Japanese Cameraman Muramoto Not Killed By Thai Army: DSI

[Buchholz]

NO bullets recovered from 13 bodies or the scenes of their deaths. Is that believable?

I could believe that there were no bullets recovered from the scenes. It's not like they could cordon of the area around bodies and do investigations at the time.

As to bullets recovered from the bodies. I'm sure some would have passed through, but wouldn't think that all of them would.

The AK-47 fires a round at 700 meters per second/2,346 feet per second.

I would think it very rare when a round does not pass through human flesh.

[rubl]

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

... rest of Bagwan's post removed

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post. Maybe you can be a wee bit more explicit as to what part you mean?

As for 'anyone reasonable accusing', true, not explicitly reporters anyway. At the most some members have gone on record saying 'either PM Abhisit wasn't in control or he must have ordered killings'

[Asa]

Truth will never be told by either side. Be it at Kok Wua or at Rajaprasong.

Here some fact for thought:

Government Forces

• Tens thousand of soldiers (70K all together?) were fully armed (to the teeth), assault rifles, handgun, grenades, teargas can
• Two hundreds snipers with high power sound suppressed rifles (as seen in you tube) and night vision goggles
• Armour vehicles, tanks, helicopters were deployed against the reds

Red shirt Supporters

• Handful renegade army soldiers with some personal weapon
• Some M79 launchers and M60 ammo
• fire crackers, sling shots, pebbles, bamboo lances

Figure it out, pals.

[whybother]

Truth will never be told by either side. Be it at Kok Wua or at Rajaprasong.

Here some fact for thought:

Government Forces

• Tens thousand of soldiers (70K all together?) were fully armed (to the teeth), assault rifles, handgun, grenades, teargas can
• Two hundreds snipers with high power sound suppressed rifles (as seen in you tube) and night vision goggles
• Armour vehicles, tanks, helicopters were deployed against the reds

Red shirt Supporters

• Handful renegade army soldiers with some personal weapon
• Some M79 launchers and M60 ammo
• fire crackers, sling shots, pebbles, bamboo lances

Figure it out, pals.

Tanks?? Grenades?? Facts???

They talked about 50,000 soldiers at the start when the reds were talking about a million protesters, but I doubt 50,000 (or 70,000) were used at any time. That would have been a more than 1 to 1 ratio during most of the protests.

[Buchholz]

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

... rest of Bagwan's post removed

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post.

It's not just you, but a day without a flame is like a day without sunshine for some.

[webfact]

Thai troops did not shoot cameraman: police

BANGKOK, March 24, 2011 (AFP) - Thai police on Thursday echoed government agency findings that troops were not responsible for the death of a Japanese cameraman killed during a military crackdown on protests in Bangkok last April.

Investigators initially said authorities could have been to blame for the death of Hiroyuki Muramoto, of the Reuters news agency, one of two foreign cameramen killed during clashes between troops and anti-government "Red Shirt" protesters.

But police said there was no evidence to support this, following similar comments from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) last month.

"Police have concluded the investigation and found that there is no evidence or witnesses to show that he was killed by shots from security officers," Thai National Police legal advisor General Aek Angsananont told AFP.

He said the police investigation into the case was now closed and had been handed back to the DSI.

More than 90 people -- mostly civilians -- died in the unrest in April and May last year and both military and protesters accused each other of using live ammunition.

Aek said Japanese diplomats had already been informed of the latest development in the high profile case, which has generated controversy and confusion.

Last month the DSI said troops were not behind the killing, having previously said they might have been.

Despite the u-turn, department chief Tarit Pengdith denied that there had been military or government interference in the probe.

"Police have concluded that Muramoto's death is not the work of government security officials, because there is no evidence and witness testimony to prove it," he told AFP on Thursday.

"Forensic examination results show that the bullet was not from an M-16 but rather an AK-47 or similar type of firearms," Tarit added, reiterating comments made last month. He explained that the Thai army does not use AK-47s.

Despite the comments of the police and DSI, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the investigation would continue until the perpetrator was identified.

"If the result is unclear then an additional investigation would take place," he told reporters.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-03-24

[jayboy]

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

... rest of Bagwan's post removed

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post.

It's not just you, but a day without a flame is like a day without sunshine for some.

The slur is obvious and needs no explanation.

What was the particular point of your post? Careful now, SJ.

[rubl]

Does the Brit Army provide Kate Adie with an armoured vehicle? Don't the US media go along with the troops every time they invade somewhere? Don't these intrepid reporters know that they are standing into danger? In a boxing or wrestling ring the referee at times gets in the way with consequences for themselves. Perhaps old age has made me over cynical but I have some difficulty in thinking that the media reporters were imbued with the thought that they were supporting justice and truth by putting themselves in harm's way. I suggest that other motives, maybe selfish ones, were at work

... rest of Bagwan's post removed

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post.

The slur is obvious and needs no explanation.

How come the 'obvious' always needs to be spelled out

[Buchholz]

Leaving aside your dishonest and unpleasant slur in the first paragraph, I don't think anyone reasonable is accusing anyone of deliberately ordering the death of the reporters.

... end removed

It's probably me, but I see no 'dishonest and unpleasant slur' in Bagwan's post.

The slur is obvious and needs no explanation.

How come the 'obvious' always needs to be spelled out

Precisely. I also wonder what was dishonest about it.

[fma]

Embarrassing the government with deaths to make it fall A.S.A.P. was the obvious main aim of the rallies for some on that side of the game. Who actually pulled the triggers may remain a mystery, but that people would die during this rally was clear from before it even started up. To that end they are trying to still make that noodle stick to the political wall, but it is too ala dente to do it.

Another 'I knew it all along'

It would be nice to get some links to pictures/videos/anything really ... with details on the numerous men in black that must have been captured after the crackdown.

I would have thought that the victors had showcased them to prove a job well done, but I must have missed it.

We got lots of pictures of the high tech weaponry confiscated though...

The crackdown was done with such precision that absolutely none of the 90 fatalities were caused by the authorities, in fact they were so good that the terrorists started to kill each other in frustration.

With such exquisite performance I propose that the army send some consultants to Libya, Bahrain, Syria etc. to guide the current powers in how to peacefully dissolve the terrorist demonstrations we are witnessing

[philw]

Truth will never be told by either side. Be it at Kok Wua or at Rajaprasong.

Here some fact for thought:

Government Forces

• Tens thousand of soldiers (70K all together?) were fully armed (to the teeth), assault rifles, handgun, grenades, teargas can
• Two hundreds snipers with high power sound suppressed rifles (as seen in you tube) and night vision goggles
• Armour vehicles, tanks, helicopters were deployed against the reds

Red shirt Supporters

• Handful renegade army soldiers with some personal weapon
• Some M79 launchers and M60 ammo
• fire crackers, sling shots, pebbles, bamboo lances

Figure it out, pals.

Tanks?? Grenades?? Facts???

They talked about 50,000 soldiers at the start when the reds were talking about a million protesters, but I doubt 50,000 (or 70,000) were used at any time. That would have been a more than 1 to 1 ratio during most of the protests.

I think the stated figure is 30,000 or 32,000 troops in the immediate vicinity.

Should be enough to have the say on what happens...........

Including containing/controlling/preventing/causing ( take your pick ) arson, dead medics, dead journos, people shot bynot possible to identify snipers etc etc etc

[Oberkommando]

Eyewitness testimony (a Policeman I believe) and the initial ballistics reports which have subsequently and incredulously been changed tell the truth IMO.

As usual no justice and no satisfactory conclusion.

[Oberkommando]

The crackdown was done with such precision that absolutely none of the 90 fatalities were caused by the authorities, in fact they were so good that the terrorists started to kill each other in frustration.

With such exquisite performance I propose that the army send some consultants to Libya, Bahrain, Syria etc. to guide the current powers in how to peacefully dissolve the terrorist demonstrations we are witnessing

Post of the day.

[philw]

The crackdown was done with such precision that absolutely none of the 90 fatalities were caused by the authorities, in fact they were so good that the terrorists started to kill each other in frustration.

With such exquisite performance I propose that the army send some consultants to Libya, Bahrain, Syria etc. to guide the current powers in how to peacefully dissolve the terrorist demonstrations we are witnessing

Post of the day.

Agree.

The RTA snipers have had enough "practice" to ensure their accuracy..........

philw

[rubl]

The crackdown was done with such precision that absolutely none of the 90 fatalities were caused by the authorities, in fact they were so good that the terrorists started to kill each other in frustration.

With such exquisite performance I propose that the army send some consultants to Libya, Bahrain, Syria etc. to guide the current powers in how to peacefully dissolve the terrorist demonstrations we are witnessing

Post of the day.

Agree.

The RTA snipers have had enough "practice" to ensure their accuracy..........

philw

Somehow I have the feeling these posts ignore the 12 - 15 odd police officers & soldiers who also died during the 'unrests'. I'm not even talking about 'collateral damage' (yet).

I know I'm prejudiced, ever since I passed BTS Saladaeng just a few hours before the grenade attack. Imagine how I would feel having been there at the 'right' moment (assuming I would have survived it).

[webfact]

PM: Muramoto probe 'won't fade away'

By The Nation

In a special interview with Japanese media yesterday, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the investigation into the killing of Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto "would not fade away", but could not give a timeframe for completion of the Department of Investigation (DSI) probe.

Responding to a question on whether the investigation would "fade away like those into murders and deaths of redshirt protesters", Abhisit, speaking separately to the Thai media, quoted himself as saying: "It would probably not, because it is in the focus [of the media]. We need to help extract the facts and produce evidence to make the case as complete as possible."

"I told them that premature discussions about the case in public were fine, but that they would only result in greater confusion over the case. We need to fully give a chance to the people solving it," he said.

"The case is being processed in the Thai justice system, and it will take quite a lengthy additional period, because a lot of evidence is involved and it requires complicated verification," he said.

Pheu Thai MP and red leader Jatuporn Prompan earlier threatened to avenge what he described as delay tactics and twisting of probe results by DSI directorgeneral Tharit Pengdit and certain senior police officers "when power changed hands".

Meanwhile, in Chiang Mai, Phra Jittaphinyo, formerly Pheu Thai MP Wiphoj Aphornrat, mediated the surrender of a redshirt leader for his role in blockading a police headquarters in Muang district during a rally last January.

Phoomjai Chaiya, a DJ at a prored radio station, has been released on bail of Bt100,000 for various crimes including organising unrest and intimidation of policemen on duty, all charges he denies.

-- The Nation 2011-03-25

[phiphidon]

PM: Muramoto probe 'won't fade away'

By The Nation

In a special interview with Japanese media yesterday, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the investigation into the killing of Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto "would not fade away", but could not give a timeframe for completion of the Department of Investigation (DSI) probe.

Responding to a question on whether the investigation would "fade away like those into murders and deaths of redshirt protesters", Abhisit, speaking separately to the Thai media, quoted himself as saying: "It would probably not, because it is in the focus [of the media]. We need to help extract the facts and produce evidence to make the case as complete as possible."

"I told them that premature discussions about the case in public were fine, but that they would only result in greater confusion over the case. We need to fully give a chance to the people solving it," he said.

"The case is being processed in the Thai justice system, and it will take quite a lengthy additional period, because a lot of evidence is involved and it requires complicated verification," he said.

Pheu Thai MP and red leader Jatuporn Prompan earlier threatened to avenge what he described as delay tactics and twisting of probe results by DSI directorgeneral Tharit Pengdit and certain senior police officers "when power changed hands".

Meanwhile, in Chiang Mai, Phra Jittaphinyo, formerly Pheu Thai MP Wiphoj Aphornrat, mediated the surrender of a redshirt leader for his role in blockading a police headquarters in Muang district during a rally last January.

Phoomjai Chaiya, a DJ at a prored radio station, has been released on bail of Bt100,000 for various crimes including organising unrest and intimidation of policemen on duty, all charges he denies.

-- The Nation 2011-03-25

Abhisit is in danger here of admitting that the investigations into the Red Shirt "murders and deaths" would "fade away". Apart from that, despite much protestation on these forums that evidence was lacking and the "murders and deaths" would be difficult to investigate and prove who was responsible one way or another, Abhisit states that there is "a lot of evidence involved", at least in this case. As the death of Muramoto coincided with the deaths of 20 other civilians and 5 soldiers in the Panfah area it would therefore appear that there is "a lot of evidence involved" in these cases as well, in my opinion. Maybe this would explain why it is possible that it may take up to 2 years to investigate the death of one man.

[whybother]

Abhisit is in danger here of admitting that the investigations into the Red Shirt "murders and deaths" would "fade away".

<snip>

Is that like admitting that there will be a coup, because you denied it when someone asked about a rumour that there was going to be one?

Edited March 25, 2011 by whybother

[phiphidon]

Abhisit is in danger here of admitting that the investigations into the Red Shirt "murders and deaths" would "fade away".

<snip>

Is that like admitting that there will be a coup, because you denied it when someone asked about a rumour that there was going to be one?

No,

When asked specifically if, like the investigations into the redshirt deaths and murders, the investigation into Muramotos death would just fade away, Abhisit replied that it wouldn't as it would be the focus of media attention, thus implying that the investigations into the redshirt deaths would fade away. Nothing ambiguous about that if you ask me.

Abhisit is supposed to be a clever man, well versed with talking to the media, unlike his right hand man Suthep, I'm just suprised by his answer. Anyway, once all the evidence has been revealed in a year or so we will all know what happened a year ago, maybe.

[jdinasia]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

In the past, governments didn't survive long enough after the use of force and an enquiry wasn't ever really done to anyone's satisfaction. The army opened fire and the government fell within days. Many people (myself included) think that April and May 2010 were simply an attempt on the part of the reds to mimic the past and it failed. The reds not only had AK's available to them but also many other weapons which will obscure the circumstances in many of the deaths, but in the cases where there is less question about the type of weapon fired (such as 13 believed killed by AK's) it lets the regular Army of the hook, without letting some elements of the scouts/rangers that have the AK in their arsenal off the hook. Your question could be asked about why did the reds use launched grenades as well. Why not stick with the exact weapons you were facing in order to sow confusion in the ranks about the loyalty of the soldiers around you. Simply bad tactics combined with soldiers preferring to use the weapons they are most familiar with is my guess.

[phiphidon]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

In the past, governments didn't survive long enough after the use of force and an enquiry wasn't ever really done to anyone's satisfaction. The army opened fire and the government fell within days. Many people (myself included) think that April and May 2010 were simply an attempt on the part of the reds to mimic the past and it failed. The reds not only had AK's available to them but also many other weapons which will obscure the circumstances in many of the deaths, but in the cases where there is less question about the type of weapon fired (such as 13 believed killed by AK's) it lets the regular Army of the hook, without letting some elements of the scouts/rangers that have the AK in their arsenal off the hook. Your question could be asked about why did the reds use launched grenades as well. Why not stick with the exact weapons you were facing in order to sow confusion in the ranks about the loyalty of the soldiers around you. Simply bad tactics combined with soldiers preferring to use the weapons they are most familiar with is my guess.

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

[Pi Sek]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

In the past, governments didn't survive long enough after the use of force and an enquiry wasn't ever really done to anyone's satisfaction. The army opened fire and the government fell within days. Many people (myself included) think that April and May 2010 were simply an attempt on the part of the reds to mimic the past and it failed. The reds not only had AK's available to them but also many other weapons which will obscure the circumstances in many of the deaths, but in the cases where there is less question about the type of weapon fired (such as 13 believed killed by AK's) it lets the regular Army of the hook, without letting some elements of the scouts/rangers that have the AK in their arsenal off the hook. Your question could be asked about why did the reds use launched grenades as well. Why not stick with the exact weapons you were facing in order to sow confusion in the ranks about the loyalty of the soldiers around you. Simply bad tactics combined with soldiers preferring to use the weapons they are most familiar with is my guess.

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

A very valid post. If the army cannot control their armoury stocks, then the PM should order the army chief to get his house in line.

The question is, in Thailand, whether the PM has authority to do that. Obviously by installing Chaiyasit, Thaksin attempted to do that - but I feel, along with many others, that he was attempting to do more than "gain authority to give orders to the army chief". I hope one day that the Thais can attain some middle ground where the army is answerable to the ruling government to a greater extent, but retaining the autonomy so that they do not become lackeys of whomever is in charge.

Somehow I have the feeling these posts ignore the 12 - 15 odd police officers & soldiers who also died during the 'unrests'. I'm not even talking about 'collateral damage' (yet).

I know I'm prejudiced, ever since I passed BTS Saladaeng just a few hours before the grenade attack. Imagine how I would feel having been there at the 'right' moment (assuming I would have survived it).

You would feel exactly as I do.

[rubl]

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

Not sure what the army used those 100,000 cartridges on. Either they're lousy shots or there has been a brisk business in ammunition

[phiphidon]

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

Not sure what the army used those 100,000 cartridges on. Either they're lousy shots or there has been a brisk business in ammunition

Well the information is out there in the public domain unless you fell asleep at that part of the censure debate. Now I'm sure that number will be revised downwards greatly once the "official" report is made known but that still only works out about 2 / 3 bullets for every soldier involved. Allowing for the fact they spent all the time firing over the heads of protesters, it doesn't take long to get rid of 2 or 3 bullets each, you know. There were some anomalies of course, like the 7 bullets put into Akaradej Kankaew, one of 5 Medical Workers shot and killed during the "crackdown".

[rubl]

Not sure what the army used those 100,000 cartridges on. Either they're lousy shots or there has been a brisk business in ammunition

Well the information is out there in the public domain unless you fell asleep at that part of the censure debate. Now I'm sure that number will be revised downwards greatly once the "official" report is made known but that still only works out about 2 / 3 bullets for every soldier involved. Allowing for the fact they spent all the time firing over the heads of protesters, it doesn't take long to get rid of 2 or 3 bullets each, you know. There were some anomalies of course, like the 7 bullets put into Akaradej Kankaew, one of 5 Medical Workers shot and killed during the "crackdown".

I might have dosed off a bit when MP Jatuporn was going on and on about nurses and a few red-shirts killed.

Still, as I'm willing to accept nice round figures let's do some interesting (mis)calculations. Assuming 1 in 100 shots fired will kill, we should have 1000 dead. Question, where did the government hide those bodies

[phiphidon]

Not sure what the army used those 100,000 cartridges on. Either they're lousy shots or there has been a brisk business in ammunition

Well the information is out there in the public domain unless you fell asleep at that part of the censure debate. Now I'm sure that number will be revised downwards greatly once the "official" report is made known but that still only works out about 2 / 3 bullets for every soldier involved. Allowing for the fact they spent all the time firing over the heads of protesters, it doesn't take long to get rid of 2 or 3 bullets each, you know. There were some anomalies of course, like the 7 bullets put into Akaradej Kankaew, one of 5 Medical Workers shot and killed during the "crackdown".

I might have dosed off a bit when MP Jatuporn was going on and on about nurses and a few red-shirts killed.

Still, as I'm willing to accept nice round figures let's do some interesting (mis)calculations. Assuming 1 in 100 shots fired will kill, we should have 1000 dead. Question, where did the government hide those bodies

It wasn't Jaturporn and your attempt at humour is not really appropriate. Regardless of your viewpoint 90 plus people died and deserve some respect (unless of course you're of the mindset that the only good red is a dead red). Pol Lt Col Somchai Phetprasoet is your man.

[rubl]

I might have dosed off a bit when MP Jatuporn was going on and on about nurses and a few red-shirts killed.

Still, as I'm willing to accept nice round figures let's do some interesting (mis)calculations. Assuming 1 in 100 shots fired will kill, we should have 1000 dead. Question, where did the government hide those bodies

It wasn't Jaturporn and your attempt at humour is not really appropriate. Regardless of your viewpoint 90 plus people died and deserve some respect (unless of course you're of the mindset that the only good red is a dead red). Pol Lt Col Somchai Phetprasoet is your man.

I have said in one of my replies in another topic 'one dead is one too many already'. No humour there. Just trying to put things in perspective

[jdinasia]

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

The ammunition from a sniper rifle travels faster than that from an AK and leaves a different wound track doesn't it?

If your number of rounds fired is accurate then it doesn't show much intent on killing, does it?

[bangon04]

DSI they may be.

CSI they certainly ain't. Not even close....

[TAWP]

One point here I don't understand - If your goal is to make the army responsible for killing your protesters or others - Why use a weapon they don't have?

It would be easy to have the same weapons the army had, the police were handing them out for two day before the clash. Recall the hundreds of weapons returned under protest as seen live on TV. It is not like they could not have had many of them if they wanted.

It would seem if you wanted to kill and make someone responsible for it you would use a weapon that you don't have or one you can claim you don't have and surly use one they use.

Now who makes that claim? Just an observation.

In the past, governments didn't survive long enough after the use of force and an enquiry wasn't ever really done to anyone's satisfaction. The army opened fire and the government fell within days. Many people (myself included) think that April and May 2010 were simply an attempt on the part of the reds to mimic the past and it failed. The reds not only had AK's available to them but also many other weapons which will obscure the circumstances in many of the deaths, but in the cases where there is less question about the type of weapon fired (such as 13 believed killed by AK's) it lets the regular Army of the hook, without letting some elements of the scouts/rangers that have the AK in their arsenal off the hook. Your question could be asked about why did the reds use launched grenades as well. Why not stick with the exact weapons you were facing in order to sow confusion in the ranks about the loyalty of the soldiers around you. Simply bad tactics combined with soldiers preferring to use the weapons they are most familiar with is my guess.

7.62mm bullets do not only have to be fired from AK47's though, do they. The Army snipers used 7.62mm bullets in their SG-3000 Sniper Rifles, about 2,500 of them it appears, unless the tally of the amount of bullets handed out compared to those returned to the armouries changes mysteriously in the near future. General Prayuth has apparently ordered all ammunition unused by troops in the "crackdown" to be returned quickly. Presumably so the true number of bullets fired can be made public (out of interest the Army withdrew nearly 600,000 bullets and used about 100,000 of them).

I suppose you missed that the bullets are very different and cannot be used interchangeably.

7.62x39 fired by AK-47 vs 7.62x51 NATO fired by SIG-Sauer SSG 3000