Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists

**Mr Lick** · 02-11-2010, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by DroversDog

Very spectacular smoke, but nothing more then fireworks. It certainly has a much shorter range and questional ability to do any damage then the assault and sniper rifles the army where using. Where's your footage of that?

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel. They were positioned to do just that, to protect the soldiers who were advancing in order to clear the area.

As i have mentioned before, the army do not have to give their opponents a fair chance. Of course they will have superior weaponry and in great numbers. The reds will have acknowledged this, it's not rocket science.

Those reds who decided to stay and resist the advancing soldiers sustained injuries and even death. Can anyone really be surprised at the outcome?
What did the reds expect? They had taken over certain parts of the Capital for a period of 2 months. They had been warned to disperse prior to the advancement, those that stayed to fight must have known they were endangering themselves.

Rules of Engagement - If you or any other person is in imminent danger of suffering a serious injury or death then RoE have been met.

Trying to create an image that those who stayed were merely doing a wee bit of shopping or having a family outing would be naive in the extreme. They were confronting the security service with weapons, no matter how outgunned they appeared, these weapons were still capable of causing serious injury/death.

I believe that several security personnel died during the confrontation. Proof enough that those who stayed were usng a wee bit more than water pistols.

**Bettyboo** · 02-11-2010, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

You sound like a CRES spokesman... Massive misrepresentation of the truth here... We all saw the pictures, live streaming, photos, reports from the scene, so do us a favour and keep to the facts.

TH's, silly pictures are just his usual propaganda.

The facts are that, from the start, the army assasinated an opposition political leaders who was unarmed and doing a TV interview. Thereafter, they assassinated medics, via sniper head shots, and unarmed people who tried to drag the dying/dead medic to safety. They also assassinated a number of people who were hiding out in a safehaven; a wat - they did so via high powered army rifle shots from the BTS line. They also assassinated many political protesters who were 1) throwing tyres onto a pile of burning tyres, 2) standing behind tyre baracades unarmed, 3) throwing stones, using childish slingshots and holding lumps of wood. There were scores of assassinations where the dead were zero threat to any army personel; it was actually impossible for them to 'cause injury to security personel' from the positions they were in and the actions they were taking part in.

Now, a few protesters were firing countryside fireworks and using 'high-powered' sling shots. The chance of them hurting any securoty fok was tiny, but possible; no riot squad in a democratic country would have sent snipers to shoot them dead. Declaring a civilian protest area as a life firing zone is against international law, as was pointed out many times, and the Thai army quickly removed said signs when they realized that they'd made a massive PR error; they then went back to their usual tactic of shooting people dead, and preparing to lie about it later.

It is also very likely that some army/ex-army units were shooting at the army, but this was done in an ambush fashion away from these sniper incidents - obviously trained soldiers don't stand still to be shot by snipers! These snipers are murderers, as are the people that issued the command to shoot the protesters and medics. As for the camera/photo crews shot in the back with army bullets, well, they seem to be denying this ever happened...

The fact that you are supporting their lies is shameful, frankly... As for TH, he is either paid or a very very sad and lonely individual with nothing better to do than mock murdered political protesters.

**Mr Lick** · 02-11-2010, 10:40 PM

Quite frankly, i supported neither side in the conflict BB and i must add that i have not witnessed any live streaming of any protester actually being shot, they clearly were but to state that they were doing very little (unless you were a witness to events) might at this stage be called inaccurate.
Also pre-empting the outcome of the DSI investigation into individual deaths (for what thats worth) may be seen as having a blinkered view of events.

Wherever you have a conflict there are going to be casualties. The army were advancing to clear the area, they were being met with resistance and as you correctly mentioned the reds could have injured those who were acting lawfully. The resisting reds were acting unlawfully and using weapons in order to prevent the advancement. Those that stayed could not be described as 'peaceful protesters'. They were anarchists, freedom fighters, call them what you will but certainly not peaceful.

In such circumstances, security forces have a legal right to defend themselves and others around them. Had the snipers had a 'shoot to kill' policy then i suggest that we would have witnessed a great deal more than 80 civilian deaths. It would seem that they were targeting limbs to disable those who were displaying resistance (not sure of the exact number but several hundred injured casualties were mentioned).

It is always best to keep an open mind in such circumstances although supporting unlawful acts is something, which personally is not agreeable to myself.

We know that the reds were acting unlawfully and attempting to injure security personnel. Did the army have a legal right to respond with gunfire?

The International Rules of Engagement tend to support their decision.

Interestingly the UN have issued no condemnation of the governments actions although i believe Robert Amsterdam is still working on that one.

The deaths of journalists, Seh Deng and at the temple are seperate issues.

In my view the government were slow to react to the protest, allowing tens of thousands of protesters to entrench themselves in the capital city for 2 months defies logic. It was destined for disaster and by dithering the government may have contributed to the consequences.

It would be nice to discover the truth behind the 3 issues but i doubt very much whether any Thai government can bring themselves to account.

**Tom Sawyer** · 02-11-2010, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

80 odd dead and not one murderer found, only in Thailand

Yeah. I would have thought there would be 200 or so people standing around with their fingers pointed at the Army and their corrupt sakdina-bureaucrat-Thai-Chin-business-buddies.

Why haven't the papers shown the finger pointers - and more importantly those the fingers are pointed at DD?

**StrontiumDog** · 03-11-2010, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

You sound like a CRES spokesman... Massive misrepresentation of the truth here... We all saw the pictures, live streaming, photos, reports from the scene, so do us a favour and keep to the facts.

Okay, but how about you do so first....

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

The facts are that, from the start, the army assasinated an opposition political leaders who was unarmed and doing a TV interview.

This isn't an established fact.

There are many people who wanted him dead.

His death was also a convenient trigger. Once more, who in their right mind would shoot him dead while he was doing a TV interview? Someone who wanted to create anarchy.

Who would want that?

You are wildly speculating here.

I assume by the army, you mean a person sympathetic to the government?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Thereafter, they assassinated medics, via sniper head shots, and unarmed people who tried to drag the dying/dead medic to safety. They also assassinated a number of people who were hiding out in a safehaven; a wat - they did so via high powered army rifle shots from the BTS line. They also assassinated many political protesters who were 1) throwing tyres onto a pile of burning tyres, 2) standing behind tyre baracades unarmed, 3) throwing stones, using childish slingshots and holding lumps of wood. There were scores of assassinations where the dead were zero threat to any army personel; it was actually impossible for them to 'cause injury to security personel' from the positions they were in and the actions they were taking part in.

I witnessed and was also on the receiving end of sniper fire. Again, the facts you seem to be so certain of have not been established, so you are engaging in nothing more than speculation. Speculation I might add, based purely upon your own bias and opinions. There's nothing factual about that.

Independent foreign journalists witnessed M79 grenade launchers being used and gunfire coming from red shirt positions. I witnessed, felt and heard M79 grenade launchers being used, that were fired from the red shirts position towards the army. Molotov cocktails and IED's were also evident. I even took some photos of those.

I'll also remind you at this point, that we are already aware that certain factions within the red shirt movement are seemingly just fine about attacking innocent civilians to discredit this government....the Nonthaburi bomber being a fine example of this. Don't you think it is strange that all the bombings stopped after the bomber blew himself up?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Now, a few protesters were firing countryside fireworks and using 'high-powered' sling shots. The chance of them hurting any securoty fok was tiny, but possible; no riot squad in a democratic country would have sent snipers to shoot them dead. Declaring a civilian protest area as a life firing zone is against international law, as was pointed out many times, and the Thai army quickly removed said signs when they realized that they'd made a massive PR error; they then went back to their usual tactic of shooting people dead, and preparing to lie about it later.

It is also very likely that some army/ex-army units were shooting at the army, but this was done in an ambush fashion away from these sniper incidents - obviously trained soldiers don't stand still to be shot by snipers! These snipers are murderers, as are the people that issued the command to shoot the protesters and medics. As for the camera/photo crews shot in the back with army bullets, well, they seem to be denying this ever happened...

The fact that you are supporting their lies is shameful, frankly... As for TH, he is either paid or a very very sad and lonely individual with nothing better to do than mock murdered political protesters.

See above.

That the army fired on unarmed protesters is, I fully agree, an established fact. That the army was the sole murderer of innocents I think is still very much open to question.

For me both sides engaged in murder.

The prize is a very significant one. Some people will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

Don't be so sure that you know the answers. Your inability to remember events accurately seems to be hindering your judgment.

**Keef** · 03-11-2010, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Originally Posted by DroversDog

Very spectacular smoke, but nothing more then fireworks. It certainly has a much shorter range and questional ability to do any damage then the assault and sniper rifles the army where using. Where's your footage of that?

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel. They were positioned to do just that, to protect the soldiers who were advancing in order to clear the area.

As i have mentioned before, the army do not have to give their opponents a fair chance. Of course they will have superior weaponry and in great numbers. The reds will have acknowledged this, it's not rocket science.

Those reds who decided to stay and resist the advancing soldiers sustained injuries and even death. Can anyone really be surprised at the outcome?
What did the reds expect? They had taken over certain parts of the Capital for a period of 2 months. They had been warned to disperse prior to the advancement, those that stayed to fight must have known they were endangering themselves.

Rules of Engagement - If you or any other person is in imminent danger of suffering a serious injury or death then RoE have been met.

Trying to create an image that those who stayed were merely doing a wee bit of shopping or having a family outing would be naive in the extreme. They were confronting the security service with weapons, no matter how outgunned they appeared, these weapons were still capable of causing serious injury/death.

I believe that several security personnel died during the confrontation. Proof enough that those who stayed were usng a wee bit more than water pistols.

Have a close look at that photo in message 147 again. Next to the dead red shirt is a catapault - about as powerful as a catapault I would use for firing carp bait. Now tell me he was taken out by a sniper under the ROE (has the definition been published -the only version I have seen was shoot in the air, last resort shoot to disable, alarming amount of headshots for that theory) because that sniper was either facing imminent danger of suffering a serious injury or death or providing covering fire for another soldier or soldiers who could be in the same danger. This was on the 10th April at the Phan Fah bridge. Yes there were armed people involved in the rallies mixing with the red shirts, nobody (sensible) denies that. But, and it's a big but, does that justify the the amount of killing that appears to have happened to innocent unarmed people, whether protesters or not. And how do some posters justify saying it's not a big deal, if the army were really shooting at protesters there would be a lot more people dead.

**DroversDog** · 03-11-2010, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

You sound like a CRES spokesman... Massive misrepresentation of the truth here... We all saw the pictures, live streaming, photos, reports from the scene, so do us a favour and keep to the facts.

Okay, but how about you do so first....

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

The facts are that, from the start, the army assasinated an opposition political leaders who was unarmed and doing a TV interview.

This isn't an established fact.

So he shot himself? It's was suicide Thai style.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

There are many people who wanted him dead.

Who other then the Junta?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

His death was also a convenient trigger. Once more, who in their right mind would shoot him dead while he was doing a TV interview? Someone who wanted to create anarchy.

Right mind? Don't assume western logic.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Independent foreign journalists witnessed M79 grenade launchers being used and gunfire coming from red shirt positions.

That wouldn't be the same M79 (or not) that TH linked to?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I witnessed, felt and heard M79 grenade launchers being used, that were fired from the red shirts position towards the army.

So what does a M79 sound like when it is used? Considering a real M79 is very difficult to judge where they are fired from by sound, it doubt this is the device you heard.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Molotov cocktails and IED's were also evident. I even took some photos of those.

What Iraq style IED's? Please show the photo's. I would love to see the damage
this would have caused. Or are we really talking about big bunger fireworks again?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I'll also remind you at this point, that we are already aware that certain factions within the red shirt movement are seemingly just fine about attacking innocent civilians to discredit this government....the Nonthaburi bomber being a fine example of this.

Maybe, but using your "This isn't an established fact.", statement and the DSI ability to fabricate evidence and blurt total bullshit, then we still don't know the real story here. I doubt that much will ever come of it.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

That the army fired on unarmed protesters is, I fully agree, an established fact. That the army was the sole murderer of innocents I think is still very much open to question.

So what was the ratio of Army Murder/Red on Red/Red on Army/Army Unit on Army Unit/Suicide ? Which 2 are unlikely?

**StrontiumDog** · 03-11-2010, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by DroversDog

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

You sound like a CRES spokesman... Massive misrepresentation of the truth here... We all saw the pictures, live streaming, photos, reports from the scene, so do us a favour and keep to the facts.

Okay, but how about you do so first....

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

The facts are that, from the start, the army assasinated an opposition political leaders who was unarmed and doing a TV interview.

This isn't an established fact.

So he shot himself? It's was suicide Thai style.

Who other then the Junta?

Right mind? Don't assume western logic.

That wouldn't be the same M79 (or not) that TH linked to?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I witnessed, felt and heard M79 grenade launchers being used, that were fired from the red shirts position towards the army.

So what does a M79 sound like when it is used? Considering a real M79 is very difficult to judge where they are fired from by sound, it doubt this is the device you heard.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Molotov cocktails and IED's were also evident. I even took some photos of those.

What Iraq style IED's? Please show the photo's. I would love to see the damage
this would have caused. Or are we really talking about big bunger fireworks again?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I'll also remind you at this point, that we are already aware that certain factions within the red shirt movement are seemingly just fine about attacking innocent civilians to discredit this government....the Nonthaburi bomber being a fine example of this.

Maybe, but using your "This isn't an established fact.", statement and the DSI ability to fabricate evidence and blurt total bullshit, then we still don't know the real story here. I doubt that much will ever come of it.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

That the army fired on unarmed protesters is, I fully agree, an established fact. That the army was the sole murderer of innocents I think is still very much open to question.

So what was the ratio of Army Murder/Red on Red/Red on Army/Army Unit on Army Unit/Suicide ? Which 2 are unlikely?

Apparently you've missed large chunks of events that took place and have come here, all half cocked so to speak.

Try reading the section dedicated to the Battle of Bangkok.

Then you *might* be in a position to comment on the above. At present you appear to be totally unaware of what happened.

As regards Seh Daeng's assassination, if you really believe that it was the government who did that, I'd suggest you are extremely naive/gullible. They had a huge amount of opportunities to assassinate him, every day, they never did....why? When he's being interviewed, live, with international news reporters around, he's shot. It was done to create anarchy....and it did. The effect on the red shirts was dramatic, which I reported on at the time (which you'd know about if you'd read about it).

Ahhh, yet another myopic, who thinks he knows it all. Gotta love Thailand.

**Butterfly** · 03-11-2010, 10:08 AM

Seh Daeng assassination was awesome, an arrogant petty terrorist and a nutter

definitely an hero for our BNP and IRA supporters,

**Mr Lick** · 03-11-2010, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Keef

Have a close look at that photo in message 147 again. Next to the dead red shirt is a catapault - about as powerful as a catapault I would use for firing carp bait. Now tell me he was taken out by a sniper under the ROE (has the definition been published -the only version I have seen was shoot in the air, last resort shoot to disable, alarming amount of headshots for that theory

I suspect that the catapult in question would not have been used for fishing purposes during the conflict. Fire off a ball bearing from it and see if your opponent is still standing when it strikes them in the face or body. A small seemingly inoffensive weapon that is capable of causing incapacity/serious harm. In such circumstances the armed forces have a legal right to disable the armed offender.

I am unable to find a link to the UN International guidelines on 'The Rules of Engagement, however, i hope to post them in due course.

The rules of engagement in the UK when faced with hostilities from civilians which could result in serious injury/death do not permit warning shots to be fired. Neutralising the threat is the aim.

Much the same during the armed conflict in Bangkok, firing rounds into the air in order to disperse the armed protesters would IMO have proved futile. They had taken up positions behind barriers and despite witnessing other protesters sustaining bullet wounds continued to fight on, intent on causing injury to security force personnel. Again, in a built up area such as Bangkok, it is likely that firing bullets upwards may have caused harm to innocent bystanders.

In such conflicts between armed security personnel and armed civilians especially during heated encounters the word 'murder' is usually deemed inappropriate. If innocent civilians have become casualties during the conflict such as medics, journalists in this case, then the term 'unlawful killing' would be more fitting.

**Butterfly** · 03-11-2010, 12:10 PM

it's too bad that the Thai military couldn't kill more of those thugs, 90 was quite a low count, maybe 200 of those armed and dangerous red terrorists would have been a good score. It's possible that there wasn't that many though, less than 100

now they are probably back working as tuktuk drivers in Phuket or Kho Samui

**Panda** · 03-11-2010, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's too bad that the Thai military couldn't kill more of those thugs, 90 was quite a low count, maybe 200 of those armed and dangerous red terrorists would have been a good score. It's possible that there wasn't that many though, less than 100

now they are probably back working as tuktuk drivers in Phuket or Kho Samui

You are quite probably right that there was likely less than a hundred hard core armed and dangerous thugs infiltrating the Redshirt protest which numbered around 100,000 at its peak. Unfortunately, not all those 90 executed by the military were armed and dangerous.

**DroversDog** · 03-11-2010, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Unfortunately, not all those 90 executed by the military were armed and dangerous.

They looked dangerous (i.e. Very Brown Skin) to the snipers 400 meters away.

**StrontiumDog** · 05-11-2010, 12:36 PM

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/loca...h-deaths-probe

UDD lawyers query deaths probe

Published: 5/11/2010 at 12:01 PM
Online news:

A group of about 20 lawyers affiliated to the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship has submitted a letter to the Royal Thai Police Office asking it to reveal the progress of the investigation into the deaths of 91 people and injuries of more than 2,000 people during the UDD protests in April-May this year.

Among the deaths was Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, better known as Seh Daeng, who was shot by a sniper shortly before the May 19 military crackdown on red-shirt protesters.

The lawyers, led by Picha Wichitsilp, claimed in the letter that police had made little progress because politicians had interfered in their work.

Although the case has been transferred to the Department of Special Investigation, police are still handling the investigation for the DSI, they said.

Mr Picha said lawyers of his group would observe the UDD rally at Ratchaprasong on Nov 19 to mark the passing of six months since the May 19 crackdown.

**Tom Sawyer** · 05-11-2010, 10:55 PM

Now of course in any real newspapers, this would be the fecking newspaper headline. But of course it wil be buried into an inside page or boiled down to the five senteces, as above, and there is no reply from the police, or CRES, or the Army or the Government..

**LooseBowels** · 06-11-2010, 07:09 AM

Everybody out there now knows that thailand is run by an undemocratic, unelected, murderous junta regime.
Somebody is responsible for the murder of 90 odd innocents on the streets of the capital.
Its only a matter of time before someone is sacrificed by the amart as the fall guy.
Question is "who's it gonna be"

**StrontiumDog** · 10-11-2010, 09:54 PM

DSI urged to reveal findings on Pathum Wanaram Temple killings | Prachatai English

DSI urged to reveal findings on Pathum Wanaram Temple killings

Wed, 10/11/2010 - 16:08 The mother of a paramedic killed at Pathum Wanaram Temple on 19 May has urged the Department of Special Investigation to reveal the results of autopsies carried out on those who were killed and protested against the indefinite postponement in announcing the results by the DSI Director-General.

On 8 Nov, Phayao Akkahad, mother of Kamonkade, told reporters at the DSI that she was disappointed that the agency had indefinitely postponed its announcement of the autopsy results. She believed that it had acquired plenty of evidence, and many witnesses had been summoned for interrogation.

She said that the DSI staff had been active on their work, but its senior officers did not want to reveal the information to the public and family members of those who were killed. The agency should at least report any progress it has made, and it has promised to finish the investigation in 45 days, she said.

However, some DSI officials insisted to her that progress had been made in the investigation, and if she wanted any specific information, she could call and ask. The announcement of the findings will take place soon, because the press have continued to follow this issue, the officials said.

When asked about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, she said that she had not heard anything from them, not even a phone call or a letter.

Source:
â€˜à¹à¸¡à¹ˆà¸™à¹‰à¸[at]à¸‡à¹€à¸à¸”â€™à¸ˆà¸µà¹‰à¸˜à¸ ²à¸£à¸´à¸•à¹€à¸œà¸¢à¸œà¸¥à¸Šà¸±à¸™à¸ªà¸¹à¸•à¸£à¹€à ¸—à¹ˆà¸²à¸—à¸µà¹ˆà¹„à¸”à¹‰â€“à¹€à¸•à¸£à¸µà¸¢à¸¡à¸£ à¸±à¸šà¸‚à¸§à¸±à¸à¹€à¸ªà¸·à¹‰à¸[at]à¹à¸”à¸‡à¸„à¸™à¹ à¸£à¸à¸[at]à¸[at]à¸à¸„à¸¸à¸ | à¸›à¸£à¸°à¸Šà¸²à¹„à¸—

**sabang** · 10-11-2010, 10:00 PM

Why are they asking the DSI? They should be asking their bosses at CRES.

**Pol the Pot** · 11-11-2010, 09:40 AM

The announcement of the findings will take place soon, because the press have continued to follow this issue, the officials said.

**Tom Sawyer** · 11-11-2010, 07:50 PM

DSI = Department of Sakdina's Interests

**tomta** · 11-11-2010, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

I continue in various forums to insist on this point. Somebody does deny this. The government and the army continue to deny that any of the deaths were caused by them.

**Takeovers** · 11-11-2010, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

I continue in various forums to insist on this point. Somebody does deny this. The government and the army continue to deny that any of the deaths were caused by them.

I deny that. They were randomly killing as a terror tactic, not for defence of the security personnel.

**Mr Lick** · 12-11-2010, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

Originally Posted by tomta

I continue in various forums to insist on this point. Somebody does deny this. The government and the army continue to deny that any of the deaths were caused by them.

Can't say that i've come across a government statement denying such an occurrence Tomta, do you have a link?

**Mr Lick** · 12-11-2010, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Nobody is denying that the army used sniper fire to take out those who were using weapons to cause injury to security personnel.

I continue in various forums to insist on this point. Somebody does deny this. The government and the army continue to deny that any of the deaths were caused by them.

I deny that. They were randomly killing as a terror tactic, not for defence of the security personnel.

I believe you'll find that it is the not so innocent protesters that have been accused of causing terror during their lengthy protest, not the security services.

**Takeovers** · 12-11-2010, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I believe you'll find that it is the not so innocent protesters that have been accused of causing terror during their lengthy protest, not the security services.

By whom besides the government agencies? For sure the international media had a different impression.

Thread: Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions