'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[Nisa]

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?

What government doesn't use live rounds against their own people is the real question? I cannot think of one country that has law enforcement that doesn't have live rounds and have the ability to use those live rounds against citizens who pose a threat be it real or perceived and I also cannot think of one country whose law enforcement has not injured an innocent person by mistake.

[nurofiend]

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

[Buchholz]

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.

<seemingly requisite and unnecessary aspersions snipped>

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.

Precisely my point. I'd like to see their report. Do you have a copy or know where one may view it?

.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Buchholz

[rubl]

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

May 19th, 2010 was a very hectic day. Somewhat understandable that k. Suthep was confused about two farang involved, wounded, shot.

"Polenghi, 48, an Italian freelance photographer, was struck by gunfire on the morning of May 19 while reporting on military operations to dislodge anti-government demonstrators from an elaborate protest site, a CPJ investigation found."

http://www.life.com/gallery/58851/image/100364060/journalists-under-attack-2010-2011#index/24

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/19/roundup-chandler-vandergrift-canadian-journalist-wounded-in-bangkok/

[phiphidon]

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

May 19th, 2010 was a very hectic day. Somewhat understandable that k. Suthep was confused about two farang involved, wounded, shot.

"Polenghi, 48, an Italian freelance photographer, was struck by gunfire on the morning of May 19 while reporting on military operations to dislodge anti-government demonstrators from an elaborate protest site, a CPJ investigation found."

http://www.life.com/...0-2011#index/24

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

Mr Suthep seemed to get confused a lot. He also categorically stated that there were no soldiers on the rail tracks above the Wat when the 6 civilians and nurses were shot dead - when shown still images from the video taken he claimed that they were taken the day after. He also denied that the Army had killed anyone and that the dead protesters must have walked into the bullets.

Rubl, you are defending the indefensible.

[philw]

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

May 19th, 2010 was a very hectic day. Somewhat understandable that k. Suthep was confused about two farang involved, wounded, shot.

"Polenghi, 48, an Italian freelance photographer, was struck by gunfire on the morning of May 19 while reporting on military operations to dislodge anti-government demonstrators from an elaborate protest site, a CPJ investigation found."

http://www.life.com/...0-2011#index/24

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

Ever the apologist...

Sutheps record of events is somewhat selective.

[Buchholz]

Speaking of selective, how's Chalerm's police investigation of the grenading of journalist Chandler Vandergrift coming along?

Any "clear evidence" pronouncements from him that are forthcoming?

.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

Speaking of selective, how's Chalerm's police investigation of the grenading of journalist Chandler Vandergrift coming along?

Any "clear evidence" pronouncements from him that are forthcoming?

.

Why would anyone have to state the obvious - of course it is clear that the M79 grenade which wounded Chandler was fired by militants under the Red Shirts ( i was about 60 meters away from Chandler, and observed it from the safety of a small alley in which i and other journalists escaped after the first grenade landed in the middle of us, but was fortunately a training round without shrapnel). But as there is no footage or any forensic evidence the case will be more than difficult to prove in court. So far there has been no evidence either of direct links between militants and the UDD leadership, so all the terrorism charges will be more than difficult to prove in any court.

Thaivisa speculation by people who have neither seen anything other than what was shown on television, i am afraid, cannot be seen as evidence.

It is different though with cases against the military, as there is chain of command. There is also in some of the 13 cases quite clear evidence, based on witness accounts, video and photo, and forensic evidence, that indeed the military has broken their own rules of engagement and the law. This is going to be interesting. Of course the individual soldiers who have shot and killed protesters will most definitely not be found out, but the units stationed are known.

As to the case against Hiro - it appears that indeed he was killed by a bullet fired from the soldiers. Nevertheless, it seems also quite clear, so far, that he may not have been intentionally targeted because he was a Journalist, but because the situation was completely chaotic at the time, when soldiers whose whole command staff was hit, and only one higher ranking officer still somewhat in charge, and the retreating soldiers firing wildly into the crowd. It is interesting though that until today the military insists that they have not fired a single shot at both Kor Hua and Santiwit - a completely inane statement as there is both forensic evidence available, and video footage of soldiers firing.

Furthermore - there were snipers above and behind the military lines in building that were under the control of the military, who shot at protesters at both locations. I can clearly remember the possibly last sniper round fired from the Santiwittayalay school at Dinso Rd. at the protesters, when the armed militants have already left the scene and only unarmed protesters remained.

One of the main questions regarding the April 10 dispersal remain as well: why did the military begin the main push towards Rajadamnern only a bit more than one hour before darkness? There was no hope to achieve the dispersal before sunset. Generally in Thailand such dispersal action always begin at sunrise so that the security forces have enough time to retreat in case they cannot achieve their goal, as in many such incidents gunmen have appeared after darkness. This action on April 10 by the military has broken all established standard procedures of Thai security forces (the list of almost criminal incompetence by the military that day is endless, such as throwing teargas against the wind, wrong use of rubber bullets, etc).

Quite interesting will be how the courts will treat the lies and denials of especially Suthep and Anupong, who, for example have insisted that there were no soldiers stationed on the BTS tracks on May 19. Not only is there video footage and photos showing soldiers there, and this footage can only have been taken at that day due to the smoke from the burning buildings. Even more damning is that the commander of that particular Special Force unit has in a public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission confirmed not only that the soldiers were stationed there, but has also detailed precisely how, and what occurred, including fire exchanges with armed militants ( i have images of the projector presentation of that meeting, but no, i will not post them here, so you will have to take my word for this). Naturally he has denied having shot at the unarmed protesters who died in and in front of the temple.

But, there is clear forensic evidence that the dead have not been armed protesters (lack of gunpowder residue on the hands), and also in some of the cases there is clear evidence of the trajectory of the bullets which can only have came from the BTS tracks, and no other place. If the dead at the temple would have been armed militants then the military would have been within the rules of engagement.

So, regardless the propaganda and uninformed speculation here on Thaivisa by posters that haven't seen anything of importance to the cases - it will be very interesting how the courts will decide. Interesting as well is how the DSI is now wriggling its way out of their statements under the previous government, now saying more or less the opposite as they have said when they denied the results of the leaked preliminary report - which, strangely enough, came to the same conclusions which are now propagated by the DSI. Which, speculating further, opens many questions of why, when results of investigations have been in the hands of the DSI for almost one year, only after the elections a police task force needed to be given the job to speed up the investigations, and if there was a delay tactic under the previous government.

Well, lots of interesting developments...

[rubl]

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

May 19th, 2010 was a very hectic day. Somewhat understandable that k. Suthep was confused about two farang involved, wounded, shot.

"Polenghi, 48, an Italian freelance photographer, was struck by gunfire on the morning of May 19 while reporting on military operations to dislodge anti-government demonstrators from an elaborate protest site, a CPJ investigation found."

http://www.life.com/...0-2011#index/24

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

Ever the apologist...

Sutheps record of events is somewhat selective.

Now you are a wee bit unfair, dear phil. As you should know all farang look-alike and they don't count / are not important anyway

[rubl]

the shooting of fabio polemghi was during the time you mentioned and suthep said he was killed beside a soldier by a red shirt terrorists' grenade fired from a grenade launcher... this was found out to be a complete lie, should he be held accountable for telling this lie?

or does it just not matter..

May 19th, 2010 was a very hectic day. Somewhat understandable that k. Suthep was confused about two farang involved, wounded, shot.

"Polenghi, 48, an Italian freelance photographer, was struck by gunfire on the morning of May 19 while reporting on military operations to dislodge anti-government demonstrators from an elaborate protest site, a CPJ investigation found."

http://www.life.com/...0-2011#index/24

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

Mr Suthep seemed to get confused a lot. He also categorically stated that there were no soldiers on the rail tracks above the Wat when the 6 civilians and nurses were shot dead - when shown still images from the video taken he claimed that they were taken the day after. He also denied that the Army had killed anyone and that the dead protesters must have walked into the bullets.

Rubl, you are defending the indefensible.

As I just replied to the other Englishman philw, for Thai all farang look-alike and don't count anyway. Similar to the English expression &lt;deleted&gt;. Two farang reporters on a single day, even I would wonder who's who, if it weren't for the Canadian chap having a Dutch family name

[rubl]

Speaking of selective, how's Chalerm's police investigation of the grenading of journalist Chandler Vandergrift coming along?

Any "clear evidence" pronouncements from him that are forthcoming?

Why would anyone have to state the obvious - of course it is clear that the M79 grenade which wounded Chandler was fired by militants under the Red Shirts ( i was about 60 meters away from Chandler, and observed it from the safety of a small alley in which i and other journalists escaped after the first grenade landed in the middle of us, but was fortunately a training round without shrapnel). But as there is no footage or any forensic evidence the case will be more than difficult to prove in court. So far there has been no evidence either of direct links between militants and the UDD leadership, so all the terrorism charges will be more than difficult to prove in any court.

...

It is different though with cases against the military, as there is chain of command. There is also in some of the 13 cases quite clear evidence, based on witness accounts, video and photo, and forensic evidence, that indeed the military has broken their own rules of engagement and the law. This is going to be interesting. Of course the individual soldiers who have shot and killed protesters will most definitely not be found out, but the units stationed are known.

... end removed

So to conclude, the military activities are sufficiently documented, but the other side's activities are totally unclear and therefore the UDD leaders will walk in total innocence (till proven guilty).

My sense of justice is a bit indecently violated, somehow, IMHO

[nicknostitz]

So to conclude, the military activities are sufficiently documented, but the other side's activities are totally unclear and therefore the UDD leaders will walk in total innocence (till proven guilty).

My sense of justice is a bit indecently violated, somehow, IMHO

Not that simple. There are charges against the UDD leaders that most likely will stick, such as Arisaman's invasion into parliament, and of course the usual violations against the emergency decree. Well, it still stands to question if the emergency decree may have been prematurely issued, and therefore contributed to the escalation of violence.

Anyhow, in a court of law though one has to present proof, and not opinion.

As to the so-called connection between UDD leaders and armed militants. Well, this is presented on Thaivisa as if it would be fact. It isn't. But saying that i will of course be accused of "bias" again. But then, Thaivisa debates are not exactly the measurement of informed and objective discussion on what occurred last year.

As to the burning of the buildings, well, I will not get into this debate anymore here, just to get yet again the two videos of Arisaman and Nattawut presented, which are at most circumstantial evidence, if even so.

Just wait and see, there may be still a few surprises waiting to come out...

The sad part here is though, that quite possibly last years events may soon be as forgotten as the Blue Shirts and many other previous events are now. The situation that may be right now in the build up may be far worse than what occurred last year. Already what occurred last year cannot be possibly be solved to any satisfying degree by the courts. It beats me how you possibly can solve a war like scenario in a court, and especially one that still continues, and whose underlying causes have not even began to be publicly discussed, and are only polemically debated by proxy.

Edited December 1, 2011 by nicknostitz

[anterian]

Speaking of selective, how's Chalerm's police investigation of the grenading of journalist Chandler Vandergrift coming along?

Any "clear evidence" pronouncements from him that are forthcoming?

.

Why would anyone have to state the obvious - of course it is clear that the M79 grenade which wounded Chandler was fired by militants under the Red Shirts ( i was about 60 meters away from Chandler, and observed it from the safety of a small alley in which i and other journalists escaped after the first grenade landed in the middle of us, but was fortunately a training round without shrapnel). But as there is no footage or any forensic evidence the case will be more than difficult to prove in court. So far there has been no evidence either of direct links between militants and the UDD leadership, so all the terrorism charges will be more than difficult to prove in any court.

Thaivisa speculation by people who have neither seen anything other than what was shown on television, i am afraid, cannot be seen as evidence.

It is different though with cases against the military, as there is chain of command. There is also in some of the 13 cases quite clear evidence, based on witness accounts, video and photo, and forensic evidence, that indeed the military has broken their own rules of engagement and the law. This is going to be interesting. Of course the individual soldiers who have shot and killed protesters will most definitely not be found out, but the units stationed are known.

As to the case against Hiro - it appears that indeed he was killed by a bullet fired from the soldiers. Nevertheless, it seems also quite clear, so far, that he may not have been intentionally targeted because he was a Journalist, but because the situation was completely chaotic at the time, when soldiers whose whole command staff was hit, and only one higher ranking officer still somewhat in charge, and the retreating soldiers firing wildly into the crowd. It is interesting though that until today the military insists that they have not fired a single shot at both Kor Hua and Santiwit - a completely inane statement as there is both forensic evidence available, and video footage of soldiers firing.

Furthermore - there were snipers above and behind the military lines in building that were under the control of the military, who shot at protesters at both locations. I can clearly remember the possibly last sniper round fired from the Santiwittayalay school at Dinso Rd. at the protesters, when the armed militants have already left the scene and only unarmed protesters remained.

One of the main questions regarding the April 10 dispersal remain as well: why did the military begin the main push towards Rajadamnern only a bit more than one hour before darkness? There was no hope to achieve the dispersal before sunset. Generally in Thailand such dispersal action always begin at sunrise so that the security forces have enough time to retreat in case they cannot achieve their goal, as in many such incidents gunmen have appeared after darkness. This action on April 10 by the military has broken all established standard procedures of Thai security forces (the list of almost criminal incompetence by the military that day is endless, such as throwing teargas against the wind, wrong use of rubber bullets, etc).

Quite interesting will be how the courts will treat the lies and denials of especially Suthep and Anupong, who, for example have insisted that there were no soldiers stationed on the BTS tracks on May 19. Not only is there video footage and photos showing soldiers there, and this footage can only have been taken at that day due to the smoke from the burning buildings. Even more damning is that the commander of that particular Special Force unit has in a public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission confirmed not only that the soldiers were stationed there, but has also detailed precisely how, and what occurred, including fire exchanges with armed militants ( i have images of the projector presentation of that meeting, but no, i will not post them here, so you will have to take my word for this). Naturally he has denied having shot at the unarmed protesters who died in and in front of the temple.

But, there is clear forensic evidence that the dead have not been armed protesters (lack of gunpowder residue on the hands), and also in some of the cases there is clear evidence of the trajectory of the bullets which can only have came from the BTS tracks, and no other place. If the dead at the temple would have been armed militants then the military would have been within the rules of engagement.

So, regardless the propaganda and uninformed speculation here on Thaivisa by posters that haven't seen anything of importance to the cases - it will be very interesting how the courts will decide. Interesting as well is how the DSI is now wriggling its way out of their statements under the previous government, now saying more or less the opposite as they have said when they denied the results of the leaked preliminary report - which, strangely enough, came to the same conclusions which are now propagated by the DSI. Which, speculating further, opens many questions of why, when results of investigations have been in the hands of the DSI for almost one year, only after the elections a police task force needed to be given the job to speed up the investigations, and if there was a delay tactic under the previous government.

Well, lots of interesting developments...

At last, someone who can discuss facts, not biased speculations.

[anterian]

" 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.

"What I am suggesting is that protesters shouldn't carry weapons and use them on passerby without readily accepting the consequences. " I totally agree, but this is Thailand.

[AleG]

Why would anyone have to state the obvious - of course it is clear that the M79 grenade which wounded Chandler was fired by militants under the Red Shirts ( i was about 60 meters away from Chandler, and observed it from the safety of a small alley in which i and other journalists escaped after the first grenade landed in the middle of us, but was fortunately a training round without shrapnel). But as there is no footage or any forensic evidence the case will be more than difficult to prove in court. So far there has been no evidence either of direct links between militants and the UDD leadership, so all the terrorism charges will be more than difficult to prove in any court.

Thaivisa speculation by people who have neither seen anything other than what was shown on television, i am afraid, cannot be seen as evidence.

It is different though with cases against the military, as there is chain of command. There is also in some of the 13 cases quite clear evidence, based on witness accounts, video and photo, and forensic evidence, that indeed the military has broken their own rules of engagement and the law. This is going to be interesting. Of course the individual soldiers who have shot and killed protesters will most definitely not be found out, but the units stationed are known.

As to the case against Hiro - it appears that indeed he was killed by a bullet fired from the soldiers. Nevertheless, it seems also quite clear, so far, that he may not have been intentionally targeted because he was a Journalist, but because the situation was completely chaotic at the time, when soldiers whose whole command staff was hit, and only one higher ranking officer still somewhat in charge, and the retreating soldiers firing wildly into the crowd. It is interesting though that until today the military insists that they have not fired a single shot at both Kor Hua and Santiwit - a completely inane statement as there is both forensic evidence available, and video footage of soldiers firing.

Furthermore - there were snipers above and behind the military lines in building that were under the control of the military, who shot at protesters at both locations. I can clearly remember the possibly last sniper round fired from the Santiwittayalay school at Dinso Rd. at the protesters, when the armed militants have already left the scene and only unarmed protesters remained.

One of the main questions regarding the April 10 dispersal remain as well: why did the military begin the main push towards Rajadamnern only a bit more than one hour before darkness? There was no hope to achieve the dispersal before sunset. Generally in Thailand such dispersal action always begin at sunrise so that the security forces have enough time to retreat in case they cannot achieve their goal, as in many such incidents gunmen have appeared after darkness. This action on April 10 by the military has broken all established standard procedures of Thai security forces (the list of almost criminal incompetence by the military that day is endless, such as throwing teargas against the wind, wrong use of rubber bullets, etc).

Quite interesting will be how the courts will treat the lies and denials of especially Suthep and Anupong, who, for example have insisted that there were no soldiers stationed on the BTS tracks on May 19. Not only is there video footage and photos showing soldiers there, and this footage can only have been taken at that day due to the smoke from the burning buildings. Even more damning is that the commander of that particular Special Force unit has in a public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission confirmed not only that the soldiers were stationed there, but has also detailed precisely how, and what occurred, including fire exchanges with armed militants ( i have images of the projector presentation of that meeting, but no, i will not post them here, so you will have to take my word for this). Naturally he has denied having shot at the unarmed protesters who died in and in front of the temple.

But, there is clear forensic evidence that the dead have not been armed protesters (lack of gunpowder residue on the hands), and also in some of the cases there is clear evidence of the trajectory of the bullets which can only have came from the BTS tracks, and no other place. If the dead at the temple would have been armed militants then the military would have been within the rules of engagement.

So, regardless the propaganda and uninformed speculation here on Thaivisa by posters that haven't seen anything of importance to the cases - it will be very interesting how the courts will decide. Interesting as well is how the DSI is now wriggling its way out of their statements under the previous government, now saying more or less the opposite as they have said when they denied the results of the leaked preliminary report - which, strangely enough, came to the same conclusions which are now propagated by the DSI. Which, speculating further, opens many questions of why, when results of investigations have been in the hands of the DSI for almost one year, only after the elections a police task force needed to be given the job to speed up the investigations, and if there was a delay tactic under the previous government.

Well, lots of interesting developments...

That the Thai Army has a horrible track record in human rights and Suthep is not trustworthy is a given, but the bottom line is that the escalation of violence and subsequent death have one instigator, and that´s the UDD/Red Shirts/Thaksin camp, they staged a strategy to yield the outcome we all saw.

What people do is focus on the final stages of the riots, when the army was routing out the protesters and armed militia without taking into account the full context of the situation; to give an exaggerated example, beginning the narrative of WWII with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show how evil the US was.

I don´t have the time or information resources to do it myself, but perhaps you could put together a precise timeline of the situation during 2010, from the marches on the street, the assault in the Si Ayuttaya army barracks, the precise timing of the events on the 10th of May, etc, etc...

I think the order and significance of the events of that year are too tangled in people´s perceptions.

[jayboy]

Precisely my point. I'd like to see their report. Do you have a copy or know where one may view it?

I haven't seen the report nor do I know where it can be found.Normally this kind of report, unlike that of HRW, would be private to the client that commissioned it.

The sole purpose of my post was to note that CRG is highly credible and reputable, so that forum members unfamiliar with it would not be misled by your earlier disparaging comment.

[philw]

So to conclude, the military activities are sufficiently documented, but the other side's activities are totally unclear and therefore the UDD leaders will walk in total innocence (till proven guilty).

My sense of justice is a bit indecently violated, somehow, IMHO

Not that simple. There are charges against the UDD leaders that most likely will stick, such as Arisaman's invasion into parliament, and of course the usual violations against the emergency decree. Well, it still stands to question if the emergency decree may have been prematurely issued, and therefore contributed to the escalation of violence.

Anyhow, in a court of law though one has to present proof, and not opinion.

As to the so-called connection between UDD leaders and armed militants. Well, this is presented on Thaivisa as if it would be fact. It isn't. But saying that i will of course be accused of "bias" again. But then, Thaivisa debates are not exactly the measurement of informed and objective discussion on what occurred last year.

As to the burning of the buildings, well, I will not get into this debate anymore here, just to get yet again the two videos of Arisaman and Nattawut presented, which are at most circumstantial evidence, if even so.

Just wait and see, there may be still a few surprises waiting to come out...

The sad part here is though, that quite possibly last years events may soon be as forgotten as the Blue Shirts and many other previous events are now. The situation that may be right now in the build up may be far worse than what occurred last year. Already what occurred last year cannot be possibly be solved to any satisfying degree by the courts. It beats me how you possibly can solve a war like scenario in a court, and especially one that still continues, and whose underlying causes have not even began to be publicly discussed, and are only polemically debated by proxy.

Thanks Nick.

I hope that your last paragraph turns out not to be prescient, but sadly, i suspect that you are right.

For sure, "interesting times" are on the way.

[jayboy]

I wasn't disparaging the company itself other than curiosity as to how and who compiled it on the local level.

Probably best not to deny what is so easily proven.Most people would regard your remark below toward the comp[any as disparaging.Still it's a minor matter.

"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."

[animatic]

If the only defense for the UDD leaders is that

'they were an unwitting 'beard' for the Militants', they might skate by on that.

But they can't argue than

'not one person in their ranks did not see the militants in their ranks'

so that no one knew they existed and were using them as shields.

Nor that once they knew their demo was being used by militants to attack the army,

that DIDNOT KNOW that continuing their demo would cause continued violence for both sides.

That continuing their demo and ringing it with barricades and gasoline to burn tires,

and deadly weapons armed civilians ( slingshots and spears also kill) would cause

increased violence to both sides.

That continuing their demo after being given lawful orders to disperse,

that THEY PUBLICLY REFUSED FROM THE STAGE, would

cause the army to force their dispersal and this would cause

violence and injury to BOTH SIDES.

That calling from the protest stages for people to bring liter bottles for gasoline to use as Molotov cocktails, would be inviting an proportionate response from officials, if forced into the a response.

They are very, VERY short on viable excuses,

and very, VERY long on culpability... in a rational world.

[animatic]

When you assume ANY large company tied to political works is beyond reproach and manipulation, than you make a grave error in judgement. People/groups get studies made to fit what they want to see. Something like skewing polling questions and massaging data. So to buy into any companies report as 100% above reproach is Cinderella/Prince Charming fantasy land thinking.

But hey, believe what you like... it's your take on the world. Doesn't mean it's provable, valid or worth the paper it's printed on when used as primary source data for actions, while held in biased hands, but thats life.

Edited December 2, 2011 by animatic

[airconsult]

. 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.

Just a quick thought here - this distraction of reporters using M16 when they mean 5.56mm and AK47 when they are referring to 7.62mm is rubbish of course and has nothing to do with the weapon that was actually used.

Like many other militaries, the Royal Thai Army has sniper rifles in 7.62mm (the SR-25 and the SIG-Sauer SSG 3000), and it would be extremely unlikely if they did not have some in 5.56mm as well, such as the SG550 Sniper, even if they were just purchased as evaluation units.

Is this evidence they did/did not shoot Muramoto? No, but arguing over reporters simplifying calibers into weapons for the general public is pointless.

Cheers

[lannarebirth]

. 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.

Just a quick thought here - this distraction of reporters using M16 when they mean 5.56mm and AK47 when they are referring to 7.62mm is rubbish of course and has nothing to do with the weapon that was actually used.

Like many other militaries, the Royal Thai Army has sniper rifles in 7.62mm (the SR-25 and the SIG-Sauer SSG 3000), and it would be extremely unlikely if they did not have some in 5.56mm as well, such as the SG550 Sniper, even if they were just purchased as evaluation units.

Is this evidence they did/did not shoot Muramoto? No, but arguing over reporters simplifying calibers into weapons for the general public is pointless.

Cheers

Particularly when both sides have such weapons. The caliber of the weapon in this case has absolutely zero determinant of who fired the weapon.

[AleG]

Just a quick thought here - this distraction of reporters using M16 when they mean 5.56mm and AK47 when they are referring to 7.62mm is rubbish of course and has nothing to do with the weapon that was actually used.

Like many other militaries, the Royal Thai Army has sniper rifles in 7.62mm (the SR-25 and the SIG-Sauer SSG 3000), and it would be extremely unlikely if they did not have some in 5.56mm as well, such as the SG550 Sniper, even if they were just purchased as evaluation units.

Is this evidence they did/did not shoot Muramoto? No, but arguing over reporters simplifying calibers into weapons for the general public is pointless.

Cheers

Yes, indeed its pointless to argue who pulled the trigger based on contradictory, and inconclusive bullet data. That was the point trying to drive, how can Anterian claim that an army sniper shot Muramoto based on that evidence?

Still looking forward for this "clear evidence" from Chalerm though. I hope is better than Jatuporn's weekly army coup plot evidence.

[jayboy]

Just because you got caught out disparaging someone with your exaggerations, there's no need to dig your hole deeper with yet another of your patented bickering sessions headed for deletion.

I think a period of quiet introspection on your part is needed.If you make an error as you did with Control Risks, accept the correction, learn from it and move on.

[nicknostitz]

That the Thai Army has a horrible track record in human rights and Suthep is not trustworthy is a given, but the bottom line is that the escalation of violence and subsequent death have one instigator, and that´s the UDD/Red Shirts/Thaksin camp, they staged a strategy to yield the outcome we all saw.

What people do is focus on the final stages of the riots, when the army was routing out the protesters and armed militia without taking into account the full context of the situation; to give an exaggerated example, beginning the narrative of WWII with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show how evil the US was.

I don´t have the time or information resources to do it myself, but perhaps you could put together a precise timeline of the situation during 2010, from the marches on the street, the assault in the Si Ayuttaya army barracks, the precise timing of the events on the 10th of May, etc, etc...

I think the order and significance of the events of that year are too tangled in people´s perceptions.

A proper time line of this period and additional information that have never made it into the media are indeed of high importance, and i have been working on this for the past 1 1/2 years. From the religious ceremony at Laksi monument on March 12, 2010 up to the May 19 dispersal i have been at most events - peaceful marches, battles, etc. But this is of course is not enough, as much took place outside of the view of the media.

Looking at the Red Shirts as a sole instigator is in my opinion wrong. Both sides have contributed to the violence, both sides have made mistakes, and both sides have hardline elements that are not under control of the moderates.

But it does not stop there. The period leading up to the coup, the coup era itself, and all subsequent events have led up to last year, as the combination of what happened will lead to future events.

Not going into details here as it would lead too far, but the problem is that clear facts are especially here on Thavisa distorted beyond recognition by certain posters who have quite clear agendas, singling out, for example, the 2007 clashes at Si Sao Thewet, in which posters that have not been present at there are proposing a version that simply is wrong (i was there). Another point of enormous importance are the 2009 Songkran Riots, the use of the Blue Shirts by the state, and the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters. The events of 2009, and the lack of investigations by the state are the main factor for the appearance of armed Red Shirt militants on April 2010 directly engaging the military, more so than the Government House occupation, the inability of the government to disperse the by parts of the military and the Democrat Party supported PAD protesters and subsequent first appearance of armed pro-Red militants lobbing grenades into the PAD, and armed militants on the PAD side doing their thing.

What happened on April 10 is very complex, and much of the events are still murky as the chaos was tremendous. And some what i found out so far, i cannot yet write about as i still need additional information. But important is that when talking about what occurred last year, we will ave to put this into context of an ongoing struggle whose start i would put at the PAD protests in early 2006, and especially the 2006 military coup. Which again are a result of unsolved problems of previous decades in Thai society (and so is the appearance of Thaksin in Thai politics - just a historical consequence, nothing more, nothing less).

Nothing happens without a reason. The appearance of militants on all sides are a natural consequence of the nature of this conflict, and also rooted in the structure of Thailand itself, and not exactly unprecedented as well.

The conflict will continue to take its course, no matter what, and in the end, i am convinced that Thailand will come out the better, but as a completely changed society. But not without more bloodshed, unfortunately.

[Insight]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

[philw]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Suggest you do a simple google search and then retract the above post for disingenuity.

[nicknostitz]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Well, if it is not enough for you that i say that i was there on the Red Shirt side, and was shot at from the military lines (and have written about it at the time), there was, not long before the recent election a civil court case in which the military was sentenced to pay damages of a few hundred thousand baht to two (i think) of the injured there. The case at the criminal court is still outstanding, as far as i am aware.

[Insight]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Suggest you do a simple google search and then retract the above post for disingenuity.

Hang on, are you expecting me to research your side of the debate for you?

You might want to be careful when carelessly throwing the "Google it" challenge around, especially when attempting to make a point.

[Insight]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Well, if it is not enough for you that i say that i was there on the Red Shirt side, and was shot at from the military lines (and have written about it at the time), there was, not long before the recent election a civil court case in which the military was sentenced to pay damages of a few hundred thousand baht to two (i think) of the injured there. The case at the criminal court is still outstanding, as far as i am aware.

You were there?

As a photojournalist who has been covering the red shirt activities all along you must be kicking yourself to this day for not getting an event of this enormity on camera. Also, given lack of photographic evidence of it elsewhere you would of had yourself an exclusive! What a shame.

Frankly I'm surprised this disappointment isn't expressed in your post.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Insight