Who stood to gain most by shooting into temple?

The red shirts have always stressed that they were simple, unarmed citizens longing for justice and democracy, and that their demonstrations were peaceful. Even Seh Daeng, the military leader of the Red Shirt guards, insisted that his role was purely defensive. 

No red shirt has ever acknowledged that there were arms at Ratchaprasong or that there were armed men in their midst. Indeed, if it could’ve been shown that a single shot was fired by a red shirt at the Army, or anyone else, the whole movement would have been discredited.

By the same token, the army has always insisted that it took up purely defensive positions. Soldiers were never issued with commands to fire on the crowd, Abhisit Vejajiva has insisted, and that in all but very special situations, clearly spelt out at the time by the army spokesman, soldiers did not carry live ammunition. To have shot any defenceless demonstrator – what is more, a nurse – taking refuge in a temple sanctuary, would have been political suicide.

The only motive for anybody to shoot anybody was to make it look as if the other side did it. For the same reasons, a huge effort was made during the Songkran riots the year before to prove the army killed innocent demonstrators; Thaksin Shinawatra even appeared on BBC TV with what he claimed was photographic evidence that 100s had died. That evidence has subsequently never been confirmed, or even seen. Indeed, the lack of innocent victims was almost certainly why the riots had to be repeated all over again a year later – there simply hadn’t been enough blood!

So the question has to be asked, who have would have stood to gain more by shooting Nurse Kamonkade?

Answering that question should lead to the culprit.

Lung Kip

Chiang Mai