^seem to be on the same side as the Army and was shot in the back.

Yes ... that's what I've heard. Not from anyone credible though. Have you actually seen it?

I just googled

Japanese journalist "shot in the chest"

and

Japanese journalist "shot in the back"

The vast majority of the hits have him shot in the chest. Many of the references to "shot in the back" refer to another Japanese reporter who was killed in Burma, not Thailand.

Thus, he must have been facing .. West?

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by rabo

It would be interesting to know how many Farangs on here have been brainwashed by their Thai wives and girlfriends to support the reds .

Because if you tell a red supporter something is black and it is black he will still argue and say its white.

Actually I had been thinking; spraying a disorienting gas over the area or

even a simple eye irritant, and rendered them disorganized and unable to fight back full force.

Of course wind and location dependent too.

A bit dream land for here, but the stuff exists.

Let's not go there. It will escalate things. All someone has to do is walk into a local supermarket, purchase 2 types of cleaners, pour them into a container and toss them and we have the release of poison gas that would do serious injury.

I really worry about someone doing something stupid like this.

^seem to be on the same side as the Army and was shot in the back.

Yes ... that's what I've heard. Not from anyone credible though. Have you actually seen it?

Which could mean he was shot while filming the army from in front of many of them, back to the reds.

Which could mean he was shot by a sniper well behind and above the army location.

It in no way conclusively says the army shot him in the back.

Which it is obvious some are trying to imply.

It would be interesting to know how many Farangs on here have been brainwashed by their Thai wives and girlfriends to support the reds .

Because if you tell a red supporter something is black and it is black he will still argue and say its white.

LMAO! If the paid cheerleaders for Mr T. on this board are anything to go by, they'll say it's Yellow. There are apparently only 2 colours you see.

It would be interesting to know how many Farangs on here have been brainwashed by their Thai wives and girlfriends to support the reds .

Because if you tell a red supporter something is black and it is black he will still argue and say its white.

Hmmmm same logic can be applied to yellow/dem supporters.

^seem to be on the same side as the Army and was shot in the back.

Yes ... that's what I've heard. Not from anyone credible though. Have you actually seen it?

Which could mean he was shot while filming the army from in front of many of them, back to the reds.

Which could mean he was shot by a sniper well behind and above the army location.

It in no way conclusively says the army shot him in the back.

Which it is obvious some are trying to imply.

Could be the case, but as I said the view he was filming was like he was imbedded with the military. Sure possibility that the unknown snipers got him too, but obviously can't discount an accidental/purposeful shooting by the military either.

^seem to be on the same side as the Army and was shot in the back.

Yes ... that's what I've heard. Not from anyone credible though. Have you actually seen it?

Which could mean he was shot while filming the army from in front of many of them, back to the reds.

Which could mean he was shot by a sniper well behind and above the army location.

It in no way conclusively says the army shot him in the back.

Which it is obvious some are trying to imply.

Could be the case, but as I said the view he was filming was like he was imbedded with the military. Sure possibility that the unknown snipers got him too, but obviously can't discount an accidental/purposeful shooting by the military either.

Except the complete lack of a motive for the military to do so.

The notion also doesn't fit well with the 6 killed soldiers, 300 wounded, and 100 seriously wounded, by bullets and grenades, with the CO assassinated.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by way2muchcoffee

Actually I had been thinking; spraying a disorienting gas over the area or

even a simple eye irritant, and rendered them disorganized and unable to fight back full force.

Of course wind and location dependent too.

A bit dream land for here, but the stuff exists.

Let's not go there. It will escalate things. All someone has to do is walk into a local supermarket, purchase 2 types of cleaners, pour them into a container and toss them and we have the release of poison gas that would do serious injury.

I really worry about someone doing something stupid like this.

I never said ANYTHING about poison, now did I?

But you practically gave out a recipe.

Escalate things from where a riot force camped in the streets waiting for a fight to come to them.

That's what we have now.

So what's your workable suggestion to end this?

BESIDES let the mob control the capital indefinitely or dictate to the country.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by animatic

^seem to be on the same side as the Army and was shot in the back.

Yes ... that's what I've heard. Not from anyone credible though. Have you actually seen it?

Which could mean he was shot while filming the army from in front of many of them, back to the reds.

Which could mean he was shot by a sniper well behind and above the army location.

It in no way conclusively says the army shot him in the back.

Which it is obvious some are trying to imply.

Could be the case, but as I said the view he was filming was like he was imbedded with the military. Sure possibility that the unknown snipers got him too, but obviously can't discount an accidental/purposeful shooting by the military either.

The Following is From REUTERS, according to the hospital director, he was shot in the chest.

Hiro Muramoto, a 43-year-old Japanese national, was shot in the chest and arrived at Klang Hospital without a pulse, hospital Director Dr Pichaya Nakwatchara said.

Still doesn't prove much, though

actually surprised military didnt use smoke cannisters for cover.

actually surprised military didnt use smoke cannisters for cover.

Simple: they left them in storage, since they didn't expect that smoke would be necessary to hide from enemy fire.

Question: are there official statistics about bullet wounds? i.e. how much reds and how much military were wounded by bullets?

Question: are there official statistics about bullet wounds? i.e. how much reds and how much military were wounded by bullets?

I haven't seen any information on this. It would be very interesting to see these stats though. Broken down by bullets, grenades, blunt instruments, other

Question: are there official statistics about bullet wounds? i.e. how much reds and how much military were wounded by bullets?

I haven't seen any information on this. It would be very interesting to see these stats though. Broken down by bullets, grenades, blunt instruments, other

and where you get this numbers from?

the 6 killed soldiers, 300 wounded, and 100 seriously wounded, by bullets and grenades, with the CO assassinated.

Question: are there official statistics about bullet wounds? i.e. how much reds and how much military were wounded by bullets?

I haven't seen any information on this. It would be very interesting to see these stats though. Broken down by bullets, grenades, blunt instruments, other

and where you get this numbers from?

the 6 killed soldiers, 300 wounded, and 100 seriously wounded, by bullets and grenades, with the CO assassinated.

They were from reports from the hospital chiefs on the Sunday after. They were in the Breaking News section of The Nation but are no longer accessible as the website only maintains about 30-40 Breaking News articles in their database.

Correction and apology. My statement of numbers was poorly worded. After re-reading my post it may appear that I am suggesting that the 100 seriously wounded were all from grenades and bullets. That was not my intention. I have yet to see any breakdown of injuries, only the breakdown of civilian versus soldier.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by way2muchcoffee

Question: are there official statistics about bullet wounds? i.e. how much reds and how much military were wounded by bullets?

I haven't seen any information on this. It would be very interesting to see these stats though. Broken down by bullets, grenades, blunt instruments, other

and where you get this numbers from?

the 6 killed soldiers, 300 wounded, and 100 seriously wounded, by bullets and grenades, with the CO assassinated.

Let's not forget those lovely bamboo spears to the throat several "Peaceful Red Democracy Lovers"

inserted into riot control personnel who were not hitting them with clubs at the time, just pushing with shields.

There was a Viet Nam war era punishment torture etc wherein,

the target is staked to damp ground with fresh bamboo planted under him,

and then left, except for regular watering and questioning...

Eventually that fast growing bamboo gets a reaction and questions get answered.

Seems like an apropos way to deal with whomever advised Reds to uses these spears on the security people.

Not saying do it... but it fits poetic justice wise.

No animals were injured in the making of this rememorial to mans inhumanity to man.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by animatic

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Unknown sniper is more accurate!!!

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Unknown sniper is more accurate!!!

Shot from behind whilst facing the Military, blew the front of his cranium away.

Doubtful!

Cheers, Rick

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Unknown sniper is more accurate!!!

Shot from behind whilst facing the Military, blew the front of his cranium away.

Doubtful!

Cheers, Rick

Exactly, even basic forensic analysis makes that plain as day.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by animatic

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Unknown sniper is more accurate!!!

Shot from behind whilst facing the Military, blew the front of his cranium away.

Doubtful!

Cheers, Rick

Thai Military special forces snipers from above and behind. (not hard to explain Watson)

Thai Military special forces snipers from above and behind. (not hard to explain Watson)

No, not hard BM, in fact an obvious possibility, but unfortunately impossible if you are explaining to someone who prefers to be deaf.

Only a technical point, but ref your head shot having to be a large calbre weapon due to the damage, actually it wouldn't. The M16 is specifically designed so that the round "tumbles" when it hits a hard target such as bone, rather than going in a straight line as with most other rifles even using identical ammunition, and this effect increase exponentially with a head-shot hitting the skull on the way in and the way out.

Has anybody heard the rumors that is now Illegal to post or discuss on internet forums what happened on the 10th of April.

Is it true? just want to make sure as not to break the law.

P.S. checked English news sources and it not there

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by monkfish

Dunno I fired M16A into watermelons and didnt have the same effect that's why I think it was higher caliber, smth like a 50mm 7.62 round or above.

actually surprised military didnt use smoke cannisters for cover.

I'm not.

In civilian crowd or riot control the civil/military authorities are instructed and trained not to use the tactic of smoke cannisters because smoking out the scene 'blinds' all sides, which would be self defeating to the authorities which are seeking to resore order by redirecting or dispersing the crowd. Tear gas itself is an effective tactic because it dispenses far less smoke than smoke cannisters, directly and severely affects the crowd while the authorities at the scene have and use protection against the tear gas so have the distinct advantage to exercise control.

The reporter at the scene was embedded with the riot control force, was filiming rioters from a position among the force, was fired at and hit in the front sections of the body, in a setting and circumstance of minimum if any smoke. The theory that suppposedly government planted snipers could have shot the reporter is absurd and perhaps sinister in that it cynically proposes and promotes the ludicrous proposition that any snipers present would have fired in the direction of their own government forces, approved and credentialed journalists being among them.

^not surprising Publicus, you know as well as I do that are many forces at work here other than the obvious.

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by britmaveric

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

Ask Thaksin why he ordered that red to be killed by his own goons....

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

Ask Thaksin why he ordered that red to be killed by his own goons....

From what I am hearing there is a 3rd and 4th hand.

Seems one side was supporting the reds and one side supporting the government.

Just rumors though.

Edit : Does anybody know if the discharge from a weapon is the same when firing rubber bullets and live ammo.

i.e When firing rubber bullets does fire come out the end of the rifle?

Edited April 14, 201016 yr by monkfish