'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[Insight]

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

I have "released" the images on April 11, 2010, already. The are at my agency, and you can contact them, and they will quote you a price.

It is entirely up to me where and in which context i publish *my* images for free. Thaivisa, for reasons jayboy has outlined in a previous post, and hammered as well, hardly belongs to the places i consider publishing things for free, unless the moderators and owners decide to clean this place from the fanatic rabble that clogs any political discussion by serial-posting propaganda and bullying anyone away who does not agree with their distorted view.

So there's a price behind the images which could massively benefit the red shirt cause? Well I guess that's what it's always been about since day one.

Any chance the mods could have a whip around? If not, any chance of a little linky to a site you can generate some cash out of?

[AleG]

I was there, and i have images of parts of the violence before sunset (no, i will not post them here). I was stuck at the military lines for the most part because the soldiers have thrown teargas against the wind, hitting them (and me), delaying their own dispersal, in addition to throwing teargas canisters from helicopters. This, by the way, was the nastiest teargas i have ever experienced, three days after my skin still burned.

No the soldiers should have started their dispersal at the appropriate time - just after sunrise - and if they could not have achieved their goal, retreated well before sunset. The "rioters" only clashed with the army because of the dispersal.

Yet there is also the question why the dispersal at the Pan Fa stage, and not at Rajaprasong, as the problematic protest area was not Pan Fa, but the Rajaprasong occupation.

Whatever you may say here - the April 10 dispersal action of the military was a complete screw up, a fact that most officers i talked with do accept. But for some strange reason Thavisa seems to know better.

Your post gives the idea that the shoot out between the army and Red Shirts started when the army began to push and disperse the protesters, that doesn't match with the accounts I've read and seen, for example this one:

Right then and there the guy states that the army was staying in place, playing music and all hell broke lose when shots started being fired. Personally I don't believe the army began shooting that night.

Also worth noting how Red Shirts charge the army and throw stuff at them right after grenades exploded among soldiers, that is just asking to get your head blown off, there's no way the soldiers under fire could tell if some of those Red Shirts was lobbing more grenades at them.

[nicknostitz]

Your post gives the idea that the shoot out between the army and Red Shirts started when the army began to push and disperse the protesters, that doesn't match with the accounts I've read and seen, for example this one:

Right then and there the guy states that the army was staying in place, playing music and all hell broke lose when shots started being fired. Personally I don't believe the army began shooting that night.

Also worth noting how Red Shirts charge the army and throw stuff at them right after grenades exploded among soldiers, that is just asking to get your head blown off, there's no way the soldiers under fire could tell if some of those Red Shirts was lobbing more grenades at them.

The clashes began about 1 1/2 hours before sunset (when the early afternoon clashes at Makhawan stopped already). There were several rounds of clashes when the army attempted to push the protesters towards Rajadamnern and escalated over time, including use of rubber bullets by the military. By darkness things got worse, and resulted in the mess you can see in the video you posted. That is when the militants arrived. It still is not exactly clear who fired life rounds first at whom. The first dead though was a Red Shirt protester at Kok Wua just after the onset of darkness.

Edited December 2, 2011 by nicknostitz

[Buchholz]

I was there, and i have images of parts of the violence before sunset (no, i will not post them here). I was stuck at the military lines for the most part because the soldiers have thrown teargas against the wind, hitting them (and me), delaying their own dispersal, in addition to throwing teargas canisters from helicopters. This, by the way, was the nastiest teargas i have ever experienced, three days after my skin still burned.

No the soldiers should have started their dispersal at the appropriate time - just after sunrise - and if they could not have achieved their goal, retreated well before sunset. The "rioters" only clashed with the army because of the dispersal.

Yet there is also the question why the dispersal at the Pan Fa stage, and not at Rajaprasong, as the problematic protest area was not Pan Fa, but the Rajaprasong occupation.

Whatever you may say here - the April 10 dispersal action of the military was a complete screw up, a fact that most officers i talked with do accept. But for some strange reason Thavisa seems to know better.

Your post gives the idea that the shoot out between the army and Red Shirts started when the army began to push and disperse the protesters, that doesn't match with the accounts I've read and seen, for example this one:

Right then and there the guy states that the army was staying in place, playing music and all hell broke lose when shots started being fired. Personally I don't believe the army began shooting that night.

Also worth noting how Red Shirts charge the army and throw stuff at them right after grenades exploded among soldiers, that is just asking to get your head blown off, there's no way the soldiers under fire could tell if some of those Red Shirts was lobbing more grenades at them.

Thank you for posting the video evidence and thank you for doing so without wanting to charge a fee for seeing it or making us go through an agency to view it.

.

.

[moe666]

I stayed away from this thread for a few days, glad I did.

[rubl]

There were eyewitnesses who stated he was shot at close range by a soldier.

An M-16 at close range may pass through, or leave a large expanding wound depending on the bullet used, apart from being mostly deadly. I don't remember it ever having been said that there had been a close range shot. Could you dig up the eyewitness accounts / statements, please ?

[sparebox2]

<snip>

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

There was a failed coup once, when the troops and tanks were stuck in morning rush hour Bangkok traffic. I am not joking.

[hanuman1]

I stayed away from this thread for a few days, glad I did.

I know what you mean. This is an absolute zoo. For me at the moment, it's the old 'can't help looking at the car wreck' syndrome as I pass by these pages. There is no room left for debate. Just the same human automatons getting involved in clash after clash. As riveting as it is pointless.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

If it takes hours to put troops into position and no-one is surprised by any dispersal action, why should the troops stick to a specific time of the day? Do you mean to say it wasn't exactly cricket with the army starting at an hour outside of the acceptable hours they were supposed to start dispersal? Did the army forget to mail a letter indicating exact time and date they would start? Now that's an affront, totally unacceptable amongst gentlemen, lack of manners and the like. Ask jayboy, our local expert on manners for confirmation on this

[tlansford]

- snip -

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

If it takes hours to put troops into position and no-one is surprised by any dispersal action, why should the troops stick to a specific time of the day? Do you mean to say it wasn't exactly cricket with the army starting at an hour outside of the acceptable hours they were supposed to start dispersal? Did the army forget to mail a letter indicating exact time and date they would start? Now that's an affront, totally unacceptable amongst gentlemen, lack of manners and the like. Ask jayboy, our local expert on manners for confirmation on this

"why should the troops stick to a specific time of the day?"

It seems that this question has already been answered once here, no?

[cdnvic]

I've deleted much of an off-topic argument. Please stick to discussing the news item.

[nicknostitz]

begin removed ...

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

If it takes hours to put troops into position and no-one is surprised by any dispersal action, why should the troops stick to a specific time of the day? Do you mean to say it wasn't exactly cricket with the army starting at an hour outside of the acceptable hours they were supposed to start dispersal? Did the army forget to mail a letter indicating exact time and date they would start? Now that's an affront, totally unacceptable amongst gentlemen, lack of manners and the like. Ask jayboy, our local expert on manners for confirmation on this

I have already explained but how should i spell it out in simple words?

Dispersal in daytime because when dark then gunmen come out. Use cover of darkness. Not safe for security forces. Not safe for protesters.

Intelligent men think.

Intelligent men make standard operating procedures.

Standard operating procedures say: do it in morning, have time all day.

April 10 standard operating procedures not followed - big mess, many dead.

Do you understand now?

[nurofiend]

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

I have "released" the images on April 11, 2010, already. The are at my agency, and you can contact them, and they will quote you a price.

It is entirely up to me where and in which context i publish *my* images for free. Thaivisa, for reasons jayboy has outlined in a previous post, and hammered as well, hardly belongs to the places i consider publishing things for free, unless the moderators and owners decide to clean this place from the fanatic rabble that clogs any political discussion by serial-posting propaganda and bullying anyone away who does not agree with their distorted view.

they think they bully people away (and probably get some warped satisfaction from believing that's the case) but the reality is that people just get tired and mostly bored of trying to debate with people who are so clearly biased to the extent and extremity that there is no leeway in their viewpoints to even consider that anything that they say might possibly be misinformed.

you see videos people posted as 'proof' to some of their claims which in the majority of cases, just make me laugh tbh

how easily some people can be swayed by dodgy propaganda is beyond me.

i've seen posters here literally so blinded by prejudice and propaganda that there is no point in even trying to have a reasonable discussion with.

[nicknostitz]

they think they bully people away (and probably get some warped satisfaction from believing that's the case) but the reality is that people just get tired and mostly bored of trying to debate with people who are so clearly biased to the extent and extremity that there is no leeway in their viewpoints to even consider that anything that they say might possibly be misinformed.

you see videos people posted as 'proof' to some of their claims which in the majority of cases, just make me laugh tbh

how easily some people can be swayed by dodgy propaganda is beyond me.

i've seen posters here literally so blinded by prejudice and propaganda that there is no point in even trying to have a reasonable discussion with.

And exactly the by your described behavior should give some here a bit of food for thought, if they want to raise the quality of this forum somewhat above the gutter level it finds itself right now.

Anyhow, good night.

[Siam Simon]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

Isn't it just? Which is why Nick is an internationally acclaimed photojournalist (and one who is widely respected in Thailand's political community). And the usual TVF suspects who desperately try to sling mud at him are.....well.....the usual TVF suspects, valiantly defending their TVF parallel universe of Thailand's political landscape .

Edited December 2, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

Yes, how dare people have open minds and question the bullsh*t that's force fed them!

I do. But I'm subjected to to gang bullying, goading, personal insults and the occasional personal threat. None of which would be so bad (I find it all pretty comical, actually) if the gang of bully posters actually engaged in sensible debate. But they rarely do. They just seem to view posting on this forum as some sort of propaganda war. God only knows why. It's a sub-forum of a specialist internet website. Nobody's going to change the course of events by posting on here.

[Buchholz]

begin removed ...

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

If it takes hours to put troops into position and no-one is surprised by any dispersal action, why should the troops stick to a specific time of the day? Do you mean to say it wasn't exactly cricket with the army starting at an hour outside of the acceptable hours they were supposed to start dispersal? Did the army forget to mail a letter indicating exact time and date they would start? Now that's an affront, totally unacceptable amongst gentlemen, lack of manners and the like. Ask jayboy, our local expert on manners for confirmation on this

It does sound so extremely odd, doesn't it. As if there is some standard playbook for military operations in this situation for Thailand. The Marquess of Queensberry boxing rules don't apply to quelling an urban riot by armed assailants. The harping on standard operating procedures when there is none sounds beyond the pale. Is there a classroom course and textbook involved?

.

[whybother]

<snip>

And still, you ignore the fact that the military has acted against standard procedures for crowd dispersal.

You're right. They didn't follow protocol. They deserved to be hit by grenades and have the red shirt militia shoot at them.

[lannarebirth]

I'm not sure if this information is true or not, but it was reported somewhere. To the affect that the Army commander was asleep in his tent at the time of the grenade attack. My question is, if the Army was starting a push at that time and were in an agressive posture , wouldn't their commander have been awake to lead them?

I did note and appreciate Nick's confirmation of not knowing who fired the first shots, and the first to go down was the Red Shirt who had the side of his head blown off, apparently not from the direction of the Army. It does not make clear exactly what did happen, but it does lend some credence to my personal view that the Red/Black Shirts intentionally shot their own that night to get the clash moving to the next level which was their aim all along.

The Red Shirts stealing of the bodies from the hospital morgues that night, before autopsies could be performed, while only suspicious and highly weird, also lends some more credibility to this idea.

Edited December 3, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Nisa]

There were eyewitnesses who stated he was shot at close range by a soldier.

Somebody should tell everyone about this witness rather than spending so many years wasting time investigating the incident.

[AleG]

they think they bully people away (and probably get some warped satisfaction from believing that's the case) but the reality is that people just get tired and mostly bored of trying to debate with people who are so clearly biased to the extent and extremity that there is no leeway in their viewpoints to even consider that anything that they say might possibly be misinformed.

you see videos people posted as 'proof' to some of their claims which in the majority of cases, just make me laugh tbh

how easily some people can be swayed by dodgy propaganda is beyond me.

i've seen posters here literally so blinded by prejudice and propaganda that there is no point in even trying to have a reasonable discussion with.

You mean people that claim as a fact that Muramoto was killed by an army sniper, that it was ordered by a general, that Abhisit and Suthep ordered the murdering of 91 protesters, or that the army didn't use non lethal riot control implements before starting firing at the Red Shirt crowd. That sort of blinded prejudice and propaganda?

Some people roll their prejudices like dice, and then piece together arguments on what they come up with when they roll them on the table. Facts and logic just don't get into it.

I'm not sure if this information is true or not, but it was reported somewhere. To the affect that the Army commander was asleep in his tent at the time of the grenade attack. My question is, if the Army was starting a push at that time and were in an agressive posture , wouldn't their commander have been awake to lead them?

I did note and appreciate Nick's confirmation of not knowing who fired the first shots, and the first to go down was the Red Shirt who had the side of his head blown off, apparently not from the direction of the Army. It does not make clear exactly what did happen, but it does lend some credence to my personal view that the Red/Black Shirts intentionally shot their own that night to get the clash moving to the next level which was their aim all along.

The Red Shirts stealing of the bodies from the hospital morgues that night, before autopsies could be performed, while only suspicious and highly weird, also lends some more credibility to this idea.

I don't know if that particular Red Shirt was shot (deliberately or not) by the Black Shirts, they did fire at ground level through the Red Shirt crowd at the soldiers on the other side and also launched grenades over their heads, it wouldn't be surprising that protesters would be hit by their "heroes" under those circumstances. In any case they clearly showed a complete disregard for the safety of the protesters. I do agree with the analysis in this video, of the man carrying the flag being hit from the side opposite the army line, as said in the video, if the bullet would had come from the army other people would had stood in its trajectory.

There's also protesters on the spot giving accounts of armed men among the Red Shirts firing at the army, although I think that particular point is beyond arguing by now.

Here's the video I was looking for, notice the "Black Shirts" firing horizontally at, I suppose the army on the other side of the protest side, there are protesters everywhere, they were firing through that crowd. Even if they didn't aim for protesters it's very likely that they would had been hit by "friendly fire" from behind.

Edit: Oops, forgot the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXr-o9f06ec&feature=related

Edit further to add:

Also notice that a large number of protesters are standing behind the Black Shirts, I know its callous but I think many protesters died of sheer stupidity, if you stand behind people shooting at the army chances are that you are going to be in the line of fire, bullets don't evaporate if they miss their target, they keep going until they hit something else. This also shows the complete disregard for the safety of the protesters by the armed men.

Edited December 3, 2011 by AleG

[nikster]

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

Just following the Cui Bono principle very clearly leads to the conclusion that casualties were bad for the government/army, and good for the red shirts / black guards.

It just follows logic that the army tried to prevent casualties, and the black shirts did the exact opposite. All evidence seems to supper that's exactly what happened. Innocents were killed as a result of the irresponsible actions of the red shirt leaders.

[AleG]

The insinuation that the soldiers went there with the objective of shooting at people is ridiculous.

Just following the Cui Bono principle very clearly leads to the conclusion that casualties were bad for the government/army, and good for the red shirts / black guards.

It just follows logic that the army tried to prevent casualties, and the black shirts did the exact opposite. All evidence seems to supper that's exactly what happened. Innocents were killed as a result of the irresponsible actions of the red shirt leaders.

Precisely, if this Black Shirts would had been attacking the army to protect the protesters they would had attacked them from the rear or the sides, not through and over the people, they created a fire zone were it was inevitable that innocents would be injured and killed in the crossfire. We have seen the videos of the grenades exploding amid the soldiers with the Red Shirt protesters right next to them, how many were hit by the shrapnel of the explosions?

[nicknostitz]

I'm not sure if this information is true or not, but it was reported somewhere. To the affect that the Army commander was asleep in his tent at the time of the grenade attack. My question is, if the Army was starting a push at that time and were in an agressive posture , wouldn't their commander have been awake to lead them?

I did note and appreciate Nick's confirmation of not knowing who fired the first shots, and the first to go down was the Red Shirt who had the side of his head blown off, apparently not from the direction of the Army. It does not make clear exactly what did happen, but it does lend some credence to my personal view that the Red/Black Shirts intentionally shot their own that night to get the clash moving to the next level which was their aim all along.

The Red Shirts stealing of the bodies from the hospital morgues that night, before autopsies could be performed, while only suspicious and highly weird, also lends some more credibility to this idea.

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

The hypothesis that Red Shirt militants shot their own has been pushed by the then government, but there is no evidence or witness whatsoever. Vasan, the flagman, whose upper part of the head was taken off by a bullet, was not the first Red Shirt dead, and the by then government pushed theory that a bullet hit him from the Red Shirt lines is more than disputed. The government at the time has issued many such wrong statements over forensic evidence, such as Suthep's statements that the victims at Wat Pathum supposedly had gunpowder residue at their hands. Even Dr Pornthip, who has been accused of whitewashing certain facts, has been quite clear at the relevant public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission that there was no gunpowder residue found at the hands of the victims.

I would suggest to be very careful with pushing these theories, and wait until the cases see the courts, where results of forensic investigations and witness accounts have to be presented. I would also take into account that much of what happened on that day (and during the battles in May) has not yet been made known publicly. I do understand the need to know and understand, and that the confusion over certain facts leads to speculation based one one's opinion.

The reality of April 10 is, that much of what occurred will most likely never be completely known, and be disputed forever, for lack of hard facts. But one thing i can assure you - there is much that one day will come out so that a somewhat more realistic picture of what went on that day will enter the history books. Until then i would suggest to stay patient, and be open minded enough to accept that one's opinions may not be applicable here to judge this day, and that the reality is more in shades of grey than in the here on Thaivisa pushed view on "evil" Red Shirt terrorists against "good" and "innocent" army.

No side that night was entirely innocent, or all bad. It is almost impossible to explain the chaos and mayhem that night in the little space such a forum discussion leaves one here, especially when the discussion is loaded with personal opinions based on political preferences by people who have not been there. Even having been there, having seen some of what occurred, i still spent the past 1 1/2 years finding out what took place outside the narrow view that the ground perspective gives one, trying to break through the wall of lies that all sides naturally build up to cover their own short comings - the rumors, the wrong perceptions, and the agendas.

[whybother]

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

<snip>

Why would they need to hold a meeting "at a proper distance"? Should they have expected to be taken out by grenades by protesters?

[lannarebirth]

I'm not sure if this information is true or not, but it was reported somewhere. To the affect that the Army commander was asleep in his tent at the time of the grenade attack. My question is, if the Army was starting a push at that time and were in an agressive posture , wouldn't their commander have been awake to lead them?

I did note and appreciate Nick's confirmation of not knowing who fired the first shots, and the first to go down was the Red Shirt who had the side of his head blown off, apparently not from the direction of the Army. It does not make clear exactly what did happen, but it does lend some credence to my personal view that the Red/Black Shirts intentionally shot their own that night to get the clash moving to the next level which was their aim all along.

The Red Shirts stealing of the bodies from the hospital morgues that night, before autopsies could be performed, while only suspicious and highly weird, also lends some more credibility to this idea.

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

The hypothesis that Red Shirt militants shot their own has been pushed by the then government, but there is no evidence or witness whatsoever. Vasan, the flagman, whose upper part of the head was taken off by a bullet, was not the first Red Shirt dead, and the by then government pushed theory that a bullet hit him from the Red Shirt lines is more than disputed. The government at the time has issued many such wrong statements over forensic evidence, such as Suthep's statements that the victims at Wat Pathum supposedly had gunpowder residue at their hands. Even Dr Pornthip, who has been accused of whitewashing certain facts, has been quite clear at the relevant public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission that there was no gunpowder residue found at the hands of the victims.

I would suggest to be very careful with pushing these theories, and wait until the cases see the courts, where results of forensic investigations and witness accounts have to be presented. I would also take into account that much of what happened on that day (and during the battles in May) has not yet been made known publicly. I do understand the need to know and understand, and that the confusion over certain facts leads to speculation based one one's opinion.

The reality of April 10 is, that much of what occurred will most likely never be completely known, and be disputed forever, for lack of hard facts. But one thing i can assure you - there is much that one day will come out so that a somewhat more realistic picture of what went on that day will enter the history books. Until then i would suggest to stay patient, and be open minded enough to accept that one's opinions may not be applicable here to judge this day, and that the reality is more in shades of grey than in the here on Thaivisa pushed view on "evil" Red Shirt terrorists against "good" and "innocent" army.

No side that night was entirely innocent, or all bad. It is almost impossible to explain the chaos and mayhem that night in the little space such a forum discussion leaves one here, especially when the discussion is loaded with personal opinions based on political preferences by people who have not been there. Even having been there, having seen some of what occurred, i still spent the past 1 1/2 years finding out what took place outside the narrow view that the ground perspective gives one, trying to break through the wall of lies that all sides naturally build up to cover their own short comings - the rumors, the wrong perceptions, and the agendas.

One thing I think we can agree on Nick, is that the Army was wholly inept in assessing the array of forces aligned against them that night and the chaos arisng from that wrongful determination cost people their lives. That is not to say lives would not have been lost anyway, probably even more lives, if they had taken a more aggressive posture to take out armed combatants and not retreated.

Edited December 3, 2011 by lannarebirth

[AleG]

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

The hypothesis that Red Shirt militants shot their own has been pushed by the then government, but there is no evidence or witness whatsoever. Vasan, the flagman, whose upper part of the head was taken off by a bullet, was not the first Red Shirt dead, and the by then government pushed theory that a bullet hit him from the Red Shirt lines is more than disputed. The government at the time has issued many such wrong statements over forensic evidence, such as Suthep's statements that the victims at Wat Pathum supposedly had gunpowder residue at their hands. Even Dr Pornthip, who has been accused of whitewashing certain facts, has been quite clear at the relevant public hearing of the National Reconciliation Commission that there was no gunpowder residue found at the hands of the victims.

...

There's people that dispute the Earth is spherical, I've posted a video of the man in question looking away from the army line and receiving a shot to the front of the head; I'm not a ballistics expert, but bullets don't do U-Turns in mid air.

[nicknostitz]

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

<snip>

Why would they need to hold a meeting "at a proper distance"? Should they have expected to be taken out by grenades by protesters?

Yes, they should have, as they are supposed to be trained military officers.

[whybother]

No, the commanding officers at the time of the grenade attack at Dinso were not asleep at a tent, but standing together close to the front lines taking about a possible retreat. This was way too late, and the next fatal incident of incompetence, as such a meeting has to be held in proper distance to the front line, to avoid having taken out the whole command staff in one go, what more or less happened.

<snip>

Why would they need to hold a meeting "at a proper distance"? Should they have expected to be taken out by grenades by protesters?

Yes, they should have, as they are supposed to be trained military officers.

... that were dealing with PROTESTERS.

If you're saying that they should have been expecting to be dealing with an armed militia, you can't really say that they shouldn't have been armed.

[nicknostitz]

There's people that dispute the Earth is spherical, I've posted a video of the man in question looking away from the army line and receiving a shot to the front of the head; I'm not a ballistics expert, but bullets don't do U-Turns in mid air.

I would suggest to watch films of executions by head shot see how in which direction the victims fall.

I would also wait and see until the the forensic investigations will be publicized, and where the entry and the exit wounds of the bullet were located.