' Bullets Came From Thai Military Side': Witness To The Death Of Italian Journalist 2010

[manarak]

What I would like the investigation to show is who shot and why.

I can totally understand troops firing in situations such as around the victory monument when grenades killed the commanding officer of the Queen's regiment and wounded several others.

I am surprised there were not more deaths.

While undeniably the army didn't have orders to shoot everybody (otherwise there would have been much more deaths), I also wonder what this type of "combat" was.

Sporadic sniper fire from the army. Does that make sense and why? And under whose orders? Did all of the army fight on the same side?

this is interesting:

http://observers.france24.com/content/20100413-unknown-snipers-kill-bangkok-protesters-red-shirts-dead-thailand-abhisit

and here we got a sniper in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmlkt6adtw

so... were there army snipers? yes.

Who did they shoot on?

Edited March 15, 2013 by manarak

[Soi Sauce]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

depends what way YOU'RE facing at the time.

[Soi Sauce]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Do you mean the red shirts, who instigated the whole affair, do have the right to murder but no-one has the right to stop them?

This applied to their leader during the war on drugs, do you want it to apply to the rest of his psycophants?

Edited March 15, 2013 by Soi Sauce

[rubl]

It's moving a bit from the topic which deals with a specific inquest in the death of Fabio Polenghi, but just to set something straight:

""I can totally understand troops firing in situations such as around the victory monument when grenades killed the commanding officer of the Queen's regiment and wounded several others.""

Colonel Romklao Thuwatham was killed in a grenade attack aimed at the division command post near Sattriwitthaya School along Din So Rd. where also the Japanese reporter Hiro Muramoto was fatefully shot. That day, April 10th 2010 a total of 25 people died including Hiro Muramoto, Colonel Romklao and 6 others from the military.

[Robby nz]

I suspect there have been some questions that have not been asked here.

Things like:

Did you know you were in a live fire zone?

Were you warned that you were entering a live fire zone?

Did you know the possible consequences of being in a live fire zone?

What clothing were you wearing to positively identify yourself as press?

I would ask the indignant reds.

If a group of people invaded your house and one of them was armed and threatening you would you want a policeman who came to your aid and got them out charged with murder if he had shot one of the unarmed ones?

[Buchholz]

.

Shame on you too.

.

What does that mean.

.

.

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

.

OK, we've heard your simple stab in the dark as to what the newly signed up poster meant with his cryptic 4 word post.

Now, perhaps foregoing other speculation of other equally possible explanations as to what is behind the paucity of words, might we wait for the return of this first quarter''s new sage to explain for himself.

.

Edited March 15, 2013 by Buchholz

[OzMick]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

And there was me thinking it meant "We dun nuffink rong." Is that what you are saying, only more simply expressed?

Edited March 15, 2013 by OzMick

[webfact]

UPDATE:
Shot that killed Italian 'came from area held by soldiers'
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Shots were fired from the direction of positions taken up by military personnel on May 19, 2010 as the red-shirt protesters were being dispersed, German journalist Michel Maas told Criminal Court judges yesterday as the last witness in the inquest into the death of Italian photo-journalist Fabio Polenghi.

"Bullets came from the direction of the military," Maas, who is based in Jakarta and works for NOS Radio & Televisi, told the judges. Maas was at the protest site on May 19 nearly three years ago as the Army moved in. He told the court that he was also shot in the back as he tried to flee. He said he had not known Polenghi, and only learned about his death while he was himself being treated at Police Hospital for his bullet injury.

Maas said the bullet that hit him came from the direction of the military, and that the bullet, which was lodged inside his body for five weeks, was later identified by Department of Special Investigation (DSI) experts as an M16 rifle round. The bullet was given to the DSI as evidence, Maas told the court.

The Criminal Court will on May 29 make a ruling in the inquest into Polenghi's death. The journalist's sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, flew in from Italy to be at the hearing yesterday. She was upset that two other witnesses, including one foreign national who videotaped the moment her brother fell, were not allowed to testify as judges said their testimony would be redundant to the trial.

"I'm pretty tired," Polenghi told The Nation.


-- The Nation 2013-03-16

[Locationthailand]

The hypotheses is based on an M16 rifle bullet thus it had to belong to the army? What absolute BS. The reds had them as well or would the populace at large not recall many instances of theft of M16's from military establishments throughout the county?

[jcb2001]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

Why would any of the military personnel be convicted of anything?

They committed no crime they were doing their duty under a state of emergency brought on by the red shirt rioters.

If they fired shots then it would be because they were defending themselves against attack from armed rioters, and yes there were those on the red side who were armed and yes some of the army personnel were shot.

If, as happened, a reporter was shot and killed it is unfortunate but he and the others that were there had been given warning and should have known their lives could be in danger.

What's so funny about a reporter getting shot?

[jcb2001]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Such immature statements!!! The red shirt riots were about disabling and destroying Bangkok, for the sake of one fugitive ex PM. Do you think that you can change the views of what really happened during these riots by suggesting that it was the Thai army's fault?

[hellodolly]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

You are confusing the 2010 uprising by Thaksin paid terrorists that was put down by the government of the time in as gentle a manner as the terrorists would let them.

In case you were not here what happened was an ex PM who was convicted of criminal activity and choose to live in another country and take up citizenship in another country hired a bunch of illiterate goons to try to over throw the government. They were armed goons firing grenades at innocent citizens from behind barricades, I won't bore you with more facts you can see many videos of their activities on U tube. They did at one point agree to a peaceful solution only to renig and be answered with an agreement to do as they asked and once again they made a conscience choice to continue with their armed rebellion. Part of their arsenal was matches and other excelarants they used to try and burn Bangkok down. O yes let us not forget these supposedly lilly white peaceful loving armed terrorists invaded a hospital.

Now what incident were you talking about.

[hellodolly]

What I would like the investigation to show is who shot and why.

I can totally understand troops firing in situations such as around the victory monument when grenades killed the commanding officer of the Queen's regiment and wounded several others.

I am surprised there were not more deaths.

While undeniably the army didn't have orders to shoot everybody (otherwise there would have been much more deaths), I also wonder what this type of "combat" was.

Sporadic sniper fire from the army. Does that make sense and why? And under whose orders? Did all of the army fight on the same side?

this is interesting:

http://observers.france24.com/content/20100413-unknown-snipers-kill-bangkok-protesters-red-shirts-dead-thailand-abhisit

and here we got a sniper in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmlkt6adtw

so... were there army snipers? yes.

Who did they shoot on?

People who were shooting back at them and trying to burn |Bangkok down.

Next dumb question

[hellodolly]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Do you mean the red shirts, who instigated the whole affair, do have the right to murder but no-one has the right to stop them?

This applied to their leader during the war on drugs, do you want it to apply to the rest of his psycophants?

That pretty well sums up all his posts on the matter.

[hellodolly]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

Why would any of the military personnel be convicted of anything?

They committed no crime they were doing their duty under a state of emergency brought on by the red shirt rioters.

If they fired shots then it would be because they were defending themselves against attack from armed rioters, and yes there were those on the red side who were armed and yes some of the army personnel were shot.

If, as happened, a reporter was shot and killed it is unfortunate but he and the others that were there had been given warning and should have known their lives could be in danger.

What's so funny about a reporter getting shot?

Red shirt humor.

[smutcakes]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

[Orac]

The hypotheses is based on an M16 rifle bullet thus it had to belong to the army? What absolute BS. The reds had them as well or would the populace at large not recall many instances of theft of M16's from military establishments throughout the county?

I must be reading a different article to you. The one I read is about an international journalist, though his nationality seems to be in dispute since he was dutch previously, who was on the scene saying that shots were being fired from the direction that military had taken up positions. Though the type of bullet has been identified the article does not state it must have belonged to the army but the implication is it could have.

[philw]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Do you mean the red shirts, who instigated the whole affair, do have the right to murder but no-one has the right to stop them?

This applied to their leader during the war on drugs, do you want it to apply to the rest of his psycophants?

No I don't.

I mean what I write.

Please do not attach inferences that aren't there and have not been made.

it's a common affliction on this board that when something is criticised, the more stupid posters take that to mean approval for something else.

This is not the case.

[philw]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Do you mean the red shirts, who instigated the whole affair, do have the right to murder but no-one has the right to stop them?

This applied to their leader during the war on drugs, do you want it to apply to the rest of his psycophants?

That pretty well sums up all his posts on the matter.

Wrong as usual dolly.....

[OzMick]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

[jayboy]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

[Robby nz]

While the death and injury to reporters is unfortunate they did know the situation they were putting themselves into.

That being the case they must take responsibility for being there.

The report is very brief and I am sure does not give the full picture as to either what happened or what the reporter said to the court.

What I understand from the OP is that he was only answering questions and was in no way trying to lay blame.

I would also have to say that wearing black as it appears at least one of them was had to be an act of stupidity for they must have known that there was an armed black clad element among the reds and a camera, from a distance, could look like a weapon if it is pointed in the direction of the army.

I would also ask the one who posted the below and all the other reds who think the use of snipers is such a terrible thing if they have any idea of how sniper teams work?

I can tell you without going into detail, as it is not part of this topic, that it is a far more selective and less likely to kill bystanders than lobbing a grenade ever will be.

If you really want some truth go to General and start a topic then you will get some enlightenment.

Sporadic sniper fire from the army

[smutcakes]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

I dont think i have ever denied there were MIB that were armed, and unfortunetly people on both sides were injured and killed, civilian, military and all. I was simply stating that on TVF it is strange to see why some impartial evidence is accepted as gospel truth and others has its authenticity questioned just because it does not tie in with what you want to believe.

[OzMick]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

I dont think i have ever denied there were MIB that were armed, and unfortunetly people on both sides were injured and killed, civilian, military and all. I was simply stating that on TVF it is strange to see why some impartial evidence is accepted as gospel truth and others has its authenticity questioned just because it does not tie in with what you want to believe.

It comes down to the QUALITY of the evidence. Corroborated evidence backed by photographs tends to be pretty well accepted. A supposition based on being shot in the back, without additional evidence as to body position and angle of movement, gives only a vague indication of where the shot came from. You may not accept that, but to me the former evidence has much more credibility.

[rubl]

Deliberately targetted ? Could be. We had one journalist tell us that when he saw vanderGrift running around with the army it looked like he must have had a death wish and surely a grenade was lobbed on soldiers around him and he also got hit.

[hellodolly]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him.

If you do your post is a very good and valid one.

If you don't (as usual) it is a worthless post no substance pure conjecture.

[manarak]

I would also ask the one who posted the below and all the other reds who think the use of snipers is such a terrible thing if they have any idea of how sniper teams work?

I can tell you without going into detail, as it is not part of this topic, that it is a far more selective and less likely to kill bystanders than lobbing a grenade ever will be.

If you really want some truth go to General and start a topic then you will get some enlightenment.

Sporadic sniper fire from the army

I'm not a red and I don't think snipers are a terrible thing.

I was just wondering what the facts on these snipers are:

were all of them on the same side?

who were they shooting at / what were their orders?

[hellodolly]

It means there is no excuse and the units, officers responsible and their commanders should be identified and held to account.

Just like the in office politicians of the time.

it means the RTA no longer have the right to murder with impunity Thai citizens ( and foreign journalists ) on the streets of Bangkok.

Simple really.

Do you mean the red shirts, who instigated the whole affair, do have the right to murder but no-one has the right to stop them?

This applied to their leader during the war on drugs, do you want it to apply to the rest of his psycophants?

That pretty well sums up all his posts on the matter.

Wrong as usual dolly.....

Sorry maybe over the years you have posted one pro Democrat and anti red shirt one. Hard to locate in all the wonderful red shirt bad Democrat ones. I know you never said that just continually implied it to the point where you probably believe it.

By the way you did not answer the one where I asked you what you were talking about.

You know the one where as is typical of you where the Government did all wrong to oppressed people who did nothing to them. Not what you said just what you inferred.

[yourauntbob]

It doesnt matter how many witnesses take the stand, half the country is always going to believe that all injuries/fatalities were the result of the men in black. I will die of shock if even one military personnel is convicted of any of their crimes.

Why would any of the military personnel be convicted of anything?

They committed no crime they were doing their duty under a state of emergency brought on by the red shirt rioters.

If they fired shots then it would be because they were defending themselves against attack from armed rioters, and yes there were those on the red side who were armed and yes some of the army personnel were shot.

If, as happened, a reporter was shot and killed it is unfortunate but he and the others that were there had been given warning and should have known their lives could be in danger.

What's so funny about a reporter getting shot?

nothing funny about a reporter getting shot, whats funny is Robby seems to feel that the government can send its goons to shoot up the street with no accountability. it is even funnier that anyone things that these government agents were only defending themselves and not actively shooting protesters, reporters, and anyone else they saw as a threat to the political advancement of Abhsist.

even if your right and they were protecting themselves, do they not need to be accountable for their actions? should legitimate investigations not be done? Is it not in the best interest of the public, after all that is who they work for, to make sure that these people were not acting out of other motivations? Shooting into crowds of your own citizens is a serious matter and not often justified (or ever in my opinion). Your implication that we should simply forget about the dozens of people that lost their lives is preposterous.

[rubl]

nothing funny about a reporter getting shot, whats funny is Robby seems to feel that the government can send its goons to shoot up the street with no accountability. it is even funnier that anyone things that these government agents were only defending themselves and not actively shooting protesters, reporters, and anyone else they saw as a threat to the political advancement of Abhsist.

even if your right and they were protecting themselves, do they not need to be accountable for their actions? should legitimate investigations not be done? Is it not in the best interest of the public, after all that is who they work for, to make sure that these people were not acting out of other motivations? Shooting into crowds of your own citizens is a serious matter and not often justified (or ever in my opinion). Your implication that we should simply forget about the dozens of people that lost their lives is preposterous.

The army shooting anyone they saw as a threat to the political advancement of Abhisit? And I thought I heard it all

Welcome to TV where history is rewritten today.

Edited March 16, 2013 by rubl