Thai Probe Says Army Did Not Kill Japan Cameraman

[whybother]

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.

They tried rubber bullets and tear gas the previous couple of days. And rubber bullets aren't really much of a defense against grenades, are they?

You don't take a knife to a gun fight. The red shirts had guns.

[oldsailor35]

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 ,

In my opinion, the army and whoever put them there in the first place are the ones to blame for the shootings. At the bottom end of Sukumvit there was a hugh rally with thousands of Redshirts and Riot police........BUT ! not one shot was fired and eventually all ended peacefully. Whereas at another place where thousands of protesters were confronted by the army , who were fully armed with live ammo in lieu of teargas and rubber bullets, many, many innocent thai's were not only wounded by an out of control army, but also killed. One day i only hope that the person who ordered this killing will have to answer to someone for these acts of genocide.

[oldsailor35]

...

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.

In your 'educated' opinion, just how many armed civilians and against how many armed soldiers ?

[whybother]

In your 'educated' opinion, just how many armed civilians and against how many armed soldiers ?

I don't know how many armed civilians there were, but from videos taken on April 10 there were at least half a dozen running around amongst the thousands of protesters. 25 people died that night - a quarter of them soldiers.

There were at least 20 caught on May 19.

How many armed men does it take running around with the "unarmed" protesters (often with their own potentially deadly weapons) before a like response is required?

[jayjay0]

...

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.

In your 'educated' opinion, just how many armed civilians and against how many armed soldiers ?

No body is accusing the red shirts of having common sense.

And while we are talking common sense tells us a out of control army against unarmed people would kill a lot more than 82 people.

As I said red shirts are not known for there brain power. You might want to take another look at6 your friends.

[whybother]

In my opinion, the army and whoever put them there in the first place are the ones to blame for the shootings. At the bottom end of Sukumvit there was a hugh rally with thousands of Redshirts and Riot police........BUT ! not one shot was fired and eventually all ended peacefully. Whereas at another place where thousands of protesters were confronted by the army , who were fully armed with live ammo in lieu of teargas and rubber bullets, many, many innocent thai's were not only wounded by an out of control army, but also killed. One day i only hope that the person who ordered this killing will have to answer to someone for these acts of genocide.

Who is responsible for having the armed protesters there? What should happen to them?

[oldsailor35]

<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.

So why is this 'video' not freely available, do you have a copy of it, or is it all in your head ?................Lets see it please.

[Buchholz]

this act of genocide

these acts of genocide.

Definition of genocide:

The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Definition of hyperbole:

An obvious and intentional exaggeration

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

[jdinasia]

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.

It's irrelevant because it is history and we are discussing one event the death of the Japanese reporter. The rest is just attempts to attack the poster even when he agrees .... "benefit of the doubt" etc

[oldsailor35]

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.

Well i can give you some examples of the Thai army's brutality if that will help you.

[jayjay0]

...

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?

How many armed soldiers?

How long is a string?

The mystery deepens.

[metisdead]

It is perfectly acceptable to report on events and give opinions, it is not acceptable to post in an inflammatory manner.

[rubl]

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.

Well i can give you some examples of the Thai army's brutality if that will help you.

I can provide examples of UDD / red-shirt brutality if that will help you. I also have pictures of people being mean to dogs and other animals.

Back to the OP, more water will run under the bridges of the Chao Praya before we know all that needs to be known. Even NickN promised some salient details in his upcoming book

[whybother]

So why is this 'video' not freely available, do you have a copy of it, or is it all in your head ?................Lets see it please.

Here you go - freely available and all - and soon to be in your head:

And I found an excellent post that you might want to look at too: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3624388

(edit: sorry it took so long ... there were a lot of videos to go through to find it).

Edited March 1, 2011 by whybother

[chachachacha]

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.

Dispersed ? It was slaughter 90 dead, dear me. Is 90 lifes not of any importance to you ? NO double standards here .I condem any military scum that will fire on it's own people .

[whybother]

Dispersed ? It was slaughter 90 dead, dear me. Is 90 lifes not of any importance to you ? NO double standards here .I condem any military scum that will fire on it's own people .

Considering 15 of the 90 were soldiers, and a number of civilians were killed by grenades, do you condemn the red shirts for firing on their their own people too?

You can't be having double standards, can you?

Edited March 1, 2011 by whybother

[animatic]

So why is this 'video' not freely available, do you have a copy of it, or is it all in your head ?................Lets see it please.

Here you go - freely available and all - and soon to be in your head:

And I found an excellent post that you might want to look at too: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3624388

(edit: sorry it took so long ... there were a lot of videos to go through to find it).

Yes that is one of the ashots of armed men in black on the scene.

They clearly are NOT with the army....

The whole thing was an obvious setup to provoke the army into a deadly action any way they could, because historically this has brought down governments. But what they didn't count on was the prevalence of so much 'personal media capture devices' such as what got this clip, and the fact it made obvious the malicious intent of the Red rally's behind the scenes bosses to create just the scenes of destruction and death they created.

And the continuing attempts nearly a year later to get some political traction from it. Latest up front attempt a recycle of the same charges in the coming censure debate. It has been a massive and incredibly cynical exercise in real politique through violence to win control of a country from it's people, while pretending to be for, and by, the poorest of those people. Yet really controlled by a nuevo-riche clique of the same class of overlords that are the purported target for removal.

Cynical seems not a strong enough a word,

diabolical and Machiavellian start to get there.

Maybe fall back on a simple but clear word to describe this:

EVIL.

Edited March 1, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

'chachachacha' timestamp='1298903184' post='4249556'

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.

Dispersed ? It was slaughter 90 dead, dear me. Is 90 lifes not of any importance to you ? NO double standards here .I condem any military scum that will fire on it's own people .

Your double standard is that of that 90 dead,

several were soldiers, and attacked from the Red side.

Many were killed in several different places

on different days, in totally different circumstances.

All could have been avoided,

but the red leaders refused to do so.

It's not like there was one march on a group of total innocents and they were killed, it was never as cut and dried as you try and portray it.

Easy to throw out that number regularly, but unless it is based on truth and not hyperbol, it is none the less a false claim.

You want to make your argument, then make a real one ,

not one based on propaganda value alone.

Edited March 1, 2011 by animatic

[Siam Simon]

e

Your double standard is that of that 90 dead,

several were soldiers, and attacked from the Red side.

Many were killed in several different places

on different days, in totally different circumstances.

All could have been avoided,

but the red leaders refused to do so.

It's not like there was one march on a group of total innocents and they were killed, it was never as cut and dried as you try and portray it.

Easy to throw out that number regularly, but unless it is based on truth and not hyperbol, it is none the less a false claim.

You want to make your argument, then make a real one ,

not one based on propaganda value alone.

You prattle on like this, but you STILL haven't come up with the goods wrt your trolling of Nick Nostitz back in December . The abuse of this forum is beyond belief at times.

[Siam Simon]

Thankyou to the posters who have taken the trouble to find video evidence of the handful of non-army people carrying and using lethal weapons. They confirm what we already knew.. Anyone would think that this justifies creating a live firing zone and shooting into crowds of people such as happened here:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2010/05/01/shot-had-huge-impact

We all know the Thai army is not the most advanced in the World, But can anyone seriously argue that they don't do intel and surveillance? That they don't have special forces and snatch squads? Who would've had a problem with them taking out the handful of people carrying and using lethal weapons illegaly during the troubles last year? I would not be arguing in defence of anybody taken out with lethal force, having resisted arrest for carrying illegal firearms. Why is the firing on thousands of civilians acceptable in this instance?

[whybother]

Thankyou to the posters who have taken the trouble to find video evidence of the handful of non-army people carrying and using lethal weapons. They confirm what we already knew.. Anyone would think that this justifies creating a live firing zone and shooting into crowds of people such as happened here:

http://blogs.aljazee...had-huge-impact

We all know the Thai army is not the most advanced in the World, But can anyone seriously argue that they don't do intel and surveillance? That they don't have special forces and snatch squads? Who would've had a problem with them taking out the handful of people carrying and using lethal weapons illegaly during the troubles last year? I would not be arguing in defence of anybody taken out with lethal force, having resisted arrest for carrying illegal firearms. Why is the firing on thousands of civilians acceptable in this instance?

Do you really think they had time to do intel and surveillance on April 10?

Do you really think they could have sent a squad behind barricades to take out gunmen, who could quite easily hide their guns and mingle with the crowd?

You tried before to compare this situation to how the British army dealt with the IRA, but did the British army send a squad into a large protest to take individuals out?

[thaihome]

Thankyou to the posters who have taken the trouble to find video evidence of the handful of non-army people carrying and using lethal weapons. They confirm what we already knew.. Anyone would think that this justifies creating a live firing zone and shooting into crowds of people such as happened here:

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/asia/2010/05/01/shot-had-huge-impact

We all know the Thai army is not the most advanced in the World, But can anyone seriously argue that they don't do intel and surveillance? That they don't have special forces and snatch squads? Who would've had a problem with them taking out the handful of people carrying and using lethal weapons illegaly during the troubles last year? I would not be arguing in defence of anybody taken out with lethal force, having resisted arrest for carrying illegal firearms. Why is the firing on thousands of civilians acceptable in this instance?

Using that video or the above photo as an example, if you were one of the people standing around when that person ran past you fired a few shots at the Army then ran back and away, would you still stand there? If you were to see the guy in the photo, would stick around if your intents were peaceful protest? Would you still dart out into the street and throw your M-150 bottle filled with petrol? Would you still fire your slingshot or homemade rocket? If you did continue to stay in the area and the Army shot you are you an innocent bystander?

Any person with the intent to peacefully protest was long gone from streets around Rama IV and Din Deang. Those that stayed were willingly participating in fighting the Army and were subject to consequences of trying to take on a trained force in combat mode.

All anyone killed in those areas from May 14th to the 19th had to do was move back inside the main protest site or go home and they would be alive today. The Army was not breaking up the protest, all it was doing was setting up a perimeter around the protest site. The reason they were attacked for doing so was the UDD leadership knew this would be the end of the protest, just as what happened in Songkran 2009 when they had to give up and board government supplied buses to go home. The UDD leadership was determined that would not happen again.

The UDD leadership succeeded in what they intended to do. Lead as many people to their senseless death as they could get to follow them (insuring of course, they did not actually get shot at themselves). What they could not believe was despite succeeding in getting people killed, the government did not fall like has happened every other time.

The difference this time was most people saw right through their rhetoric and continued to support the government. The no-confidence vote in Parliament immediately after the protest shows this. That is democracy.

TH

[oldsailor35]

In my opinion, the army and whoever put them there in the first place are the ones to blame for the shootings. At the bottom end of Sukumvit there was a hugh rally with thousands of Redshirts and Riot police........BUT ! not one shot was fired and eventually all ended peacefully. Whereas at another place where thousands of protesters were confronted by the army , who were fully armed with live ammo in lieu of teargas and rubber bullets, many, many innocent thai's were not only wounded by an out of control army, but also killed. One day i only hope that the person who ordered this killing will have to answer to someone for these acts of genocide.

Who is responsible for having the armed protesters there? What should happen to them?

You still need to prove that those armed men were not "Plants", i wonder why none of them were shot or even identified to date ! very suspicious indeed .

[oldsailor35]

this act of genocide

these acts of genocide.

Definition of genocide:

The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Definition of hyperbole:

An obvious and intentional exaggeration

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

OK so i fcuked up there, so what would you call a PM who sets his army on his own people. Tell me and i stand corrected.

[whybother]

In my opinion, the army and whoever put them there in the first place are the ones to blame for the shootings. At the bottom end of Sukumvit there was a hugh rally with thousands of Redshirts and Riot police........BUT ! not one shot was fired and eventually all ended peacefully. Whereas at another place where thousands of protesters were confronted by the army , who were fully armed with live ammo in lieu of teargas and rubber bullets, many, many innocent thai's were not only wounded by an out of control army, but also killed. One day i only hope that the person who ordered this killing will have to answer to someone for these acts of genocide.

Who is responsible for having the armed protesters there? What should happen to them?

You still need to prove that those armed men were not "Plants", i wonder why none of them were shot or even identified to date ! very suspicious indeed .

There were at least 20 armed men caught on May 19. I assume they were "plants" too.

All the dead soldiers were "plants" as well. The civilians and journalists killed and injured by grenades ... all "plants".

The burning down of buildings in Bangkok ... didn't happen. The burning of government buildings upcountry .... not real.

Edited March 2, 2011 by whybother

[oldsailor35]

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.

They tried rubber bullets and tear gas the previous couple of days. And rubber bullets aren't really much of a defense against grenades, are they?

You don't take a knife to a gun fight. The red shirts had guns.

BS ! nobody hangs around in teargas................have you ever tried it ?

[whybother]

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.

They tried rubber bullets and tear gas the previous couple of days. And rubber bullets aren't really much of a defense against grenades, are they?

You don't take a knife to a gun fight. The red shirts had guns.

BS ! nobody hangs around in teargas................have you ever tried it ?

Sure ... and all over the world, when ever tear gas is used, the protesters stop protesting and go home. What planet are you living on?

[oldsailor35]

So why is this 'video' not freely available, do you have a copy of it, or is it all in your head ?................Lets see it please.

Here you go - freely available and all - and soon to be in your head:

And I found an excellent post that you might want to look at too: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3624388

(edit: sorry it took so long ... there were a lot of videos to go through to find it).

Yes but you fail to prove that he is not Army special forces operative. If he is redshirt, why all the disguise.

[whybother]

Yes but you fail to prove that he is not Army special forces operative. If he is redshirt, why all the disguise.

[oldsailor35]

Thankyou to the posters who have taken the trouble to find video evidence of the handful of non-army people carrying and using lethal weapons. They confirm what we already knew.. Anyone would think that this justifies creating a live firing zone and shooting into crowds of people such as happened here:

http://blogs.aljazee...had-huge-impact

We all know the Thai army is not the most advanced in the World, But can anyone seriously argue that they don't do intel and surveillance? That they don't have special forces and snatch squads? Who would've had a problem with them taking out the handful of people carrying and using lethal weapons illegaly during the troubles last year? I would not be arguing in defence of anybody taken out with lethal force, having resisted arrest for carrying illegal firearms. Why is the firing on thousands of civilians acceptable in this instance?

Using that video or the above photo as an example, if you were one of the people standing around when that person ran past you fired a few shots at the Army then ran back and away, would you still stand there? If you were to see the guy in the photo, would stick around if your intents were peaceful protest? Would you still dart out into the street and throw your M-150 bottle filled with petrol? Would you still fire your slingshot or homemade rocket? If you did continue to stay in the area and the Army shot you are you an innocent bystander?

Any person with the intent to peacefully protest was long gone from streets around Rama IV and Din Deang. Those that stayed were willingly participating in fighting the Army and were subject to consequences of trying to take on a trained force in combat mode.

All anyone killed in those areas from May 14th to the 19th had to do was move back inside the main protest site or go home and they would be alive today. The Army was not breaking up the protest, all it was doing was setting up a perimeter around the protest site. The reason they were attacked for doing so was the UDD leadership knew this would be the end of the protest, just as what happened in Songkran 2009 when they had to give up and board government supplied buses to go home. The UDD leadership was determined that would not happen again.

The UDD leadership succeeded in what they intended to do. Lead as many people to their senseless death as they could get to follow them (insuring of course, they did not actually get shot at themselves). What they could not believe was despite succeeding in getting people killed, the government did not fall like has happened every other time.

The difference this time was most people saw right through their rhetoric and continued to support the government. The no-confidence vote in Parliament immediately after the protest shows this. That is democracy.

TH

move back into the main protest site ? what about the nurse who was shot dead by the army inside the temple !