View Full Version : Thai Government
Looks like another regime willing to kill the citizens rather than give up power :mad:
I wonder what would happen here?
Would the army shoot us if ordered to? :eek:
Looks like another regime willing to kill the citizens rather than give up power :mad:
I wonder what would happen here?
Would the army shoot us if ordered to? :eek:
Of course they would, Derry 1972 springs to mind and they were not even in danger of losing power.
Of course they would, Derry 1972 springs to mind and they were not even in danger of losing power.
Duh - Anfield, you've misread the initial question, there was no danger of the [regime willing to kill the citizens rather than give up power] This was not the situation in 'London'derry.
I suppose if the situation to which the poster referred to (as detailed below) was to arise then the outcome might well be different - of course being a Pacifist yourself, you have no idea whatsoever what would happen - being anti-military by nature you would by default state that the military would again (your quote) be 'gung-ho.. and shoot the bleeding lot..
Sorry for the following, but it's a bit complicated out there, I know Thailand and the people (I don't mean those on the beaches and cities) - but those in the Hinterland; genuine, kind people..
'Thailand has been gripped by a paralysing political crisis since Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from office in a military coup in September 2006.
When Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was chosen as prime minister in December 2008, some Thais hoped the protests had finally come to an end. But the political schism is far from over. In March 2010 the pro-Thaksin red-shirts launched new protests aimed at bringing the government down. The red-shirts say Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva came to power illegitimately and is a puppet of the military. They want Mr Abhisit to resign and call fresh elections. On 10 April an attempt by the military to clear them from one of their camps turned violent. At least 25 people were killed, including at least five soldiers.
When Mr Abhisit offered polls on 14 November it appeared as if a deal could be in the offing. But none was reached, because of divisions over holding the deputy prime minister accountable for the 10 April violence. The opponents of Mr Thaksin call themselves the Peoples' Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and wear yellow shirts. They are a loose grouping of royalists, businessmen and the urban middle class, led by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, a former general with close ties to the king's most senior adviser, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda. The PAD was instrumental in setting the scene for the military coup which removed Mr Thaksin from office in 2006.
Together with several court rulings against Mr Thaksin's political parties, they are credited with bringing down two governments of his allies - firstly the administration of Samak Sundaravej and then that of Mr Thaksin's brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat.
Once the Democrats were in power, the yellow-shirts went quiet. But after a month of red-shirt demonstrations in Bangkok, they intervened. On 18 April 2010, they gave the government a week to end the political crisis or face mass action.
Amid the turmoil of the airport blockade in December 2008, a Constitutional Court ruled that the then ruling pro-Thaksin party was guilty of electoral fraud and barred its leaders from politics for five years.'
Duh - Anfield, you've misread the initial question, there was no danger of the [regime willing to kill the citizens rather than give up power] This was not the situation in 'London'derry.
I suppose if the situation to which the poster referred to (as detailed below) was to arise then the outcome might well be different - of course being a Pacifist yourself, you have no idea whatsoever what would happen - being anti-military by nature you would by default state that the military would again (your quote) be 'gung-ho.. and shoot the bleeding lot..
Can you explan how a peaceful protest march in Derry was a danger to the Establishment.
Whenever the report is published (postponed because of election) one wonders whether or not the following will be included in it:
Soldier admits gunfire untruths
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/may/15/bloodysunday.northernireland
IRA fired first, says colonel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/11/bloodysunday.northernireland
Colonel 'ordered paratrooper to fire at civilians'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/oct/11/bloodysunday.northernireland
Or, as I predict will it leave more questions than answers.
Incidentally, Pacifist is present tense, and as for you calling me "anti-military by nature" I will take that as a compliment to the way that my parents, both of whom had fought through and lived through the horrors of war, brought me up.
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 13:05
Altogether Beks .. :D
"We got one .. We got two .. "
Altogether Beks .. :D
"We got one .. We got two .. "
I won, I won :lol:
Incoming.
Call up the cavalry
Think the rest of them are having their daily snooze or not woken up yet
Incoming.
Call up the cavalry
Think the rest of them are having their daily snooze or not woken up yet
You leave Fred alone!
Altogether Beks .. :D
"We got one .. We got two .. "
I won, I won :lol:
You leave Fred alone!
Why do you, and others, feel the need to mention Fred nearly everytime you make a post?
I certainly do not think that he would make insensitive posts, rejoicing in the deaths of innocent people, as some members of this forum do.
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 17:51
Why do you, and others, feel the need to mention Fred nearly everytime you make a post?
I certainly do not think that he would make insensitive posts, rejoicing in the deaths of innocent people, as some members of this forum do.
Why are you quoting me in the above post ??, I never mentioned *censored lest I be accused of "bulllying"* on this thread. Although watching you fight his corner IS entertaining. Almost as entertaining as watching *censored lest I be accused of bullying* cry when his bluff is called.
And if, after all your dull PM's, it hasn't sunk in let me make it clear for you. I don't give a toss what you think. About anything.
Got it now or would you like a picture ??
Why are you quoting me in the above post ??, I never mentioned *censored lest I be accused of "bulllying"* on this thread. Although watching you fight his corner IS entertaining. Almost as entertaining as watching *censored lest I be accused of bullying* cry when his bluff is called.
And if, after all your dull PM's, it hasn't sunk in let me make it clear for you. I don't give a toss what you think. About anything.
Got it now or would you like a picture ??
(1) Are you reading the right post? as I have made no mention of "censored...."
(2) I think you will find that the last PM was from you to me.
Well this thread has taken an uxexpected turn :confused
I would still be interested to know whether British soldiers, ordered to fire on British citizens, would? And under what circumstances.
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 18:10
(1) Are you reading the right post? as I have made no mention of "censored...."
(2) I think you will find that the last PM was from you to me.
1) Post number 9. You quoted me and then whinged on about Fred. I never mentioned him. The "censored" bit was because the individual concerned (Foxtrot Romeo Echo Delta) cries "bully" like a spanked stepchild every time I mention his name. So I don't.
2) *sigh*
Why do you, and others, feel the need to mention Fred nearly everytime you make a post?
I certainly do not think that he would make insensitive posts, rejoicing in the deaths of innocent people, as some members of this forum do.
Maybe because you wrote this: "Think the rest of them are having their daily snooze or not woken up yet"
"Rejoicing at the deaths of innocent people"? you've lost it this time Anfield. Beginning to think that Andfield might be right, you are into the realms of fantasy again..
"Don't sponsor Foreign Charity events unless you know where ALL the money is going to. Women-For-Women receive just 50p for every £1 donated"
That's pure nastiness Anfield, I don't get on with certain people, but I would not sink that low.. maybe YOU should get off your arse and do some charity raising? go on - what have you done? go, go on?
Maybe because you wrote this: "Think the rest of them are having their daily snooze or not woken up yet"
"Rejoicing at the deaths of innocent people"? you've lost it this time Anfield. Beginning to think that Andfield might be right, you are into the realms of fantasy again..
I assumed that you left the Army an awful long time ago, as even I know the song which your ex soldier pal was referring to
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 19:06
I assumed that you left the Army an awful long time ago, as even I know the song which your ex soldier pal was referring to
I wasn't in the Army. Keep up.
Well this thread has taken an uxexpected turn :confused
I would still be interested to know whether British soldiers, ordered to fire on British citizens, would? And under what circumstances.
You are right of course - I tried a bit above, but if our Government were over-thrown by a military dictatorship, who then imposed their own leader, and the people wanted the original leader back, or at least new free elections, then maybe the army ( IF it was still around after carrying out a coup) would fire upon it's own people, because it would not be the strong minded excellent characters that have protected this country for so many years - soldiers are not morons, they do have a conscious, and there would be no way what is happening in Thailand would happen here (ex-squaddie, so has more than a passing knowledge) - but then again, even the Thai Army is wavering at the killing.
So in reality no-one knows; do they.
What do you think Ducati?
I assumed that you left the Army an awful long time ago, as even I know the song which your ex soldier pal was referring to
Eh? I might have left a long time ago, but I've still got a son in, but have no idea what you are on about - I think I read an earlier post of yours about your parents being in the military? were they 'gung-ho' - maybe they know the song?
PS I don't think DD was in the Army - but then we're ALL thugs to you I suppose ;)
I would still be interested to know whether British soldiers, ordered to fire on British citizens, would? And under what circumstances.
Well I think yes they would, all service personnel are trained for that. It is called "Aid To The Civil Power", and if I remember my training, I would not be wearing a red shirt [lol] the guy in the red shirt was always the main target [lol]
Altogether Beks .. :D
"We got one .. We got two .. "
Eh? I might have left a long time ago, but I've still got a son in, but have no idea what you are on about
So why do you think that your pal was asking you to join in with him?
So why do you think that your pal was asking you to join in with him?
You've seriously got a problem Anfield - I have no idea why/what DD was posting. End of.
So in reality no-one knows; do they.
What do you think Ducati?
Why did I turn blue? :eek:
I don't know. I'd like to think that senior leaders in the forces given the order by the Government would refuse and quote a legal reason why?
Or the officers on the front line would refuse to give the order.
Or, I'd like to think our soldiers would sooner turn their weapons on their officers, (that’s what I would do, I hope) than open fire on the population.
As you say, it is not a very likely scenario here. But then the Thais' probably thought that, didn't they?
I would still be interested to know whether British soldiers, ordered to fire on British citizens, would? And under what circumstances.
As I mentioned earlier the British Army opened fire in Derry on Bloody Sunday and killed 14 UK citizens. http://www.bloodysundaytrust.org/
(I was going to link to the official UK government web site www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/. (http://forum.caithness.org/www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/.) but got "problem loading page")
You would think that after spending £200M on this inquiry that they could have got their own website to function correctly
Would this be allowed to happen in England?
Let us look at a hypothetical situation:
In 2002/3 the Fire Service in the UK went on strike and the Army was called into cover for them.
Suppose the fireman held a protest about this situation, and formed an orderly picket line outside their place of employement. Amongst the picket line was a fireman, who as it happened, had a son in the army.
If the PM at the time wanted to quash this strike, and ordered the troops to open fire, would the firemans son be within his rights, both legal and moral, to refuse to fire?
Or would he, like many did in WW1, be treated as a coward and be court martialled
Meinn Gott Anfield old pal, you really are getting in to the realms of fantasy now :Razz.
I notice you persist in calling Londonderry by its Free State name of Derry and quoting republican websites in defence of your dreams, is there a message there for us perhaps ? [lol]
Since moving to Sweaty Sock land have you perchance discovered the water of life stuff, your posts at times point to the fact that you should put more water in it. :Razz
As I mentioned earlier the British Army opened fire in Derry on Bloody Sunday and killed 14 UK citizens. http://www.bloodysundaytrust.org/
(I was going to link to the official UK government web site www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/. (http://forum.caithness.org/www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/.) but got "problem loading page")
You would think that after spending £200M on this inquiry that they could have got their own website to function correctly
Would this be allowed to happen in England?
Let us look at a hypothetical situation:
In 2002/3 the Fire Service in the UK went on strike and the Army was called into cover for them.
Suppose the fireman held a protest about this situation, and formed an orderly picket line outside their place of employement. Amongst the picket line was a fireman, who as it happened, had a son in the army.
If the PM at the time wanted to quash this strike, and ordered the troops to open fire, would the firemans son be within his rights, both legal and moral, to refuse to fire?
Or would he, like many did in WW1, be treated as a coward and be court martialled
Well no. First of all I doubt the Army Green Goddess crews brought their weapons with them. I seriously doubt the Government would use firearms to break a strike (that is just your perspective coming to the for). Your comparisons with Londonderry on the day of the carnage are not (in my opinion) valid (the soldiers involved where in an armed conflict, had no way of knowing and no good reason to doubt they were under fire).
(Sorry if anyone needs brackets can they wait a few mins while we stock up) :lol:
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 20:30
Why did I turn blue? :eek:
I don't know. I'd like to think that senior leaders in the forces given the order by the Government would refuse and quote a legal reason why?
Or the officers on the front line would refuse to give the order.
Or, I'd like to think our soldiers would sooner turn their weapons on their officers, (that’s what I would do, I hope) than open fire on the population.
As you say, it is not a very likely scenario here. But then the Thais' probably thought that, didn't they?
Its a common misconception that Soldiers are all automations who just do as they are told. Just as most people think any serviceman with a weapon is just itching to kill someone. Its just not realistic. It doesn't work that way, every Live Armed situation will have Rules of Engagement. That means the person with the live rounds HAS to think about the situation, their reactions and the consequences. It would not surprise me if there were a set drawn up for issue in case of such a scenario as Thailand.
In the UK I would be very surprised if it came down to the situation that civvies would be squaring off against the Army. The only way I think that a member of the Armed Forces would open fire is if there was no other way to prevent a loss of life. For example if I meet a protester coming down an alleyway at me with a petrol bomb held high as if to throw it then I would open fire. I cant escape and in that situation I can open fire without warning because life is in imminent danger. But if I am in a park and have the option to get out of the way of the petrol bomb then opening fire is a secondary option. I would just get out of the way, hazard averted. Soldiers have to apply these rules during normal Guard Duties. Therefore they are used to judging each situation and applying situational awareness and the ROE. A Thailand scenario on the streets of the UK would require the same. So the idea of a row of robots doing as they are told is a non starter.
There was a thread on the Army Rumour Service where current soldiers were asked this question, tried to find it but no joy so far. But as I recall the point was made that the Services ultimate loyalty is to the Monarch, NOT the Government. Therefore disobeying an Order from the Prime Minister, even if given by a Senior Officer is NOT mutiny. The main point would be that the soldier considered it unlawful. If he or she did open fire on civilians and kill anyone, and the order was later found to be unlawful he or she would be charged with murder as the person who actually pulled the trigger. Giving the order is not illegal. Obeying it is. As we have seen before the "I was just obeying orders" claim will NOT be a defence, the fact it was discussed in depth by current Army personnel disproves the "mindless automaton" theory some like to peddle.
EDIT .. Bringing up Bloody Sunday as a comparison with a scenario today is just not realistic. In 1972 the Army was new to the role faced with it in Northern Ireland and still learning, civil unrest being "policed" by soldiers unfamiliar with the scenario and trained to be aggressive was always going to be an accident waiting to happen. Using the Parachute Regiment, who react quickly and aggressively to provocation and aggression towards them was not a good choice. They are not Riot Police but highly aggressive shock troops. In the 38 years since then the Armed Forces learnt a lot on how to deal with such situations, most of it from Northern Ireland. So the troops today are a LOT more trained and prepared for the scenario than the guys were in 1972. Lessons were learned.
Its a common misconception that Soldiers are all automations who just do as they are told. Just as most people think any serviceman with a weapon is just itching to kill someone. Its just not realistic. It doesn't work that way, every Live Armed situation will have Rules of Engagement. That means the person with the live rounds HAS to think about the situation, their reactions and the consequences. It would not surprise me if there were a set drawn up for issue in case of such a scenario as Thailand.
In the UK I would be very surprised if it came down to the situation that civvies would be squaring off against the Army. The only way I think that a member of the Armed Forces would open fire is if there was no other way to prevent a loss of life. For example if I meet a protester coming down an alleyway at me with a petrol bomb held high as if to throw it then I would open fire. I cant escape and in that situation I can open fire without warning because life is in imminent danger. But if I am in a park and have the option to get out of the way of the petrol bomb then opening fire is a secondary option. I would just get out of the way, hazard averted. Soldiers have to apply these rules during normal Guard Duties. Therefore they are used to judging each situation and applying situational awareness and the ROE. A Thailand scenario on the streets of the UK would require the same. So the idea of a row of robots doing as they are told is a non starter.
There was a thread on the Army Rumour Service where current soldiers were asked this question, tried to find it but no joy so far. But as I recall the point was made that the Services ultimate loyalty is to the Monarch, NOT the Government. Therefore disobeying an Order from the Prime Minister, even if given by a Senior Officer is NOT mutiny. The main point would be that the soldier considered it unlawful. If he or she did open fire on civilians and kill anyone, and the order was later found to be unlawful he or she would be charged with murder as the person who actually pulled the trigger. Giving the order is not illegal. Obeying it is. As we have seen before the "I was just obeying orders will NOT be a defence", the fact it was discussed in depth by current Army personnel disproves the "mindless automaton" theory some like to peddle.
Good one, that was the sort of answer I was looking for :cool:
Why did I turn blue? :eek:
Nothing meant by it, it's just that your name 'Ducati' is in Blue - like everyone else's, just did not have exactly the right colour!
Suppose the fireman held a protest about this situation, and formed an orderly picket line outside their place of employement. Amongst the picket line was a fireman, who as it happened, had a son in the army.
If the PM at the time wanted to quash this strike, and ordered the troops to open fire, would the firemans son be within his rights, both legal and moral, to refuse to fire?
Or would he, like many did in WW1, be treated as a coward and be court martialled
Oh my God, he's lost it, where does he get these fantasies from? :lol:
A very good informative post by DD
There is just point I would query though:
Prior to Bloody Sunday in Jan 1972, the army had been in N Ireland since August 1969 and thus had 2 1/2 years experience in civil disobediance policing,
There had been a lot of conflicts in Derry between the Nationialists, Protestants and Army, so I would argue against the point made about them being "new to the role".
I am sure I can also recall the Army also being used in a similar capacity in Aden, but I stand to be corrected on this point.
Similiarities between Aden & LONDONderry - have you totally lost the plot old chap ?.:Razz
Didn't see any Ayrabs in LONDONderry the last time I was there either :Razz
The Drunken Duck
17-May-10, 22:03
A very good informative post by DD
There is just point I would query though:
Prior to Bloody Sunday in Jan 1972, the army had been in N Ireland since August 1969 and thus had 2 1/2 years experience in civil disobediance policing,
There had been a lot of conflicts in Derry between the Nationialists, Protestants and Army, so I would argue against the point made about them being "new to the role".
I am sure I can also recall the Army also being used in a similar capacity in Aden, but I stand to be corrected on this point.
I see your point, its an understandable one. Bek's was Green Army and might have a better insight but as I understand it Infantry battalions were rotating through Northern Ireland quite quickly and the main problem was there was no unified central training. So the information learned by one didn't go to a central hub if you like from where it could be passed onto everyone. And that just results in it being diffused. Add in the different approaches of different Regiments and the waters are muddied further. Plus some area's were more hostile than others so it wasn't a case of learning just one scenario. The approach needed to operate in an overtly hostile area will turn a peaceful one into a hostile one if used there !!, lots of variables to be learned.
Shortly after the role in NI was obviously going to be a long term one there was a facility of a mock town built in England that allowed troops to practice against mock protesters and get the procedures right. A pre-deployment schedule of training for Units going to NI was introduced to get the troops used to operating in what was basically a "policing" role. That was the biggest problem in those early years, soldiers are not policemen. It just took time for procedures to be developed, adequate training procedures to be implemented and for that to filter through and be put into practice.
I see your point, its an understandable one. Bek's was Green Army and might have a better insight but as I understand it Infantry battalions were rotating through Northern Ireland quite quickly and the main problem was there was no unified central training. So the information learned by one didn't go to a central hub if you like from where it could be passed onto everyone. And that just results in it being diffused. Add in the different approaches of different Regiments and the waters are muddied further. Plus some area's were more hostile than others so it wasn't a case of learning just one scenario. The approach needed to operate in an overtly hostile area will turn a peaceful one into a hostile one if used there !!, lots of variables to be learned.
Shortly after the role in NI was obviously going to be a long term one there was a facility of a mock town built in England that allowed troops to practice against mock protesters and get the procedures right. A pre-deployment schedule of training for Units going to NI was introduced to get the troops used to operating in what was basically a "policing" role. That was the biggest problem in those early years, soldiers are not policemen. It just took time for procedures to be developed, adequate training procedures to be implemented and for that to filter through and be put into practice.
Your last two posts have given a revealing insight to the practicalities of "policing" a country which is torn apart by internal strife.
Take a fiercely nationalist native population, with the added distraction of an incomers population who are loyal to the employers of the "policing force"
Throw into the mix a few more groups, IRA/UDA/INLA/CIRA/UFF/UVF and numerous other acronyms and you can see why it is an almost impossible task to police or govern. Sound a bit like Iraq/Afghanistan?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.