aaacorp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Violence had already started before Sah Daeng was shot, besides which, we still don't know for certain which side shot him. Sure we do. Sah Daeng was ordered silenced by Thaksin. Sah Daeng had been mouthing off about about how Thaksin said this or ordered that, thereby directly linking him (Thaksin) with what was going on. Thaksin didn't like that so ordered Sah Daeng silenced. Which he was. Why dont you give your precious information to the police? it seems you know more than them and the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaacorp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances. So if i follow your idea you support the Assad government intervention too right? This is a discussion about the situation in Thailand. If you want a discussion about the situation in Syria, start another thread. You elude half of my thread and then you elude any comment on a simple comparison..good job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaacorp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only. Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit? If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you? I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here. How much is Thaksin paying you to regurgitate this crap? Jeeze, get a life guy. How about the army returned fire when fired upon. Does that make any sense to you? Ok, probably not. Your red sunglasses prohibit such a possibility. Right? Maybe he will remove his red glasses if you remove your yellow ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I would also like to know if Thaksin's trip to Russia in March 2010, in which he sent a televised broadcast to his redshirt followers, if this trip had any connection with his friend the democratically-challenged Mister Putin, who Thaksin had weapons contracts with since 2003. Why did Thaksin go to Russia in March 2010 when redmob were first marching in Bangkok. Did Thaksin go see his friend Mister Putin. Did that meeting or other meetings in Russia have any connection with the mysterious black-clad caucasian snipers who appeared amongst the redmob a month later. Thaksin made no official comment as to his business in Russia during the redmob occupation of Bangkok. Maybe he was just soaking up the atmosphere there. I remember that situation very well. I was also wondering a that time why he was there and at the same time organizing a war in Thailand. A bit OT I heave to admit. Also consider his oil business partners there drooling at the thought of Thaksin taking over Thailand shortly and he and his buddy Hun Sen handing over development and lots of profits to Gazprom or the like in the Thailand/Cambodia oil field. That's the kind of carrot that gots lots of mercenaries out in the field. Armed or otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You elude half of my thread and then you elude any comment on a simple comparison..good job! Where is your thread that i eluded? Simple comparison? Maybe in your eyes it is simple. Pretty complex in mine and no intention of going off on a tangent discussing Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? Sae Daeng also was believed to have been behind the attack at the bridge weeks earlier and high ranking officers were killed. It doesn't take much to imagine a clique within the army would take him out as a personal grudge, and not on anyones orders. Even as he strutted and preened and made more threats, there was no government reason or need for taking him out. But he'd made blood enemies and that is not the type of person to listen to bureaucrats orders, when the opportunity arises. I for one was not at all surprised he exited the scene as he did. I as much as predicted it the week before here on the forum, and the knock on effects it caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Violence had already started before Sah Daeng was shot, besides which, we still don't know for certain which side shot him. Sure we do. Sah Daeng was ordered silenced by Thaksin. Sah Daeng had been mouthing off about about how Thaksin said this or ordered that, thereby directly linking him (Thaksin) with what was going on. Thaksin didn't like that so ordered Sah Daeng silenced. Which he was. Thaksin had a motive sure, but that's not sufficient basis to apportion blame with certainty. Sah Daeng had all sorts of enemies. There were many many who would have been glad to silence Sae Daeng,he was one of the most polarizing figures in the land. Short of Thaksin none comes close. No doubt his loose cannon style was becoming a potential threat to Thaksin, but I think there were others high up on the hate Sae Daeng list. Still if you wanted to kill one figure in an over the top way, and make the whole red group lose their minds, in a way that can be used to cause a conflagration, Sea Daaeng was right at the top of the list. Expendable, no shortage of blood enemies, and loved beyond reasoning by the indoctrinated. A potent mix to start a riot with. Edited June 21, 2012 by animatic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaacorp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You elude half of my thread and then you elude any comment on a simple comparison..good job! Where is your thread that i eluded? Simple comparison? Maybe in your eyes it is simple. Pretty complex in mine and no intention of going off on a tangent discussing Syria. The saeh daeng part and the army wanting to investigate the kill cases, bypassing the normal process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) You elude half of my thread and then you elude any comment on a simple comparison..good job! Where is your thread that i eluded? Simple comparison? Maybe in your eyes it is simple. Pretty complex in mine and no intention of going off on a tangent discussing Syria. The saeh daeng part and the army wanting to investigate the kill cases, bypassing the normal process You are talking then about your post not your thread, and i responded to the parts of your post that i had a particular opinion on. If you really wish to know, well then: Do i think the army should itself be investigating the death of someone it may have killed? Absolutely not. Do i think the army did kill him? I have no idea. I suspect nor do you. Edited June 21, 2012 by rixalex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaacorp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) You elude half of my thread and then you elude any comment on a simple comparison..good job! Where is your thread that i eluded? Simple comparison? Maybe in your eyes it is simple. Pretty complex in mine and no intention of going off on a tangent discussing Syria. The saeh daeng part and the army wanting to investigate the kill cases, bypassing the normal process You are talking then about your post not your thread, and i responded to the parts of your post that i had a particular opinion on. If you really wish to know, well then: Do i think the army should itself be investigating the death of someone it may have killed? Absolutely not. Do i think the army did kill him? I have no idea. I suspect nor do you. Sorry, English is not the native language of all the people here....And maybe, just maybe, the army think otherwise....which is quite disturbing is the army asked for such thing if it was sure they didn t killed anybody,the temple killings, where people where unarmed is also a bit confusing. Red or yellow, any one may think the opposite side organized this too... What I want to mention is the red ones AND the yellow ones refuse to admit anything and some people here may think Abhisit is as white as snow I m really not fond of Thaksin and for sure he took a part in this bloody event, but i m also quite sure the government at this time used too much lethal forces to push back this riot, and if Abhisit deny any involvment or says he didn t order anything but happend anyway then this appointed government for sure was as poor one Edited June 21, 2012 by aaacorp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I remember that situation very well. I was also wondering a that time why he was there and at the same time organizing a war in Thailand. Sean Boonpracong, UDD's official spokesman said they had ex-rangers who disagreed with the army and were fighting for the red shirts. He also said that an escalation of violence would only serve their cause in getting Abhisit out. Infact a previous rally by the redmob had met armed blockade, and had passed off peacefully without injuries, but on this occasion there seems to have been an effort by the redmob leadership to actually have martyrs and for that to ignite the whole situation. There were other snipers who were clearly not Thai rangers. At the time it happened I suspected foreign mercenaries, for the simple reason that they would have no loyalty-issues with killing redmob and army personnel alike. Having seen those photos at the time which were extremely pale, slavic-featured men, my hypothesis at the time was that they were procured during Thaksin's trip to Russia in March, sent to Bangkok to ignite the situation. Of course that is speculation. I have said from the start that the redshirts were not the problem, it was the redmob leaders and Thaksin, and the people in his employ, who were trying to escalate the situation, not the normal redshirt demonstrators. Its sort of hard to stay purely ontopic in this thread because we don't know if Abhisit gave the order or not, so I am speculating that in the week before the army started shooting, there were foreign mercenary specialists, trying to trigger an all-out battle, for forced martyrdom of protestors and then revolution. The guilty people did not die that day and the guiltiest person of all was not even in the country. And as always it is the pawns, the innocent peaceful demonstrators, the innocent low-paid army soldiers, innocent Bangkok residents and passers-by, or the innocent Japanese camerman, who always lose in this sick game of megalomaniac chess. This post is now so far back I just couldn't bear the thought of Carra missing it. Mark is such an abject liar , he is an absolute disgrace to all his fellow Oxford Alumni. Is that just a personal attack or do you have privileged information that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would like to be made aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only. Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit? If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you? I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here. How much is Thaksin paying you to regurgitate this crap? Jeeze, get a life guy. How about the army returned fire when fired upon. Does that make any sense to you? Ok, probably not. Your red sunglasses prohibit such a possibility. Right? How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weka Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Forum are for opinions right? In my opinion the army didn't do enough to improve the gene pool. It's Fkn Thailand - when someone (anyone!) comes at you with a rifle, it ain't much good trying to retain the moral high ground. Fkn run! just keeping it real for all you keyboard Nobel Peace Prize candidates out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? I'm sure they're just trying to help out with the backlog. There is nothing untoward in the army asking to conduct inquests behind closed doors in the barracks, nothing at all 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. Edited June 21, 2012 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Is being shot at "unprovoked"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. Neither is justified and I am sure you know that. Recognise one injustice, recognise the other........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Is being shot at "unprovoked"? That one works both ways.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Is being shot at "unprovoked"? That one works both ways.................... It doesn't work "both ways" when one side are "peaceful, unarmed protesters". Maybe if they WERE "peaceful, unarmed protesters", there wouldn't have been ANY deaths. edit: added "if" Edited June 21, 2012 by whybother 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Is being shot at "unprovoked"? That one works both ways.................... It doesn't work "both ways" when one side are "peaceful, unarmed protesters". Maybe they WERE "peaceful, unarmed protesters", there wouldn't have been ANY deaths. Never mind................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Neither is justified and I am sure you know that. Recognise one injustice, recognise the other........... Yes ... neither is justified, but it throws out the "no democratic country" crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It doesn't work "both ways" when one side are "peaceful, unarmed protesters". Maybe they WERE "peaceful, unarmed protesters", there wouldn't have been ANY deaths. Never mind................ Why? Because they weren't "peaceful, unarmed protesters"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) I would also like to know if Thaksin's trip to Russia in March 2010, in which he sent a televised broadcast to his redshirt followers, if this trip had any connection with his friend the democratically-challenged Mister Putin, who Thaksin had weapons contracts with since 2003. Why did Thaksin go to Russia in March 2010 when redmob were first marching in Bangkok. Did Thaksin go see his friend Mister Putin. Did that meeting or other meetings in Russia have any connection with the mysterious black-clad caucasian snipers who appeared amongst the redmob a month later. Thaksin made no official comment as to his business in Russia during the redmob occupation of Bangkok. Maybe he was just soaking up the atmosphere there. I remember that situation very well. I was also wondering a that time why he was there and at the same time organizing a war in Thailand. A bit OT I heave to admit. Also consider his oil business partners there drooling at the thought of Thaksin taking over Thailand shortly and he and his buddy Hun Sen handing over development and lots of profits to Gazprom or the like in the Thailand/Cambodia oil field. That's the kind of carrot that gots lots of mercenaries out in the field. Armed or otherwise. Ah, We now have the Animatic Gazprom Oil Exploitation / Yunla Russian Caucasian Sniper theory remix that explains what really is behind it all. But don't worry, you're not alone, when the rumours were going round of someone out to assassinate Abhisit there was this great one............ Meanwhile, former deputy permanent secretary for Defence, Admiral Bannawit Kengrien said he too had heard about the so called assassination plot and that a large number of Cambodian warriors of Vietnamese descent, who had undergone military training and were great snipers, had been brought in to do the job. http://asiancorrespondent.com/40861/smoke-and-mirrors/ Get those tin foil hats ready folks................ Edited June 21, 2012 by phiphidon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How about the instances where the army opened fire, unprovoked, on unarmed people ?? Can you admit that fact or do your raybans prohibit ????? Is being shot at "unprovoked"? That one works both ways.................... It doesn't work "both ways" when one side are "peaceful, unarmed protesters". Maybe if they WERE "peaceful, unarmed protesters", there wouldn't have been ANY deaths. edit: added "if" So by what you're saying above, only red shirt protesters, journalists, medics and non aligned citizens who were "provoking" the security forces by shooting at them were shot dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Why else would you sign a command to use live ammunition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) put a neutral head for a minute If you mean that, then I have to say that really you are very partisan in your posts, which is totally OK, everyone is allowed to have party loyalties, but really its a bit much to support one side like you do and then claim neutrality. It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow. . Edited June 21, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So by what you're saying above, only red shirt protesters, journalists, medics and non aligned citizens who were "provoking" the security forces by shooting at them were shot dead? No. I am saying that the army did NOT "open fire unprovoked, on unarmed people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Why else would you sign a command to use live ammunition? For protection from "unarmed, peaceful" protesters. Being unarmed didn't seem to help at government house and Thaicom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now