Thai Probe Says Army Did Not Kill Japan Cameraman

[jdinasia]

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.

Hmm a Law lecturer would have a field day with the "deeply flawed thought process" that shows a complete lack of logic here. The issue is NOT has the army ever lied. The army has many faces and changes in personnel on an annual basis. The question is are they lying now? Their position ALWAYS deserves scrutiny as does the position of anybody/group with that much power. It would even if they had no history of coverups. To try and muddy THIS event with veiled accusations about past events simply doesn't cut it. The past isn't the issue, the issue is was the Japanese reporter killed by the army. full stop.

[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.

Hmm a Law lecturer would have a field day with the "deeply flawed thought process" that shows a complete lack of logic here. The issue is NOT has the army ever lied. The army has many faces and changes in personnel on an annual basis. The question is are they lying now? Their position ALWAYS deserves scrutiny as does the position of anybody/group with that much power. It would even if they had no history of coverups. To try and muddy THIS event with veiled accusations about past events simply doesn't cut it. The past isn't the issue, the issue is was the Japanese reporter killed by the army. full stop.

I've come to notice that those who have been decisively outpointed in debate end with remarks like "full stop", "case closed", "next please" etc.

Your sad attempt to reverse tables with accusations of illogic is just schoolyard stuff.You made an absurdly inconsistent statement and you are perhaps annoyed at having had it pointed out.

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

[Insight]

You don't have to be a ballistics expert to know that a M16 fires a .556mm (.223) projectile and a AK47 shoots a 7.62mm (.308) projectile. Usually the entrance and exit wounds with a .223 are vastly different from a .308, while both are full metal jacket the speed of the .223 (3200ft/sec) causes the projectile to fragment and spin inside the body whereas the .308 tends to make a clean hole.

You don't....?

What schools did you guys go to?

[jdinasia]

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.

Hmm a Law lecturer would have a field day with the "deeply flawed thought process" that shows a complete lack of logic here. The issue is NOT has the army ever lied. The army has many faces and changes in personnel on an annual basis. The question is are they lying now? Their position ALWAYS deserves scrutiny as does the position of anybody/group with that much power. It would even if they had no history of coverups. To try and muddy THIS event with veiled accusations about past events simply doesn't cut it. The past isn't the issue, the issue is was the Japanese reporter killed by the army. full stop.

I've come to notice that those who have been decisively outpointed in debate end with remarks like "full stop", "case closed", "next please" etc.

Your sad attempt to reverse tables with accusations of illogic is just schoolyard stuff.You made an absurdly inconsistent statement and you are perhaps annoyed at having had it pointed out.

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

Yes one should.

Not to the point is ANY event that is not related to THIS event. "By all means give them the benefit of the doubt" would certainly include looking at THIS event and not the past. Therefore it is about THIS event. (Do my caps help? your attacking the poster instead of the contents of the post is wearying.)

[Pi Sek]

It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

And here is the crux of why it's so hard to agree when talking about politics, and that's before we start talking about Thai politics. The terms "a body associated with outright lying" and "proven liars" can be attributed to both the Red Shirts and the army.

The CRES, the Democrats, the Democrat-led govt, the Yellow Shirts were/are in all probability (in my opinion, which is partly formed by the skepticism you mention) also lying all the time about something or other, but this goes on to prove both your and my point that one should be skeptical to whomever one is listening in this web of deceit.

Because of this, though, the RTA's track record that you rightly point is rather dodgy is not of huge consequence. I think that we should be relying on proven truths rather than unproven "pre-truths", but the pre-truths seem to come out every few days by one side or the other. I acknowledge this is what you've been asking for too... but we haven't seen anything more than a few pre-truths to far, which is hugely disappointing. Last May, I was expecting the DSI's report to be released by now. An interim report (the "may have been by the army in some cases" one) was good - but it was not conclusive at all and not official, just another pre-truth.

[whybother]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

[webfact]

Activists fear Thai 'whitewash' in cameraman probe

BANGKOK, March 1, 2011 (AFP) - A press freedom group on Tuesday raised concerns of a "whitewash" after a Thai government agency suggested the military did not shoot a Japanese cameraman during rallies in Bangkok last April.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said there were "inconsistencies" in the investigation after the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said Hiroyuki Muramoto, of the Reuters news agency, was not killed by army bullets.

The DSI, which is under the justice ministry, had earlier said government troops might have been responsible for the cameraman's death during a crackdown on "Red Shirt" opposition protesters in the capital.

"The contradiction of the preliminary findings of the investigation into journalist Hiro Muramoto's death raises questions about the independence of the government's investigation," said Shawn Crispin, the CPJ's senior Southeast Asia representative.

"We are particularly concerned by reports that a senior military official may have pressured the DSI into censoring its initial findings."

The agency on Monday denied being pressured to absolve the army of blame after weekend reports in the Bangkok Post newspaper "that the army chief of staff paid the DSI head a visit to complain about an initial department finding".

Reuters has called for clarification and "full transparency about the process and the findings".

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

On Monday he said that the initial conclusion that Muramoto might have been killed by the military was based on a witness account from a policeman, who said the shot had come from an area where there were both soldiers and protesters.

The case was referred to the metropolitan police for further investigation after the DSI's initial findings and that probe is still ongoing.

A DSI police forensic expert, Amporn Charuchinda, told reporters on Monday the autopsy report and pictures suggested that Muramoto was killed by a bullet with a diameter of at least seven millimetres, which could have come from an AK-47.

Muramoto, 43, was one of two foreign cameramen killed during the unrest in April and May. More than 90 people -- mostly civilians -- died in the clashes between troops and protesters.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-03-1

Both sides accused each other of using live ammunition.

[jdinasia]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

Actually ... armed civilians, armed trained soldiers etc etc ... but again in the case of the reporter what happened to the reporter is the only thing that is important. Not speculating about the past and not bringing in other irrelevancies. Was he killed by an AK? Was he killed by another weapon? is there evidence that only one side used the weapon that he was killed with? Were there independent (Japanese) observers/participants in the autopsy? All of these questions are relevant whilst trying to convict one side based upon what has happened in the past (often 20+ years ago) is not relevant.

[Oberkommando]

The eyewitness is being contradicted. Pressure on the DSI to cover up from the military. The report changes from an army .223 calibre to an .308. Just BS piling up on top of more BS to exonerate the people actually running this country.

Thailand, you are a complete disgrace.

[gemini81]

we'll never know probably, lots of lies being passed around. both types of firearms were recovered in the red "camp." could have been either side. journalism on the front line comes with a cost.

[hyperdimension]

I'm actually more interested in finding out who killed the soldiers (including colonel Romklao) on 10 April 2010. Is there going to be a report about that?

[TAWP]

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.

While the AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm ('short 7.62', compare with 7.62x51mm NATO) you might be referring to AK-74 that fires 5.45x39mm (compared to 5.56x45mm NATO it is both shorter and slightly less thick).

Unless you are referring to AK-101/AK-102, that is chambered in 5.56x45mm, but it is both a fairly recent design (1994) and not licenses/cloned in the same way as AK-47 or AK-74 (with the former being manufactured in numbers of millions throughout the world).

It is not very likely that any army personnel would be fielding an AK-101/AK-102 as the Thai army doesn't use it, the AK-47 are however widespread on the black market thanks in part to the masses of rifles being smuggled in during the communist uprising both here and across the borders.

Wound pattern comparisons between some calibers.

[jayboy]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

Actually ... armed civilians, armed trained soldiers etc etc ... but again in the case of the reporter what happened to the reporter is the only thing that is important. Not speculating about the past and not bringing in other irrelevancies. Was he killed by an AK? Was he killed by another weapon? is there evidence that only one side used the weapon that he was killed with? Were there independent (Japanese) observers/participants in the autopsy? All of these questions are relevant whilst trying to convict one side based upon what has happened in the past (often 20+ years ago) is not relevant.

Whistling in the dark and deeply unconvincing.Is reference the Thai army's proven record of murdering civilians,lying and covering up really "irrelevant"? You don't have to go back 20 years:there are plenty of very recent examples in the South.

God what somersaults some have to turn to avoid facing awkward facts.

None of this means that the army was guilty in this particular case because we don't know. There hasn't been a full and thorough inquiry yet.

Edited March 1, 2011 by jayboy

[Pi Sek]

Whistling in the dark and deeply unconvincing.Is reference the Thai army's proven record of murdering civilians,lying and covering up really "irrelevant"? You don't have to go back 20 years:there are plenty of very recent examples in the South.

God what somersaults some have to turn to avoid facing awkward facts.

None of this means that the army was guilty in this particular case because we don't know. There hasn't been a full and thorough inquiry yet.

It's only irrelevant because both sides have the same record!

But yeah, whilst there may or may not have been a "full and thorough inquiry" there has not been a public report, something that has been called for by all sides except the army.

[jayboy]

It's only irrelevant because both sides have the same record!

Because I think we have a measure of understanding, if not often agreement, I am replying to your comment.

A similar point was made earlier (Thaksin and Jatuporn as dishonest as the army etc) but I ignored it as I tend to pass over semi coherent bar talk.

Yes I agree that there's dishonesty and hypocrisy in the Red leadership but I don't think it can be seriously compared to the record of the Thai military, not least because the latter is operating from a position of power.In case of criminal abuse including murder there is absolutely no comparison given the military's dreadful record

[Siam Simon]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

How many armed civilians?

[whybother]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

How many armed civilians?

Enough to kill and injure a few army personnel.

Having them moving freely amongst the protesters (particularly the protesters at the front lines) didn't make it very easy for the army to just single them out.

[softgeorge]

swept under the carpet.

the future historians will have a lot of corpses to identify.

"Tharit told AFP. "The Thai army does not use this kind of weapon." ... Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd ... also told the Post that the soldiers "did not use AK-47 rifles that day".

looks, like the army spokesman contradicted the head of DSI - ak47 is in the thai arsenal, but was not used on that particular day

I agree. The investigation was a little like "Did you do it?" "No" "Ok jolly good off you go then case solved. Now who's up for a whiskey?

[Pi Sek]

It's only irrelevant because both sides have the same record!

Because I think we have a measure of understanding, if not often agreement, I am replying to your comment.

A similar point was made earlier (Thaksin and Jatuporn as dishonest as the army etc) but I ignored it as I tend to pass over semi coherent bar talk.

Yes I agree that there's dishonesty and hypocrisy in the Red leadership but I don't think it can be seriously compared to the record of the Thai military, not least because the latter is operating from a position of power.In case of criminal abuse including murder there is absolutely no comparison given the military's dreadful record

I think you are a jai-lon type like me, so I do appreciate it when viewpoints are set aside in favour of constructive debate.

Wasn't Thaksin also in a position of power, notwithstanding the army's implicit involvement in those actions of his which might be described as 'murderous'? Was Jatuporn also not in two positions of power, albeit one of them (i.e. the Red Shirt leader position rather than the opposition MP one) not an official one? Different positions of power in all three cases, noted, so your criticism of comparison is quite acceptable.

I suppose my point is that, comparable or not, they're all liars and none of them are to be believed. Very sad situation.

[softgeorge]

An obvious question to ask, is was there any evidence that the reds had AK47s during the end of the Rajprasong mess? We know there were snipers around from both sides, but is there any video or picture evidence of AK47s being used? Anyone find a pic anywhere?

The bullets that hit my house from redshirt area were fired from AK47. So they were definitely used by the reds.

Unfortunately I only have the photos of the holes and bullets left, but no longer keep the souvenirs.

That does not DEFINATELY mean used by the reds. Try using that argument in a decent court. I am not pro red or yellow they are both as bad as each other. Your prosecution argument would be laughed out of caught. 7.62mm rounds are used a lot of various weapons. How are you so 100% DEFINATELY sure it was an AK 47 and used by a red. You used the word definate I can just see your opening and closing remarks all in one sentence. "Your honour the reds did it with an AK47 and I rest my case"

[Siam Simon]

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

How many armed civilians?

Enough to kill and injure a few army personnel.

Having them moving freely amongst the protesters (particularly the protesters at the front lines) didn't make it very easy for the army to just single them out.

<deleted>! They weren't moving freely amongst the fronltine protestors. The international media present on said frontlines were desperate for scoop photos and videos of these armed 'protestors'. We know there was an armed element, but exaggerating it, as posters like yourself do, does not help the discussions on this forum. We're not fighting a propaganda war on TV, we're discussing the issues and trying to get to the bottom of them.

[whybother]

<deleted>! They weren't moving freely amongst the fronltine protestors. The international media present on said frontlines were desperate for scoop photos and videos of these armed 'protestors'. We know there was an armed element, but exaggerating it, as posters like yourself do, does not help the discussions on this forum. We're not fighting a propaganda war on TV, we're discussing the issues and trying to get to the bottom of them.

There was video of an armed man going around a corner, taking a few shots, and rushing back. He was amongst red shirt protesters hiding behind a wall.

Who knows how many more there were? But they were there, and the protesters knew about it.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

Removed a post that contained a veiled insinuation claiming others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

[jayjay0]

You seem to be reading things that have not been written. I don't think anyone has stated that the army didn't kill anybody at all. People are saying that there were armed men on both sides and that in many cases who did the killing will never be known. The evidence presented today would indicate that the army probably did not kill this particular reporter. You may choose to give that evidence whatever level of credence you think it should have.

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.

Yes & I am sure that when Gaddaffi's police investigate the killing they will find that the people where to blame because they should not of been there . Are people on here that nieve as to believe the crap that is coming out ?

Completely skipping over what was said and comparing apples to pomegranates.

I am not naive at all, nor am I much of a conspiracy theorist. We are talking about ONE case here and that case, due to it involving a foreign national, will certainly be reviewed by people external to the Thai investigation (if it was not concurrently with the Thai investigation.)

As for people defending murder, I don't think that is happening. What does appear to be happening is that people are not agreeing with you.

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.

From post 26 , Trying to justify murder with the HE SHOULD NOT OF BEEN THERE sad sad sad

So not skipping over (as you put it)

Murder is your misguided opinion. He was responsible for his actions. If I wanted to get shot I would go where they are shooting each other. I don't so I don't go there. why should he be different.

[Insight]

<deleted>! They weren't moving freely amongst the fronltine protestors. The international media present on said frontlines were desperate for scoop photos and videos of these armed 'protestors'. We know there was an armed element, but exaggerating it, as posters like yourself do, does not help the discussions on this forum. We're not fighting a propaganda war on TV, we're discussing the issues and trying to get to the bottom of them.

There was video of an armed man going around a corner, taking a few shots, and rushing back. He was amongst red shirt protesters hiding behind a wall.

Who knows how many more there were? But they were there, and the protesters knew about it.

The gunman (or gunmen) in this clip appears to be very well integrated into the crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY7OafG9Src&feature=player_embedded

[oldsailor35]

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.

So ! why were the army using live ammunition against Thai protesters when they should have been using rubber bullets and tear gas ? Sounds a bit like Gadaffi killing his own people. Why do you not think that somebody should not have to answer to this act of genocide. The PM had no right to turn the army on the people like a pack of wild dogs. We all know how brutal the thai army can be when let loose, from past incidents.

[TAWP]

<deleted>! They weren't moving freely amongst the fronltine protestors. The international media present on said frontlines were desperate for scoop photos and videos of these armed 'protestors'. We know there was an armed element, but exaggerating it, as posters like yourself do, does not help the discussions on this forum. We're not fighting a propaganda war on TV, we're discussing the issues and trying to get to the bottom of them.

There was video of an armed man going around a corner, taking a few shots, and rushing back. He was amongst red shirt protesters hiding behind a wall.

Who knows how many more there were? But they were there, and the protesters knew about it.

The gunman (or gunmen) in this clip appears to be very well integrated into the crowd:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY7OafG9Src&feature=player_embedded

Indeed, and multiple Truth Today T-shirt wearing reds filming from cellphones. Some red apologists claim that the reds don't distort the truth. So we can only assume that there has now been some 50 videos from the cellphones taking clips in the video above released online or sent into CRES, some containing very nice closeups of the shooters too. No?

[jayjay0]

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>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).<br><br>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.<br><br>

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

<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>In the mean time get a hobby or get out more often.<br>It's over the red shirts lost.<br>

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

See i told you . You have missed the big picture.You are the type who wants to know where the Forrest is because you can't see any thing with all the tree's in the way.""You have two choices you can keep guessing or go do a little research.

I will give you a clue. You made three statements. One was the result of the big picture and the other two were red shirt ramblings."

Edited March 1, 2011 by jayjay0

[Buchholz]

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

How many armed civilians?

Enough to kill and injure a few army personnel.

Having them moving freely amongst the protesters (particularly the protesters at the front lines) didn't make it very easy for the army to just single them out.

&lt;deleted&gt;! They weren't moving freely amongst the fronltine protestors. The international media present on said frontlines were desperate for scoop photos and videos of these armed 'protestors'.

CNN found them:

[mca]

Well at least it wasn't the guy in the clip who killed the Japanese photographer.