state response to the PAD with the Red Shirts? One group - which is loyal to the elite, to the Army, is clearly anti-democratic, has only a tiny following and has a far more explicitly violent agenda - was allowed to pretty much get away with anything it wanted, including going equipped with bombs to protests and running over members of the police force. The other - which was 99% peaceful, had a huge following and which called only for democratic elections - gets shot down like animals in the street by a massive armed force. Such disparity is one of the strongest indicators that the violent response to the Red Shirts was nothing to do with "rule of law", "restoring order" or "responding to armed militants" but all about crushing a legitimate, popular movement calling for democratic change.
The notion that because a firework was fired at a helicopter or that civilians resisted a military intervention designed only to protect the unelected and anti-democratic Abhisit govt somehow justifies the killing of unarmed nurses and children is absurd, poisonous and very obvious nonsense.
In apartheid South Africa
In apartheid South Africa ...
In apartheid (see Chris Baker I & II) Bangkok ...
I apologize for causing
I apologize for causing confusion with the quote above ...
In apartheid South Africa ...
In apartheid (see Chris Baker I & II) Bangkok ...
Insufficient. Grudging and
Insufficient. Grudging and insufficient.
It is not the quote you should be apologising for John 'Francis' Lee, it is for falsely attributing the quote that you should be apologising for, but of course you won't. You apologise for 'the confusion' when you should apologise for being a liar.
Nobody is confused, you falsely attributed a quote and you did it on purpose to make some dubious point or to garner some ego-boosting credibility.
The only other person to have done this so blatantly was that other serial spammer, liar and attempted deceiver Tony Cartalucci. Perhaps you should follow him to pastures greener. Or audiences more gullible.
“This was no massacre, this
“This was no massacre, this was a battle. The Royal Thai Army used their weapons in exactly the way they were supposed to. That’s what they have them for. The people they shot didn’t look like tru-Thais to me. We should be happy. The Royal Thai Army were admirable”.
Where is this quote to be found and by whom was it made John Francis Lee (yes, I know the 'Francis' is important to you).
Its just that you don't seem sure who made it yet you have (presumably deliberately) presented it in such a way as to suggest it was actually made by someone. Was it Baker? I doubt it. Prayuth? Thawil? It's just that the "any number of other Royal Thai Government officials" bit of your claim worries me..
Now we at Prachatai know you for a racist and a serial spammer, but if you cannot point to who actually said this, then we must now know you for a bare-faced liar as well, someone whose lies must surely bring Prachatai into disrepute.
Of course if you give the details and I am wrong, then I will be happy to apologise, but lets not hold out breath waiting for the quote shall we?
Shame.
Dan Black, it wasn't
Dan Black, it wasn't fireworks -- it was gunfire. One soldier inside the helicopter was wounded. And we can't really go down the road of comparing what happened in Thailand to what happened or would happen in the UK or any other developed democracy. First of all, the UK police did their job; the Thai police effectively surrendered to the mob, leaving a security vacuum that was filled by the army.
Had the RTP acted effectively in the days prior to April 10, none of what followed would have happened. NONE OF IT. It would all have been over by April 10 -- the protest would have been broken up; thousands would have been arrested, including the entire UDD leadership -- but the bloodshed would have been mostly avoided.
Secondly, a point made repeatedly since 2010: if there was any equivalent of the MIB in any riot or protest in the UK or the US (and if the protesters took swathes of territory inside a major city), the cops (and in the US, probably the FBI & possibly the Home Guard) would've cracked down hard. There would have certainly been live fire, casualties, collateral damage.
So where's the evidence it
So where's the evidence it was gunfire? Where are the medical records of the injuries? What type of weapon was used? AK47, M16, small pistol? Given that almost all guns in the Kok Wua area were held by the Thai Army is there a chance, if it was gunfire, it was an accidental discharge? These are the kinds of things that would be examined in a court of law. Internet tittle tattle, even if produced by HRW, is meaningless.
Who is stopping an investigation into all the above? The Thai Army.
Don't you ever ask why they'd do that?
When the RTP acted in 2008 against the PAD they were refused medical care by some hospital staff, were demonised by the press and the PAD attempted to murder them with the resulting court cases, while finding the PAD guilty, resulting in no custodial sentences.
Yet you still expect the RTP to have acted?
Here's a point made repeatedly since 2006 - if there hadn't been an illegal military coup, fascist hate mobs allowed to run amok on the streets and undemocratic and unmandated govts imposed on the Thai people there would have been no need for any protests. Given that the Thai Army has a long history of brutality and massacre it was quite appropriate when the Thai Army moved to surround a legitimate protest with very heavy weaponry that people organized defensive resistance. What would you have Thais do? Just wait to be shot passively in another re-enactment of 1992, Tak Bai, Thammasat, Krue Se etc etc?
As for your point that the British Army would shoot anyone who did such acts, well, only a couple of months ago one of the IRA's toughest former leaders met the UK Queen. The lesson is that these things have political and democratic solutions not military ones. If the democratic will of the Thai people had been respected by the Army and their associates in the Democrat Party and the elite there would've been no need at all for any kind of protest on the scale there was. Only those opposed to democracy would suggest that the Red Shirts had no legitimate grievance.
I wonder did anyone view the
I wonder did anyone view the televised parliamentary debate in the aftermath of the redshirts disbursement?
I watched as Pheu Thai displayed blown up photo evidence but curiously the TV camera kept zooming in and out of focus so the images could not be viewed unlike the evidence presented by the Dems.
We now know that none of those shot were armed however in this TV debate a thai DEM general displayed a photo of a clean hand of a dead protestor on the dirty, bloody ground holding a grenade.
It seemed to me at the time so obvious this was fake as we clearly needed to see the rest of the body not just a cropped image of a hand.
I wager that a soldier rolled up his sleeve, crouched on the ground and held out his hand holding a grenade to be photographed as evidence.
The general ranted away full of mock outrage.
We've never heard anything more about that incident of a supposedly dead armed "terrorist."
Bangkokdave said: "Had the
Bangkokdave said:
"Had the RTP acted effectively in the days prior to April 10, none of what followed would have happened. NONE OF IT. It would all have been over by April 10 -- the protest would have been broken up; thousands would have been arrested, including the entire UDD leadership -- but the bloodshed would have been mostly avoided."
The problem is you see that the protest was entirely legal until we had the unexplained unwitnessed minor explosions going off around Bangkok which Abhisit used as a pretext to declare a state of emergency and call in some 30,000 troops.
So the police could do nothing against a legitimate protest held away from the centre of town around the Democracy Monument.
Most thais do not know the significance of this monument or what it represents..
So incompetent was the army that when the good colonel and his men were blown up there were no medical staff and from the France24 footage whilst panic ensued around with wild firing the dying soldiers were laid on their backs and not in the recovery position. Such a well trained army. Not.