Thai Probe Says Army Did Not Kill Japan Cameraman

[ballpoint]

I would say the escalation started when a Army General was assinated on the stage of the red shirts.

Of course you will claim that it wasn't the army that did it . Dear me ,

Thank you for highlighting how badly informed you are about the events. (Sae Daeng was shoot towards the final act of the violence, not before it escalated. Most likely he was taken out in direct response to the level of problems he and his men caused -- even possibly by those that he was rallying against in the own team for being 'too soft' and 'traitors'.)

And he wasn't on stage when it happened. Once again the reds show no fear in not allowing the truth to get in the way of a good argument.

[jdinasia]

I would say the escalation started when a Army General was assinated on the stage of the red shirts.

Of course you will claim that it wasn't the army that did it . Dear me ,

Thank you for highlighting how badly informed you are about the events. (Sae Daeng was shoot towards the final act of the violence, not before it escalated. Most likely he was taken out in direct response to the level of problems he and his men caused -- even possibly by those that he was rallying against in the own team for being 'too soft' and 'traitors'.)

Good call TAWP

Sae Daeng was killed/assassinated on May 13th .... the reporter in question was killed on April 10th. The day AFTER the reds started using petrol bombs both in BKK and out at ThaiCom and well after the redshirt grenade attacks started.

Secondly --- Sae Daeng was not assassinated on 'the stage"; he was shot speaking to a reporter in Lumpini Park across from the Sala Daeng BTS station.

edit ---- I can come up with 7 possible groups that killed Sae Daeng

1) The RT Army taking out a traitor under orders

2) Elements w/i the RT Army acting w/o orders

3) Red shirt leaders responding to threats that Sae Daeng had made

4) Sae Daeng's own men on order from above for slinging Thaksin's name around the 2 days previously

5) The PAD in response to the grenade attacks in 2008

6) Former CPT members for Sae Daeng bragging about how many he had killed

7) Red shirts thinking that martyring Sae Daeng would increase resolve

Edited February 28, 2011 by jdinasia

[yesdavy]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

You would be surprised.

Although I think the problem is their citing Dr.s reports. Dr.'s can determine the cause of death.

Forensic police detectives can determine the type of munition used.

Military grade munitions are difficult the recognize just by looking at the wounds. There simply devastating.

As I said, i am no expert, but you only have to understand a little bit about guns, and read a little to understand that the effect of a M16 round and an AK 47 round is reportedly very different.

Wasn't it first reported that the cameraman was hit by two rounds? If so, were both rounds from one rifle or from two rifles?

Quick research suggests that when you speak of an M-16 and an AK-47, you should speak in plurals because there are more than one round each for these weapons. Were they using M-16A1 or M-16A2 and were they using M855 rounds or did they have M193 rounds available? There is very little obvious difference without close inspection, but any difference could be vital to an investigation.

If the bullet were from a Kalashnikov AK-47 and the round was found, it is inconceivable that any professional would not recognize it immediately due to being 7.62x39mm as opposed to the 5.56x45mm round from an M-16 weapon. Without taking into consideration the degree of degradation of the round due to impact, the Soviet 7.62x39mm fired from a Kalashnikov AK-47 is distinguished by its boat-tailed design, in stark contrast to flat-based M-16 rounds. However, there is a Yugoslav 7.62x39mm AK-47 round that is flat-based. The wound profile of the Soviet 7.62x39mm typically penetrates 26cm before yaw in tissue, whereas the M-16 M193 NATO round penetrates 12cm before yaw and the yaw patterns are distinctly different. However, M-16 wounds are subject to inconsistency.

While the M-16 rounds discussed here are very similar in behavior, that is not the case for AK-47 rounds. The flat-based Yugoslav 7.62x39mm AK-47 round penetrates only 9cm before yaw, only 3cm shorter to yaw than the wound profile of the M855 M-16 round, but 17cm shorter to yaw than the Soviet 7.62x39mm AK-47 round, demonstrating the profound difference between the wound profiles of the Soviet and Yugoslav AK-47 rounds.

This summarizes basic ballistic data and for more detailed reading you can go here. For a comparison of these weapons you may want to start here.

[bangon04]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

I think we need to really see the difference, and then compare with the wound of the cameraman. Does anyone have photos?

With all the photos of the unrest, and all the photos of the Royal Thai Army "in action", surely there are photos which exist to show that some units of the army are issued with AK47s (or 74s).

I would hazard a guess that the border Ranger rabble are free to choose their own weapons, at least, and special forces?

I get the impression that the AK47 is not a weapon of choice for snipers.

But how many AK47s have been lost / stolen / given up to the demonstrators by the Thai security forces over the years?. How many AK47s have crossed the borders of Thailand over the years?

[jdinasia]

With all the photos of the unrest, and all the photos of the Royal Thai Army "in action", surely there are photos which exist to show that some units of the army are issued with AK47s (or 74s).

I would hazard a guess that the border Ranger rabble are free to choose their own weapons, at least, and special forces?

I get the impression that the AK47 is not a weapon of choice for snipers.

But how many AK47s have been lost / stolen / given up to the demonstrators by the Thai security forces over the years?. How many AK47s have crossed the borders of Thailand over the years?

There is no photographic evidence of RTArmy regulars with AK's in existence from April 10th. There are photos/video of Sae Daeng's ronin with them. It is speculated (confirmed?) that his "Ronin" were mostly Taharn Praharn ( wether currently on duty or retired is a HUGE question mark)

[dighambara]

Police coroner to explain today why cameraman was shot by AK47 bullet

By The Nation

The Department of Special Investigation's adviser will today explain why the weapon used to kill the Japanese photographer during a clash between soldiers and redshirt protesters on April 10 was an AK47 assault rifle and not an M16, as used by soldiers.

Amphorn Jarujinda, a former chief police coroner, will answer questions on how he concluded, based on autopsy photos, that Hiroyuki Muramoto, who worked for Reuters, was killed by a single bullet from a AK47 assault rifle at Khok Wua Intersection last year.

A commission of 12 highprofile coroners had ruled that all 10 gunshot victims, including Muramoto, appeared to have died from bullets fired by M16 rifles.

The DSI is probing all 91 deaths during the red shirt protests from MarchMay. Amphorn was approached to join in performing postmortems with the 12coroner team, which included two redshirt doctors, but did not due to overseas travel.

M16s are Army standard issue semiautomatic rifles.

Muramoto took a single bullet in his left chest, which severed his heart and went out the back.

Tharit Phengdit, DSI directorgeneral, said it was police investigators who were working on the case based on the hypothesis that AK47 bullets were used.

The DSI had no responsibility to counter a statement by the Pheu Thai Party, which supports and funds the activities and protests of the redshirt movement, that AK47 rifles were secondary weapons and used by certain Army units, he said.

-- The Nation 2011-02-28

It seems everyone's mouth is somewhere on their backside - "M16s are Army standard issue semiautomatic rifles".

HMMM - Very Strange, as the AR-15 is a standard Army Semiautomatic rifle, while the M-16 is selective fire - both semi and full auto...

[jayjay0]

I am sure there are "politically-motivated" posters on both sides. And I'm sure that those without political motivation will accept that both sides were wrong in various respects when all 91 cases are taken into account. Few pro-army posters believe the army didn't kill anyone (the debate is whether the killings were legitimate), but many pro-Red posters refuse to acknowledge the very high likelihood that elements within the Red Shirt movement did kill people (both soldiers and civilians).

We see a lot of defence for the Red Shirts on these boards and that's fine, but I think that only the most scarlet of minds will try to pin the April 10 violence in particular on the army alone.

I just would like to see an independent and thorough investigation.I certainly don't think the violence can be pinned on the army alone, far from it.

But the army has a terrible track record on cover ups and that's why one tends to be sceptical.

But most compellingly we still have no real understanding of what happened, and there's very little sense of urgency in getting to the bottom of events.We don't even know who the men in black are and I don't think any have been arrested.

As to this forum there are certainly quite a few experts, mainly I think ex non commissioned officers who can bore endlessly for America on barrelling, calibre and weaponry generally but have no real ability to analyse or see the broader context.Their political views are obvious.

You are a little confused most of us know what happened and why. You obviously don't. You are so lost in meaningless details that you miss the big picture.

When they are done dotting the I's and crossing the T's It will not change what happened one iota. But it will have kept your attention off of the big picture.

Some how I don't think the Japanese government is going to be to upset about there camera man who voluntarily stood in a combat zone. They will make a little noise to please people like your self and then let it die.

In the mean time get a hobby or get out more often.

It's over the red shirts lost.

[Siam Simon]

I have like Khunying Pornthip for a LONG time. (Have met her a few times.) She has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the police in Thailand and that says a lot!

However, I do agree that her credibility was diminished by her defense of the GT device.

So, you've met Gen Chamlong (twice) and you've met Khunying Pornthip (a few times). They're not the types who one would bump into repeatedly whilst out shopping. Now I have a good idea where your political verbosity on this forum is coming from. You're a bit further on than a Farang trying to understand the unfolding political drama, aren't you?

And on the subject of Pornthip, I find it incredibly sad that somebody as talented as her (her work in early 2005 should not be understated) should feel obliged to trash her international reputation (and, whatever apologists write here and elsewhere, that's what she's done) in support of corruption by her 'side'.

[webfact]

Muramoto killed by non-Army weapon, says DSI

By The Nation

The exit wound on the body of a Japanese photographer killed during the red-shirt protest last April shows he had been hit by a 7.62mm bullet - used either in a AK-47 rifle or two vintage assault rifles - which are not commissioned by the Army, the press was told yesterday.

The Department of Special Investigation told the media that it did not know if the Army possessed any Soviet-made SKS or Belgian-made FN FAL rifles. "But they were not in the lists taken from the armoury during the red-shirt protest from March to May last year," DSI director-general Tharit Phengdit said.

The DSI has been investigating the death of Reuters photographer Hiroyuki Muramoto based on a theory that he was killed by soldiers, which relies on a single eyewitness's account. The witness, an unnamed policeman working undercover, said he believed the shot killing the victim came from the direction of the soldiers during the April 10 clash near Bangkok's Khok Wua intersection.

However, the new evidence pointing to a 7.62mm bullet may turn the table in favour of the soldiers and support the belief that the red-shirt movement had hired a group of "men in black" to terrorise people and inflame anti-government sentiment.

The 7.62mm bullet is used in both SKS and FN FAL rifles, while the Army-commissioned weapon is M-16, which uses 5.56mm bullets.

Tharit said he had given all documents and photo evidence to Japanese embassy officials. "By keeping its investigation transparent, the DSI, along with the documents and photographs, will help the Japanese officials understand," he explained.

Amphorn Jarujinda, a former police chief coroner, confirmed that the bullet killing Muramoto was indeed 7.62mm in size, but said he could not specify the size of bullets that killed the other nine people during the clash.

Army commander General Prayuth Chan-ocha said only Army units based along the border used AK-47 rifles, and none of the Bangkok-based units used a Soviet-made rifle. He added that the military was ready to respond to any allegations related to the 7.62mm bullet.

Maj-General Walit Rojjanaphakdee, commander of 2nd Infantry Division which was deployed at Khok Wua intersection, said his contingent used M-16 A2, while the unit from the 9th Infantry Division, also deployed during the clash, used Travo rifles. Both types of weapons

-- The Nation 2011-03-1

[expat4life]

the bullets are a different size , and would produce a different size entry wound, and distance makes little difference to an entry wound , so yes you could determine what caliber bullet killed the camera man but not what weapon fired it unless you recover the bullet. so the statement he was killed by an AK47 is wrong plain and simple

It seems the only ones on this forum and indeed in the country who know without a doubt who killed this reporter and everyone else who died are the red shirt supporters.

Notwithstanding their certainty in this case there was a exit wound so the projectile was not recovered and therefore could not be positivly identified.

However there could well be, indeed probably was traces of bullet left in the wound.

This would depend on the type of bullet used, soft point, hollow point, solid point.

For instance a solid point slug will go right through making only a small hole while others will mushroom either staying in the body or making a big exit hole.

The forensic people would know for sure what ammo the army was using on that day and therefore would be able to tell if any traces in the wound came from that type of ammo.

There is also the calibre, M16 = 222, AK47 = 308 or 7.62 if you like.

Those coupled with the type of round would tend to give different wound profiles.

The distance the shot was fired from is also unknown but it could also be reasonable to estimate this by the wound profiles.

There would also have been a limited distance of visibility on the day which would limit the distance the shot could have been fired from.

Put all these things together and a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

But not I suspect with the absolute certainty expressed by the reds.

[LomSak27]

After you all are done with this, how about a quick summary of the ballistics and exit wounds in the JFK Dealy Palza visit.

[ianbaggie]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

Only a fool would make statements like youve just made without considering the evidence!!

The Bangkok Post newspaper said on Sunday said the DSI was "likely to face questions about why it changed its stance".

What I find amazing is that this statement doesnt read "the UFDD is likely to face questions about why it killed an unarmed camera man"

[timekeeper]

After you all are done with this, how about a quick summary of the ballistics and exit wounds in the JFK Dealy Palza visit.

here you go.....

[mca]

What I find amazing is that this statement doesnt read "the UFDD is likely to face questions about why it killed an unarmed camera man"

Right on Ian! Those United Front for Daffy Duck murdering bastards!

Edited March 1, 2011 by mca

[pogal]

There is a hell of lot of difference between a M-16 round and an AK-47 round, sounds like a cover up to me!!

Not exactly, AK-47's also come in 5.56 (.223) as well as their traditional 7.62 so they would in fact be the same round. The only way to tell would be the barelling grooves and without a barrel to establish where it came from I would imagine it would be quite difficult to know what kind of rifle it was fired from. I beleive all barrels have the same ratio of turns per inch, etc. Im sure there are other tests they can do but Im not sure what they are.

What does puzzle me is why forensics first said it was from an M-16 round and then changed their minds! Why would they say it in the first place "IF" they were not 100% sure? That would be crazy and unprofessional. At least they should have said "Maybe" or "90% sure" IF they really were NOT sure!? I agree with most everyone else... jsut another coverup in Thailand to add to the ever growing list.

And personally speaking I see first hand the army shoot through the window of an ambulance and hit an ambulance officer in the arm from not more than 10 meters away. He was taken to Chula hospital and then "relocated" by the army to the Army hospital. One good thing is the army admitted responsibility and said sorry as well as paid all his bills. Hard to find honesty like that nowadays in Thailand.

[ianbaggie]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

How many unarmed were killed that day many means more than one.

Only a fool would refuse to look at the evidence.

The evidence is surely going to be very suspicious coming this late.

How do you figure the army was responsible. They may of fired the shot but they were not responsible for him being in a war zone or for creating the situation with the illegal seizure of the area.

When if ever will the red shirts take responsibility for there actions.

Explain if you can why the army was there if there was nothing wrong. Yes I know because the police could not do there job. But why would the police have been there if they could have done there job?

You can babble on about the injustice of it all and the mishandling of the poor armed peaceful demonstrators. But ask yourself if they were in your back yard refusing to move turning it into a garbage dump and urging people to burn it down if you didn't give them what they wanted would you say that was OK.

You might want to take another look at where the responsibility for the whole mess really is.

I will give you a clue. There was a lot of money paid by a citizen of several other countries.

Exactly - add to that trhe fact that reports have a shelf time before they are released and there is an excellent case for the red shirts commiting that murder - he may have been filming their side with AK 47s - I walked through the red shirt camp and SAW AK 47s in the back of trucks along with red shirt guards, ammunition and gas masks.

[jayboy]

As for Porntip, I have followed her career for many years, she has made many impulsive, irrational mistakes, starting with a botched enquiry into a leakage of radioactive material. She is pro government, pro PAD.

Thank you for pointing out just how red supporters see her and why it is so important to attack her.

One could equally mention how yellow supporters see her and why it is so important to defend her.But that would be missing the point.

You fail again - most people here are not yellow supporters. Most don't even say whether they believe the journalist was shot by the army or demonstrators...unless they are red and 100% believe the army did it, even if they have no proof.

I am merely pointing out that the attacks about her 'destroyed' credibility is ridiculous. It is a typical ad hominid as it really doesn't really matter, it has no bearing on this case. Unless for a red supporter...

My point is very simple.Pornthip's reputatrion has been destroyed because of the GT 200 debacle.What people of different political stripes say is significant about her other activity is neither here nor there.A professional reputation is like virginity:you cannot lose it just a little bit.

I love your "ad hominid" comment, classic malapropism.

[ianbaggie]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

How many unarmed were killed that day many means more than one.

Only a fool would refuse to look at the evidence.

The evidence is surely going to be very suspicious coming this late.

How do you figure the army was responsible. They may of fired the shot but they were not responsible for him being in a war zone or for creating the situation with the illegal seizure of the area.

When if ever will the red shirts take responsibility for there actions.

Explain if you can why the army was there if there was nothing wrong. Yes I know because the police could not do there job. But why would the police have been there if they could have done there job?

You can babble on about the injustice of it all and the mishandling of the poor armed peaceful demonstrators. But ask yourself if they were in your back yard refusing to move turning it into a garbage dump and urging people to burn it down if you didn't give them what they wanted would you say that was OK.

You might want to take another look at where the responsibility for the whole mess really is.

I will give you a clue. There was a lot of money paid by a citizen of several other countries.

a war zone???? utter claptrap, for a war you need two armies, next you will suggest the IRA are a legitimate military organization and Northern Ireland was a war.

this was was it was, it was a slaughter, and many of the people that died did so at the hands of the Thai army whilst the person was unarmed and not posing any immediate threat (I have no doubt some reds were armed (with firearms) and deserved everything they got, but to suggest that everyone killed by the army was armed and posing an immediate threat is just pure <deleted>, you know it, I know it, however your hatred of all things red won't allow you to say it.

NOT a war zone? All you have to do is watch the video footage on youtube, since you were apparently far removed from it. The reds instigated the violence. I am sure you can't give an example of a more tolerant army anywhere.

The only one who sounds hateful and bitter on this post, is you my friend.

yes random as usual you talk utter complete piffle!! I dont remember the Thai army using grenades against innocent shoppers or burning building, or blowing up gas tanks at the airport or any of the other attrocities that the red shirt murderers commited - next youll be saying it was the army on stage at ractchaprasong - get a life and hug a tree random!!

[jayboy]

I am sure there are "politically-motivated" posters on both sides. And I'm sure that those without political motivation will accept that both sides were wrong in various respects when all 91 cases are taken into account. Few pro-army posters believe the army didn't kill anyone (the debate is whether the killings were legitimate), but many pro-Red posters refuse to acknowledge the very high likelihood that elements within the Red Shirt movement did kill people (both soldiers and civilians).

We see a lot of defence for the Red Shirts on these boards and that's fine, but I think that only the most scarlet of minds will try to pin the April 10 violence in particular on the army alone.

I just would like to see an independent and thorough investigation.I certainly don't think the violence can be pinned on the army alone, far from it.

But the army has a terrible track record on cover ups and that's why one tends to be sceptical.

But most compellingly we still have no real understanding of what happened, and there's very little sense of urgency in getting to the bottom of events.We don't even know who the men in black are and I don't think any have been arrested.

As to this forum there are certainly quite a few experts, mainly I think ex non commissioned officers who can bore endlessly for America on barrelling, calibre and weaponry generally but have no real ability to analyse or see the broader context.Their political views are obvious.

You are a little confused most of us know what happened and why. You obviously don't. You are so lost in meaningless details that you miss the big picture.

When they are done dotting the I's and crossing the T's It will not change what happened one iota. But it will have kept your attention off of the big picture.

Some how I don't think the Japanese government is going to be to upset about there camera man who voluntarily stood in a combat zone. They will make a little noise to please people like your self and then let it die.

In the mean time get a hobby or get out more often.

It's over the red shirts lost.

So the "big picture" is that Reds were defeated and in that objective the Thai army could murder any journalist in the combat zone it liked?

And if the Japanese Embassy protests we should not take their comments too seriously because they don't really care?

[pogal]

I am sure an amateur forensic scientist learns the difference between wounds caused by an AK 47 round and and M 16 round.

I am no ballistics expert, but a complete amateur should be able to tell the difference.

I think we need to really see the difference, and then compare with the wound of the cameraman. Does anyone have photos?

With all the photos of the unrest, and all the photos of the Royal Thai Army "in action", surely there are photos which exist to show that some units of the army are issued with AK47s (or 74s).

I would hazard a guess that the border Ranger rabble are free to choose their own weapons, at least, and special forces?

I get the impression that the AK47 is not a weapon of choice for snipers.

But how many AK47s have been lost / stolen / given up to the demonstrators by the Thai security forces over the years?. How many AK47s have crossed the borders of Thailand over the years?

In Jungle conditions the AK-47 WOULD be my weapon of shoice. Most reliable gun in the world because of its basic construction and few moving parts.

Snipers, if they had to use a Russian made weapon would use the Kalashnikov. Yes there are AK-47's i n the Thai army (At least 20,000 of them were purchased and used by the "Tahan Phran" or Rangers also nicknamed "Nak rob sua dum" or "Black Shirt Warriors"

[ianbaggie]

Journalist do put themselves at risk but does that mean that they are fair game ? It seems that you won't afford Gaddaffi & his lot the same comforts that you are willing to give the Thai regime . Thai people demo army kill them . Libian people demo army kill them, Irainian people demo army kill them , China people demo army kill them. Burma people demo army kill them . Please tell why you believe the Thai junta but not the others . All the others have said they didn't do the killing.

1) I never once said they were "fair game"

2) Libya has nothing to do with this thread.

3)Thailand is not operating under a Junta.

Put the blame where it belongs --- the people that escalated the violence on April 9th were the red shirts. Read the news reports in this thread to see how the report was generated. BTW --- in refutation of your examples (which are NOT pertinent) did the people in the other countries you are mentioning have people operating with impunity (Sae Daeng's Ronin) within their ranks?

Double standards perhaps. I thought you said that you was not nieve ,do you really believe the the military are not pulling the strings here .

I would say the escalation started when a Army General was assinated on the stage of the red shirts.

Of course you will claim that it wasn't the army that did it . Dear me ,

JDinasai is quite correct here - chachachacha YOURE the one with the double standards seh daeng had just had a p[ublic tel;ephone row with Thaksin if you remember when he was shot. the army behaved with great restraint and if you remember their general frequently said he would not use force to disperse the red shirts who committed so many acts of terrorism - Governments should allow democratic gatherings of subjects - but when facvtions within those gatherings use violence against the population they MUST be dispersed - this is what happened last year in the red shirt terrorism/protest.

[jayboy]

Using stuff from the past, as some people are doing, doesn't make sense. What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant. The question here is what happened in this particular death. There is footage of Sae Daeng's ronin armed with AK's from that night. I assume that the Japanese have been kept apprised of the progress of the case, and would not be surprised if they were present at the autopsy. I assume we will know soon what they think.

A philosophy lecturer could use the following sentence as an example of deeply flawed thought process.Can you see the lack of logic now or would you like me to point it out?

" What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant."

More generally and at a practical level if the Thai army is known to have lied consistently about the murder of civilians in the past (which is undoubtably the case), does that not make at least its current position worth some scrutiny?

I do agree with you however that the Japanese Embassy position is critical, and if they are satisfied with the explanation we should let matters rest.

[ianbaggie]

I am sure there are "politically-motivated" posters on both sides. And I'm sure that those without political motivation will accept that both sides were wrong in various respects when all 91 cases are taken into account. Few pro-army posters believe the army didn't kill anyone (the debate is whether the killings were legitimate), but many pro-Red posters refuse to acknowledge the very high likelihood that elements within the Red Shirt movement did kill people (both soldiers and civilians).

We see a lot of defence for the Red Shirts on these boards and that's fine, but I think that only the most scarlet of minds will try to pin the April 10 violence in particular on the army alone.

I just would like to see an independent and thorough investigation.I certainly don't think the violence can be pinned on the army alone, far from it.

But the army has a terrible track record on cover ups and that's why one tends to be sceptical.

But most compellingly we still have no real understanding of what happened, and there's very little sense of urgency in getting to the bottom of events.We don't even know who the men in black are and I don't think any have been arrested.

As to this forum there are certainly quite a few experts, mainly I think ex non commissioned officers who can bore endlessly for America on barrelling, calibre and weaponry generally but have no real ability to analyse or see the broader context.Their political views are obvious.

You are a little confused most of us know what happened and why. You obviously don't. You are so lost in meaningless details that you miss the big picture.

When they are done dotting the I's and crossing the T's It will not change what happened one iota. But it will have kept your attention off of the big picture.

Some how I don't think the Japanese government is going to be to upset about there camera man who voluntarily stood in a combat zone. They will make a little noise to please people like your self and then let it die.

In the mean time get a hobby or get out more often.

It's over the red shirts lost.

So the "big picture" is that Reds were defeated and in that objective the Thai army could murder any journalist in the combat zone it liked?

And if the Japanese Embassy protests we should not take their comments too seriously because they don't really care?

Many on this forum strongly believe that the red shirt shirt guards killed the journalist - do you have any evidence of ongoing strong actions from thje japanese government - I think theyre more worried about Chinas growing economic strength and North Korea pointing nuclear weapons at them - give it up Jayboy - people see the red shirts for what they are!! that doesnt mean they are yellow shirts by the way!!

[ianbaggie]

Using stuff from the past, as some people are doing, doesn't make sense. What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant. The question here is what happened in this particular death. There is footage of Sae Daeng's ronin armed with AK's from that night. I assume that the Japanese have been kept apprised of the progress of the case, and would not be surprised if they were present at the autopsy. I assume we will know soon what they think.

A philosophy lecturer could use the following sentence as an example of deeply flawed thought process.Can you see the lack of logic now or would you like me to point it out?

" What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant."

More generally and at a practical level if the Thai army is known to have lied consistently about the murder of civilians in the past (which is undoubtably the case), does that not make at least its current position worth some scrutiny?

I do agree with you however that the Japanese Embassy position is critical, and if they are satisfied with the explanation we should let matters rest.

Can you give examples of the Thai army CONSISTENTLY lying in the past?? I bet I can give more examples of Jathuporn and Thaksin lying !!!! I think JDinasia has it exactly right.

[ianbaggie]

What I find amazing is that this statement doesnt read "the UFDD is likely to face questions about why it killed an unarmed camera man"

Right on Ian! Those United Front for Daffy Duck murdering bastards!

THATS RIGHT!! youve got it - women shoppers, soldiers armed with battons and shields, security guards burnt to death in Central world by red shirt arsonists - policemen in check points shot and bombed with grenades, unarmed patients in hospitals - go check and set your alarm clock for the coming Sondkran this year !! By the way - is daffy duck a hero of yours?

Edited March 1, 2011 by ianbaggie

[bulmercke]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

That is correct.

"The forensic reports from a respected doctor found that the AK-47 caused the death of the Japanese cameraman," Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon."

And what particular "respected doctor" might that be?

[bulmercke]

Using stuff from the past, as some people are doing, doesn't make sense. What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant. The question here is what happened in this particular death. There is footage of Sae Daeng's ronin armed with AK's from that night. I assume that the Japanese have been kept apprised of the progress of the case, and would not be surprised if they were present at the autopsy. I assume we will know soon what they think.

A philosophy lecturer could use the following sentence as an example of deeply flawed thought process.Can you see the lack of logic now or would you like me to point it out?

" What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant."

More generally and at a practical level if the Thai army is known to have lied consistently about the murder of civilians in the past (which is undoubtably the case), does that not make at least its current position worth some scrutiny?

I do agree with you however that the Japanese Embassy position is critical, and if they are satisfied with the explanation we should let matters rest.

Can you give examples of the Thai army CONSISTENTLY lying in the past?? I bet I can give more examples of Jathuporn and Thaksin lying !!!! I think JDinasia has it exactly right.

QUOTE:"I think JDinasia has it exactly right."

[ianbaggie]

Of course it is a cover up, of course the army were responsible for the deaths of many unarmed people that day, people not posing an immediate threat were shot and killed by the army, only a fool would try and argue otherwise.

I

That is correct.

"The forensic reports from a respected doctor found that the AK-47 caused the death of the Japanese cameraman," Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon."

And what particular "respected doctor" might that be?

Since youre so keen to appear clever - maybe you could offer us proof that the red shirts didnt kill the camera man - they have the same motives as the army and USE AK47s - the Thai army has stated that none of its soldiers that day carried AK 47s - but I guess you have to be selective in your truths when youre a red shirt!! "A bit of the truth today"

[LomSak27]

Thanks Time keeper

For those who seem to think consistent lying in the past, is an issue or a reason to believe - they don't need to!

The Grippen deal resembles the same type of transaction that was used to buy the scanners (Thaksin and the airport scanners, remember) The Bangkok Post pointed this out in an article more than two years ago and then ....

SILENCE

From the Bangkok Post, The Nation of course has said nothing about it. When you have that kind of self censorship, why bother lying about it.

[random]

yes random as usual you talk utter complete piffle!! I dont remember the Thai army using grenades against innocent shoppers or burning building, or blowing up gas tanks at the airport or any of the other attrocities that the red shirt murderers commited - next youll be saying it was the army on stage at ractchaprasong - get a life and hug a tree random!!

tree hugger grow up Ian.

far away from it, I beg to differ, I live in Bangkok, I also saw with my own eyes what was happening, but hey if you want to ignore the FACT that the army were shooting people indiscriminately then that is up to you. Also at no point to I say the reds are innocent of wrongdoings, of course they were also involved, but the FACT is people were shot and killed by the army whilst being unarmed and posing no immediate threat. for proof of indiscriminate shooting by the army I again refer you to the FACT the shot and killed one of their own with what can basically be described as panicked indiscriminate shooting.

Both parties were involved in this, both parties killed people, of this I have no doubt, so quite why people are trying to absolve the army of indiscriminate killing is beyond me, it just shows a closed mind and an inability to accept the truth