'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[anterian]

Chicken and egg my friend Did the army know some of the the protesters would have guns, did the protesters know the army had live ammo? As this is Thailand I think the answer is yes to both. The peaceful protesters simply got caught in the crossfire.

This is why the ignorance of the Red shirt supporters continue. Before the Army was even mobilized Red Shirt insurgents were already causing harm, carrying weapons such as molotov cocktail bombs, handguns, machetes and slingshots. I'm sure at some point they realized the Army had live ammo and that's when they should've just said "ok, let's stop and talk" but no.. instead they hid behind human shields, kinda like.. terrorists.

As many have mentioned here, the Red Shirts wanted the body count. The more people died under Abhisit's watch, the worse it would've looked for the government. What does the Army hope to gain by killing peaceful protesters and camera men.. nothing.

" molotov cocktail bombs, handguns, machetes and slingshots." Just as the Yellow shirts did previously, this is standard equipment for any Thai mob. Or have you conveniently forgotten the videos of PAD members brandishing knives and waving hand guns?

Irrelevant... the topic is *'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman*

nothing to do with PAD/yellows...

I assume your comment is directed at Thaioats, he introduced the "carrying weapons such as molotov cocktail bombs, handguns, machetes and slingshots.", a direct copy of PAD behaviour and as such relevant. I'm so sorry if you find this politically inconvenient

[Buchholz]

"By the way, you should contact the government with your evidence that an army sniper killed Muramoto." People who make comments such as this demonstrate that they are losing the debate

No, people make comments like that to stop people making things up, using non facts, you know, lying.

Unless you can tell us how you know for a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper.

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

If you want to go down the precedence road, the precedence was set by the Red Shirts in July 2007... a year and half before the airport.

.

[AleG]

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

But then you will reply as in your second comment that I am making things up, indeed you go further and say I am lying

I obviously do not "know for a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper.", anymore than you know he was not. What I do know is that the evidence, both forensic and from eye witnesses, strongly suggests this. As does the army's attempt to have the evidence squashed.

But you have used the tactic of moving the goalposts. I was discussing the military use of lethal force, you have introduced the Muramoto killing as a "red herring" , so clearly you are struggling to find an ethical justification for the use of such lethal force.

Incidentally, don't expect any further replies from me unless you withdraw your accusation of lying, I may often be misinformed, but I never lie!

So you first say that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper, and then you say you don't know for sure. Let's chalk it up to being militantly misinformed instead of lying.

Please share the forensic and eye witness evidence of Muramoto being killed by an army sniper, because I haven't seen that ever.

As for the first part, the argument of "he did it first!" loses it's strength by the age of 5 or so.

Nevertheless if I understand what you are saying is that because some PAD people was armed with "plenty of weapons" (I've seen evidence of two or three cases of a handgun in PAD hands, I guess we differ in the definition of "plenty") the Red Shirts were justified to bring weapons into their protest. So if I'm still following you it was to be expected to have armed "protestors" among the Red Shirts, right? then please explain why then the security forces shouldn't have acted on that expectation and tried to disperse an armed mob with no firepower backup?

[anterian]

"By the way, you should contact the government with your evidence that an army sniper killed Muramoto." People who make comments such as this demonstrate that they are losing the debate

No, people make comments like that to stop people making things up, using non facts, you know, lying.

Unless you can tell us how you know for a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper.

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

If you want to go down the precedence road, the precedence was set by the Red Shirts in July 2007... a year and half before the airport.

.

I was expecting that Yes a small group in 2007 did use weapons, but were they red shirts? The name Red shirts was coined by the media much later. The 2007 group seems much closer to the Black shirts, another media name.

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

[AleG]

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

So there was the expectation that the protesters would be armed.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

Thanks for admitting that the army was justified in issuing live ammunition for the crowd control operations.

[anterian]

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

But then you will reply as in your second comment that I am making things up, indeed you go further and say I am lying

I obviously do not "know for a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper.", anymore than you know he was not. What I do know is that the evidence, both forensic and from eye witnesses, strongly suggests this. As does the army's attempt to have the evidence squashed.

But you have used the tactic of moving the goalposts. I was discussing the military use of lethal force, you have introduced the Muramoto killing as a "red herring" , so clearly you are struggling to find an ethical justification for the use of such lethal force.

Incidentally, don't expect any further replies from me unless you withdraw your accusation of lying, I may often be misinformed, but I never lie!

So you first say that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper, and then you say you don't know for sure. Let's chalk it up to being militantly misinformed instead of lying.

Please share the forensic and eye witness evidence of Muramoto being killed by an army sniper, because I haven't seen that ever.

As for the first part, I guess we differ in the definition of "plenty"

Nevertheless if I understand what you are saying is that because some PAD people was armed with "plenty of weapons" (I've seen evidence of two or three cases of a handgun in PAD hands, I guess we differ in the definition of "plenty") the Red Shirts were justified to bring weapons into their protest. So if I'm still following you it was to be expected to have armed "protestors" among the Red Shirts, right? then please explain why then the security forces shouldn't have acted on that expectation and tried to disperse an armed mob with no firepower backup?

. Thank's for ascribing my attitude to my youthfulness, it would be nice to be 5 years old again rather than 75

"militantly misinformed" what does that mean? Even militarily misinformed makes no sense.

"because I haven't seen that ever.". None so blind as those that do not want to see

" I guess we differ in the definition of "plenty". I guess we differ on many definitions

[Buchholz]

No, people make comments like that to stop people making things up, using non facts, you know, lying.

Unless you can tell us how you know for a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper.

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

If you want to go down the precedence road, the precedence was set by the Red Shirts in July 2007... a year and half before the airport.

.

I was expecting that Yes a small group in 2007 did use weapons, but were they red shirts? The name Red shirts was coined by the media much later. The 2007 group seems much closer to the Black shirts, another media name.

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

Hundreds getting injured doesn't reflect the Red Shirts then was "a small group"

The leadership of the Red Shirts then consisted of Jatuporn (check for current Red Shirt participation), Natthawut (check for current Red Shirt participation), Veera (check for current Red Shirt participation), and Jakropob (currently fugitive for anti-monarchy speech).... so yeah, they were Red Shirts. They've had a raft of acronyms and superfluous names over time, but they haven't changed in their rhetoric and tactics for the past 4 years with major street battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

I thought the point you were trying to make when you erroneously said that "PAD set a precedent" was that PAD had set a precedent, which is erroneous.

.

[anterian]

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

So there was the expectation that the protesters would be armed.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

Thanks for admitting that the army was justified in issuing live ammunition for the crowd control operations.

"Thanks for admitting" I guess some people just do not understand English

[AleG]

. Thank's for ascribing my attitude to my youthfulness, it would be nice to be 5 years old again rather than 75

"militantly misinformed" what does that mean? Even militarily misinformed makes no sense.

"because I haven't seen that ever.". None so blind as those that do not want to see

" I guess we differ in the definition of "plenty". I guess we differ on many definitions

Oh, but I do want to see, please show me the forensic evidence and eyewitness reports that point to an army sniper shooting Muramoto.

What I've seen is reports that the bullet that killed Muramoto was either an M16 round and then later amended to an AK-47; very muddy and from that I don't see how that points to an army sniper, A) because there are two mutually contradictory reports on the nature of the round and because an army sniper wouldn't be using either a M16 or an AK-47.

As for eye witnesses identifying an army sniper shooting Muramoto, haven't seen that at all, and frankly I wonder how that would work in the middle of a firefight, they saw were the bullet came from? An army sniper drawing a press photographer silhouette in the butt of his rifle?

So in short, yes I want to see the evidence because I'm interested in finding the truth.

Now there's only speculation over how and who killed Muramoto, as I stated before in the thread I think the most probable cause is a stray bullet from either the army or the Red... errr, I mean, Black Shirts, not a targeted assassination as the use of a sniper to pick out a reporter would imply.

[AleG]

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

So there was the expectation that the protesters would be armed.

When I was in the army, the only time we were issued with live ammunition, apart from the rifle range, we were expected to have to use it. Are you saying Thai soldiers carry live ammo for ceremonial reasons?

Thanks for admitting that the army was justified in issuing live ammunition for the crowd control operations.

"Thanks for admitting" I guess some people just do not understand English

Sorry, I assumed you would agree with the logical conclusion that if the army was expected to face an armed mob then they naturally would be issued live ammunition to repel and/or neutralize firearm fire.

I assumed wrong apparently; should I have assumed that the soldiers, expecting to be fired upon by an armed mob should had been issued with batons, shields and water cannons only?

[hammered]

There have been reports giving more information over the two journalists deaths in respectable European news media including claims of witness statements including army witnesses. Im not even sure it is a good idea to post them here as this is obviously a sensitive issue. As to verasity of claims, we can only hope the truth comes out, but...

Edited December 1, 2011 by hammered

[Buchholz]

.

Only the acronyms change with time, but not their violence...

PTV - 2007

Natthawut, Jatuporn, Veera, Jakrapob, Korkaew

UDD - 2010

Veera, Jatuporn, Natthawut, Korkaew

with apologies to Korkaew for overlooking his position in earlier post

.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Buchholz

[Oberkommando]

Oh, but I do want to see, please show me the forensic evidence and eyewitness reports that point to an army sniper shooting Muramoto.

What I've seen is reports that the bullet that killed Muramoto was either an M16 round and then later amended to an AK-47; very muddy and from that I don't see how that points to an army sniper, A) because there are two mutually contradictory reports on the nature of the round and because an army sniper wouldn't be using either a M16 or an AK-47.

An Army sniper would probably not use either of those weapons, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Additionally, there are rifles that chamber rounds from both those weapons (5.56 NATO and 7.62mm) that are regularly used in sniper and marksman duties.

The English from the Thais is probably the confusing issue here; telling us which weapons they think were used (probably impossible to tell unless they know velocity etc) instead of the ammunition and saying it was a 'sniper' when in all likelihood it was a lone gunman.

[warfie]

Some posts here suggesting that the army should not have had live ammo remind me of a quote from a movie, to paraphrase,

"what were they supposed to use? harsh language?"

<-- Aliens -->

[anterian]

Sorry, I assumed you would agree with the logical conclusion that if the army was expected to face an armed mob then they naturally would be issued live ammunition to repel and/or neutralize firearm fire.

I assumed wrong apparently; should I have assumed that the soldiers, expecting to be fired upon by an armed mob should had been issued with batons, shields and water cannons only?

The British troops in Northern Ireland were issued live ammunition, specialist groups not ordinary soldiers. Each round had to be accounted for, there was no blanket bang , bang , bang going on. I would expect this from any professional military. I would also expect a full enquiry and report afterwards, as happened after "Bloody Sunday". Including the initial "cover up".

[anterian]

Two consecutive comments Well in answer to your first comment, the PAD set a precedent , did they not, I saw plenty of weapons brandished by the PAD at both government house and the airport.

If you want to go down the precedence road, the precedence was set by the Red Shirts in July 2007... a year and half before the airport.

.

I was expecting that Yes a small group in 2007 did use weapons, but were they red shirts? The name Red shirts was coined by the media much later. The 2007 group seems much closer to the Black shirts, another media name.

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

Hundreds getting injured doesn't reflect the Red Shirts then was "a small group"

The leadership of the Red Shirts then consisted of Jatuporn (check for current Red Shirt participation), Natthawut (check for current Red Shirt participation), Veera (check for current Red Shirt participation), and Jakropob (currently fugitive for anti-monarchy speech).... so yeah, they were Red Shirts. They've had a raft of acronyms and superfluous names over time, but they haven't changed in their rhetoric and tactics for the past 4 years with major street battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

I thought the point you were trying to make when you erroneously said that "PAD set a precedent" was that PAD had set a precedent, which is erroneous.

.

All I intended saying was that the PAD set the recent precedent, before them it was groups that later metamorphed into Red shirts, before them it was communists, students, anarchists, whatever you care to call them.

[sparebox2]

AFP is a Farang news source.

So it is quite reliable.

[sparebox2]

In the dark and panic, a camera man could be mistaken for "Black-shirt" carrying a launcher.

[longway]

Sorry, I assumed you would agree with the logical conclusion that if the army was expected to face an armed mob then they naturally would be issued live ammunition to repel and/or neutralize firearm fire.

I assumed wrong apparently; should I have assumed that the soldiers, expecting to be fired upon by an armed mob should had been issued with batons, shields and water cannons only?

The British troops in Northern Ireland were issued live ammunition, specialist groups not ordinary soldiers. Each round had to be accounted for, there was no blanket bang , bang , bang going on. I would expect this from any professional military. I would also expect a full enquiry and report afterwards, as happened after "Bloody Sunday". Including the initial "cover up".

In the UK there would also be a full investigation on why the police allowed the red shirts to occupy the Ratchaprasong in the first place, and why on that day what looked like a senior police officer got on the red shirt leaders' lorry and gave a speech that concluded with tamruat bpen brachachon duay several times, to which he got much applause and there was a great deal of shoulder slapping and hugs as the last of the police left.

Edited December 1, 2011 by longway

[Oberkommando]

How Reuters failed Hiro Muramoto

As is standard when a member of staff is killed in action, Reuters commissioned a third party investigations firm to look into the circumstances of Hiro's death. Their investigation concluded that the overwhelming likelihood was that Hiro was killed by a bullet fired by a Thai soldier during chaotic clashes at the Kok Wua intersection. He was probably not specifically targeted as a journalist; it seems more likely that he was shot randomly as panicked soldiers sprayed bullets directly at crowds of civilians.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-macgregor-marshall/how-reuters-failed-hiro-muramoto/313780848641261

[anterian]

Sorry, I assumed you would agree with the logical conclusion that if the army was expected to face an armed mob then they naturally would be issued live ammunition to repel and/or neutralize firearm fire.

I assumed wrong apparently; should I have assumed that the soldiers, expecting to be fired upon by an armed mob should had been issued with batons, shields and water cannons only?

The British troops in Northern Ireland were issued live ammunition, specialist groups not ordinary soldiers. Each round had to be accounted for, there was no blanket bang , bang , bang going on. I would expect this from any professional military. I would also expect a full enquiry and report afterwards, as happened after "Bloody Sunday". Including the initial "cover up".

In the UK there would also be a full investigation on why the police allowed the red shirts to occupy the Ratchaprasong in the first place, and why on that day what looked like a senior police officer got on the red shirt leaders' lorry and gave a speech that concluded with tamruat bpen brachachon duay several times, to which he got much applause and there was a great deal of shoulder slapping and hugs as the last of the police left.

Indeed so, neither the police nor the military are exempt from the rule of law and must answer for their actions.

[lannarebirth]

Sorry, I assumed you would agree with the logical conclusion that if the army was expected to face an armed mob then they naturally would be issued live ammunition to repel and/or neutralize firearm fire.

I assumed wrong apparently; should I have assumed that the soldiers, expecting to be fired upon by an armed mob should had been issued with batons, shields and water cannons only?

The British troops in Northern Ireland were issued live ammunition, specialist groups not ordinary soldiers. Each round had to be accounted for, there was no blanket bang , bang , bang going on. I would expect this from any professional military. I would also expect a full enquiry and report afterwards, as happened after "Bloody Sunday". Including the initial "cover up".

In the UK there would also be a full investigation on why the police allowed the red shirts to occupy the Ratchaprasong in the first place, and why on that day what looked like a senior police officer got on the red shirt leaders' lorry and gave a speech that concluded with tamruat bpen brachachon duay several times, to which he got much applause and there was a great deal of shoulder slapping and hugs as the last of the police left.

Am I mistaken or did the red shirt stage have it's electricity and/or water supplied from a nearby police station?

[phiphidon]

Hundreds getting injured doesn't reflect the Red Shirts then was "a small group"

The leadership of the Red Shirts then consisted of Jatuporn (check for current Red Shirt participation), Natthawut (check for current Red Shirt participation), Veera (check for current Red Shirt participation), and Jakropob (currently fugitive for anti-monarchy speech).... so yeah, they were Red Shirts. They've had a raft of acronyms and superfluous names over time, but they haven't changed in their rhetoric and tactics for the past 4 years with major street battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

I thought the point you were trying to make when you erroneously said that "PAD set a precedent" was that PAD had set a precedent, which is erroneous.

.

All I intended saying was that the PAD set the recent precedent, before them it was groups that later metamorphed into Red shirts, before them it was communists, students, anarchists, whatever you care to call them.

Whatever you do, don't mention the blue shirts, the Newin/Suthep faction................

[scorecard]

AFP is a Farang news source.

So it is quite reliable.

I don't agree, I take issue with many of their pieces for lacking balance and for lacking accurate insightful analysis whic portrays the real picture which has built over time.

[transam]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

Am I misreading your words, or are you saying that an army sniper was specifically tasked to take out a specific journalist on a specific day?

Sorry, cant buy it. Why would the military do this, what reason could they have for such a specific order, what purpose could it possibly serve?

And whether it as a 'declared war-zone' or not is pretty much immaterial, it was clearly very dangerous to be in that particular area, and surely the Japanese cameraman knew that. He took the risk, may he RIP.

+1

[ThaiOats]

" molotov cocktail bombs, handguns, machetes and slingshots." Just as the Yellow shirts did previously, this is standard equipment for any Thai mob. Or have you conveniently forgotten the videos of PAD members brandishing knives and waving hand guns?

I assume your comment is directed at Thaioats, he introduced the "carrying weapons such as molotov cocktail bombs, handguns, machetes and slingshots.", a direct copy of PAD behaviour and as such relevant. I'm so sorry if you find this politically inconvenient

I'm not talking about the PAD/Yellows am I? Even if I were, I never made any point to suggest that I condoned their actions and that they should be treated any differently. What I am suggesting is that protesters shouldn't carry weapons and use them on passerby without readily accepting the consequences.

[Buchholz]

If you want to go down the precedence road, the precedence was set by the Red Shirts in July 2007... a year and half before the airport.

I was expecting that Yes a small group in 2007 did use weapons, but were they red shirts? The name Red shirts was coined by the media much later. The 2007 group seems much closer to the Black shirts, another media name.

The point I was attempting to make is that any group in Thailand arms itself, it is inevitable where weapons are so easily available, whenever i have seen Thai fight Thai weapons have appeared, sticks, knives, machettes or guns.

Hundreds getting injured doesn't reflect the Red Shirts then was "a small group"

The leadership of the Red Shirts then consisted of Jatuporn (check for current Red Shirt participation), Natthawut (check for current Red Shirt participation), Veera (check for current Red Shirt participation), and Jakropob (currently fugitive for anti-monarchy speech).... so yeah, they were Red Shirts. They've had a raft of acronyms and superfluous names over time, but they haven't changed in their rhetoric and tactics for the past 4 years with major street battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

I thought the point you were trying to make when you erroneously said that "PAD set a precedent" was that PAD had set a precedent, which is erroneous.

All I intended saying was that the PAD set the recent precedent, before them it was groups that later metamorphed into Red shirts, before them it was communists, students, anarchists, whatever you care to call them.

2007 is recent precedence.

PTV is UDD.

.

[Buchholz]

Reuters commissioned a third party investigations firm to look into the circumstances

I'd be curious as to this "investigative firm" identified in Marshall's emails as "Control Risks" and the methods and clientele they used in Thailand during the course of their investigation.

The warnings to Marshall from his previous employer that if he released their confidential report he would be jeopardizing the personal safety of the investigators employed is a concern.

Another concern is that as he apparently has not released the full Control Risk report, the supposed contents quoted in the above are rather suspect.

.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Buchholz

[peecee]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

Lot's of right minded people do care. How many governments use live rounds indiscriminately against their own people? The world quite rightly condems Assad in Demascus & other arab regimes for their abhorant behaviour; were the Thai military any different?

[jayboy]

I'd be curious as to this "investigative firm" identified in Marshall's emails as "Control Risks" and the methods and clientele they used in Thailand during the course of their investigation.

The warnings to Marshall from his previous employer that if he released their confidential report he would be jeopardizing the personal safety of the investigators employed is a concern.

Another concern is that as he apparently has not released the full Control Risk report, the supposed contents quoted in the above are rather suspect.

I can't be bothered much these days with the myopic military cheerleaders who never question the Thai army's behaviour or methods.Let them rattle away to themselves.

However to others who may wish to know about Control Risks -

Control Risks is one of the leading security/political risk companies in the world, not as large as Kroll Associates but in the same league.A market leader in the UK and strong also in the US and Asia.

I think one can assume that any report it produced would be subject to the highest level of quality control.