Thai Army Officer Insists To Court Japanese Reporter Killed By 'Blackshirts'

[webfact]

Army Officer Insists To Court Japanese Reporter Killed By 'Blackshirts'



BANGKOK: -- An army officer whose unit was involved in the military crackdown on Redshirts protesters around Ratchadumnern Avenue on 10 April 2010 testified to the court that the military were not responsible for the death of a Japanese reporter on that day.

He also told the court that the reporter, Mr. Hiroyuki Muramoto, who was employed by Reuters at the time, was likely shot to death by armed elements of the protesters known as the ′Blackshirts′.

The military operation on 10 Apri 2010 was authorized by then-PM Abhisit Vejjajeeva in order to disperse thousands of Redshirts who were camping along Ratchadumnern Avenue and Ratchaprasong Intersection in Bangkok, demanding fresh election and protesting many perceived grievances such as the lack of democracy in the country.

26 people, mostly civilians, were killed throughout the operation on 10 April 2010.

Today, a military officer with the rank of Major who commanded a battalion stationed in Prachinburi province gave his testimony to the Criminal Court in Bangkok as part of the inquest to find who was responsible for deaths and injuries during the violence in April-May 2010. The court has asked Khaosod not to publish the name of the witness, citing the need to protect the witness′ privacy and personal safety.

The witness told the court his unit was ordered into position at Ratchadumnern Avenue around 09.00 on 10 April 2010. His battalion was reportedly equipped with riot shields, batons, and shotguns loaded with rubber bullets. He said M-16 rifles and their ammunition were stored on battalion′s trucks.

The witness said on 11.00 he received the order to retake the positions around Democracy Monument and Phanfa Bridge from the protesters. He claimed that the order explicitly instructed the soldiers to treat the protesters as innocent civilians, and firearms would be used only for ′self-defense′ or when the protesters started attacking public properties.

Full story: http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM01UWXpOamd3TXc9PQ==

-- KHAOSOD English 2013-06-20

[Tatsujin]

According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position.

"The Redshirts were constantly provoking us," the witness said.

The witness added that the resistance became stiffer as evening approached. He claimed that the soldiers were attacked by iron bars, wooden sticks, firebombs, fireworks, fire extinguishers, and even some handfuls of pepper. He insisted that some soldiers were beaten by the protesters.

Around 19.30-19.40, according to the witness, 14 M79 grenades were fired from the Redshirts′ position in Kok Wua Intersection toward the soldiers′ line near Khaosarn Road. He said he saw 4-5 men clad in black and balaclava armed with AK-47 and M-16 rifles firing at the soldiers. The witness told the court that 33 out of 150 soldiers in his unit were injured by such weapons, including himself.

That matches which what I saw on live TV on that day . . . peaceful protest it was not . . . and the blackshirts were clearly in evidence on TV all around that time also if anyone cared to open their eyes and look. Somehow that footage has not been aired since. I wonder why.

[Tatsujin]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

[Curt1591]

Nice avatar!

[ratcatcher]

Nice avatar!

Not original, but very effective!

[Thai at Heart]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

[OzMick]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

[Tatsujin]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

Not the point whether they had them or used them . . . Abhisit was charged with "ordering" the attacks . . . this testimony (which is now on record) shows that they were NOT ordered to use live ammunition, so if they get to charge anyone with "murder", it should be the Army that defied his orders. Simple.

[bigbamboo]

According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position.

"The Redshirts were constantly provoking us," the witness said.

The witness added that the resistance became stiffer as evening approached. He claimed that the soldiers were attacked by iron bars, wooden sticks, firebombs, fireworks, fire extinguishers, and even some handfuls of pepper. He insisted that some soldiers were beaten by the protesters.

Around 19.30-19.40, according to the witness, 14 M79 grenades were fired from the Redshirts′ position in Kok Wua Intersection toward the soldiers′ line near Khaosarn Road. He said he saw 4-5 men clad in black and balaclava armed with AK-47 and M-16 rifles firing at the soldiers. The witness told the court that 33 out of 150 soldiers in his unit were injured by such weapons, including himself.

That matches which what I saw on live TV on that day . . . peaceful protest it was not . . . and the blackshirts were clearly in evidence on TV all around that time also if anyone cared to open their eyes and look. Somehow that footage has not been aired since. I wonder why.

I'm glad somebody else saw blackshirts on TV. I was beginning to think my memory was playing tricks.

[Tatsujin]

According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position.

"The Redshirts were constantly provoking us," the witness said.

The witness added that the resistance became stiffer as evening approached. He claimed that the soldiers were attacked by iron bars, wooden sticks, firebombs, fireworks, fire extinguishers, and even some handfuls of pepper. He insisted that some soldiers were beaten by the protesters.

Around 19.30-19.40, according to the witness, 14 M79 grenades were fired from the Redshirts′ position in Kok Wua Intersection toward the soldiers′ line near Khaosarn Road. He said he saw 4-5 men clad in black and balaclava armed with AK-47 and M-16 rifles firing at the soldiers. The witness told the court that 33 out of 150 soldiers in his unit were injured by such weapons, including himself.

That matches which what I saw on live TV on that day . . . peaceful protest it was not . . . and the blackshirts were clearly in evidence on TV all around that time also if anyone cared to open their eyes and look. Somehow that footage has not been aired since. I wonder why.

I'm glad somebody else saw blackshirts on TV. I was beginning to think my memory was playing tricks.

I clearly remember seeing them, mixed in with red protestors, and on the sidelines . . . many times, many places . . . but I've only ever seen them when it was "live" . . . since then the footage doesn't seem to have been available any longer . . . I wonder why.

[gl555]

They may not have been ordered to use live ammo but if the other side is firing with live ammo, the soldiers have every right to return fire in kind.

The problem is the reds and all their apologists always insists the black shirts don't exist and the reds were just there for tea and crumpets so it was murder when the Army had to defend themselves from being attacked.

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

Not the point whether they had them or used them . . . Abhisit was charged with "ordering" the attacks . . . this testimony (which is now on record) shows that they were NOT ordered to use live ammunition, so if they get to charge anyone with "murder", it should be the Army that defied his orders. Simple.

[Mosha]

According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position.

"The Redshirts were constantly provoking us," the witness said.

The witness added that the resistance became stiffer as evening approached. He claimed that the soldiers were attacked by iron bars, wooden sticks, firebombs, fireworks, fire extinguishers, and even some handfuls of pepper. He insisted that some soldiers were beaten by the protesters.

Around 19.30-19.40, according to the witness, 14 M79 grenades were fired from the Redshirts′ position in Kok Wua Intersection toward the soldiers′ line near Khaosarn Road. He said he saw 4-5 men clad in black and balaclava armed with AK-47 and M-16 rifles firing at the soldiers. The witness told the court that 33 out of 150 soldiers in his unit were injured by such weapons, including himself.

That matches which what I saw on live TV on that day . . . peaceful protest it was not . . . and the blackshirts were clearly in evidence on TV all around that time also if anyone cared to open their eyes and look. Somehow that footage has not been aired since. I wonder why.

I'm glad somebody else saw blackshirts on TV. I was beginning to think my memory was playing tricks.

I remember on BBC, the human shield redshirts (as opposed to the activists) When asked who are the blackshirts? The response was "We don't know, except they are here to protect us."

[GentlemanJim]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

This may be hard to grasp but the soldiers would have followed their orders, plain and simple, and no way would they have started taking pot shots at the crowd, it just wouldn't happen. If they were ordered to wear riot gear and use batons and plastic bullets with M16's secured in a truck that is exactly what they would have done. This Officer has kuhoonas the size of Jupiter considering all the BS from PTP over this issue. He knows his career has just ended, if Thaksins Generals have anything to do with it, but still he has told the truth.

[nicknostitz]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

[GentlemanJim]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

Why would a rifle be loaded with blanks? What purpose would that achieve? What kind of question is that to a soldier out in a riot situation? Is he supposed to scare the protestors with noise? Or did you mean plastic/rubber bullets. If you asked if he had blanks he would say no. Did you ask the wrong question?

What did you see of the sniper on the tall building? A rifle, the silhouette of a head? How do you know he was Army?

You admit there were armed militia in the red shirts, that is something at least.

Your images are nothing to do with this thread and prove nothing that you have said.

Whenever threads appear with statements from the Government saying that 'there were no black shirts', you never leap on those threads and say 'actually there were, I saw them'.

It is a blatant lie on the part of the Government to state that there were no black shirts and that red shirts were no armed..........isn't it.

Edited June 20, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[ratcatcher]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

What was this guy's job?

[Thai at Heart]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

This may be hard to grasp but the soldiers would have followed their orders, plain and simple, and no way would they have started taking pot shots at the crowd, it just wouldn't happen. If they were ordered to wear riot gear and use batons and plastic bullets with M16's secured in a truck that is exactly what they would have done. This Officer has kuhoonas the size of Jupiter considering all the BS from PTP over this issue. He knows his career has just ended, if Thaksins Generals have anything to do with it, but still he has told the truth.

Probably true. That said, it was a crazy situation and he is speaking for his command only.

[koosdeboer]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

 

If it were so...

 

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

 

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

 

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

 

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

 

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

 

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

 

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

 

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

 

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

So you left Dinso in time a few minutes before hell broke lose. Did you have inside information, fortunately?

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[nicknostitz]

What was this guy's job?

BS.jpg

Posing for the camera, i guess.

[bigbamboo]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

Did you manage to get any pictures of the Men in Black?

[nicknostitz]

So you left Dinso in time a few minutes before hell broke lose. Did you have inside information, fortunately?

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Nops, i was just bored, and as i heard no gunfire from Khok Wua anymore, i decided to walk over there to have a look.

I am a photographer - if i would have had inside information i would have moved to a position where i could have taken images of the carnage.

[nicknostitz]

Did you manage to get any pictures of the Men in Black?

Nops, that day i haven't seen them myself.

But before the accusations begin - i have no doubt that they operated. Several colleagues have seen them.

[OzMick]

It is not necessary to have blank-firing attachment to fire blanks. A BFA allows the rifle to operate in semi-auto or full auto mode while firing blanks. Without a BFA and firing blanks, the rifle must be manually cocked after each shot.

How does anybody know "when the first black shirt arrived"? Someone may state "before the first blackshirt I saw arrive" but can only witness their own POV.

Edited June 20, 2013 by OzMick

[nicknostitz]

Why would a rifle be loaded with blanks? What purpose would that achieve? What kind of question is that to a soldier out in a riot situation? Is he supposed to scare the protestors with noise? Or did you mean plastic/rubber bullets. If you asked if he had blanks he would say no. Did you ask the wrong question?

What did you see of the sniper on the tall building? A rifle, the silhouette of a head? How do you know he was Army?

You admit there were armed militia in the red shirts, that is something at least.

Your images are nothing to do with this thread and prove nothing that you have said.

Whenever threads appear with statements from the Government saying that 'there were no black shirts', you never leap on those threads and say 'actually there were, I saw them'.

It is a blatant lie on the part of the Government to state that there were no black shirts and that red shirts were no armed..........isn't it.

No, i didn't ask the wrong question. I asked in Thai as well, not in English.

Admit? I have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts.

I have written that i have seen armed militants under the Red Shirts, i have stated that in interviews on national TV, the latest was on Voice TV a few weeks ago. What else shall i do? And no, i do not interject on every Thaivisa discussion, i do that when i have nothing else to do.

As to the sniper - i heard the bang of the gun and the bullet passing while i was standing behind one of the APC's left by the Army. And in one of the many videos you can see, when shown on a very large screen, a silhouette and a muzzle flash. There was a sniper that shot at Red Shirts. I don't know if was a soldier.

But the theory that it was a Red Shirt militant killing his own is about as ridiculous as the theory that Col. Romklao was killed by one of his own troops from the back.

Edited June 20, 2013 by nicknostitz

[oceanview]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

This may be hard to grasp but the soldiers would have followed their orders, plain and simple, and no way would they have started taking pot shots at the crowd, it just wouldn't happen. If they were ordered to wear riot gear and use batons and plastic bullets with M16's secured in a truck that is exactly what they would have done. This Officer has kuhoonas the size of Jupiter considering all the BS from PTP over this issue. He knows his career has just ended, if Thaksins Generals have anything to do with it, but still he has told the truth.

Probably true. That said, it was a crazy situation and he is speaking for his command only.

But that doesn't stop someone else from shouting that he lies in his sworn court statements regarding his personal actions and those in his particular battalion by alleging that other soldiers operated differently, based upon incorrectly asking the wrong questions.

[GentlemanJim]

Why would a rifle be loaded with blanks? What purpose would that achieve? What kind of question is that to a soldier out in a riot situation? Is he supposed to scare the protestors with noise? Or did you mean plastic/rubber bullets. If you asked if he had blanks he would say no. Did you ask the wrong question?

What did you see of the sniper on the tall building? A rifle, the silhouette of a head? How do you know he was Army?

You admit there were armed militia in the red shirts, that is something at least.

Your images are nothing to do with this thread and prove nothing that you have said.

Whenever threads appear with statements from the Government saying that 'there were no black shirts', you never leap on those threads and say 'actually there were, I saw them'.

It is a blatant lie on the part of the Government to state that there were no black shirts and that red shirts were no armed..........isn't it.

No, i didn't ask the wrong question. I asked in Thai as well, not in English.

Admit? I have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts.

I have written that i have seen armed militants under the Red Shirts, i have stated that in interviews on national TV, the latest was on Voice TV a few weeks ago. What else shall i do? And no, i do not interject on every Thaivisa discussion, i do that when i have nothing else to do.

As to the sniper - i heard the bang of the gun and the bullet passing while i was standing behind one of the APC's left by the Army. And in one of the many videos you can see, when shown on a very large screen, a silhouette and a muzzle flash. There was a sniper that shot at Red Shirts. I don't know if was a soldier.

But the theory that it was a Red Shirt militant killing his own is about as ridiculous as the theory that Col. Romklao was killed by one of his own troops from the back.

It doesn't matter if you asked in Thai. If you asked if the weapon had blanks in the answer would always be no. Why on earth would they have blanks in, for what purpose?

If you heard the bang of the gun, the bullet was long gone.

But the theory that it was a Red Shirt militant killing his own is about as ridiculous as the theory that Col. Romklao was killed by one of his own troops from the back.

Almost as ridiculous as imagining young Thai soldiers, many from the rural North, firing on innocent Thai's isn't it. Russia, yes, North Korea...yes, Thailand..no. Much more likely to be Cambodian mercenaries dressed in black and red, as we were told and witnessed right at the start isn't it. Sae Dengs boys.

[nicknostitz]

Almost as ridiculous as imagining young Thai soldiers, many from the rural North, firing on innocent Thai's isn't it. Russia, yes, North Korea...yes, Thailand..no. Much more likely to be Cambodian mercenaries dressed in black and red, as we were told and witnessed right at the start isn't it. Sae Dengs boys.

I am sorry to say this - but i think you have a slightly warped image of Thailand, Thai society, and in particular of the standards of the Thai army.

It's not that exactly this hasn't happened quite a few times in Thailand's past already...it has, and it will happen again.

I am aware of several DP people proposing this theory of Cambodian mercenaries under Sae Daeng, as they have difficulties to comprehend the stark reality that Thais have killed Thais (on both sides). In a similar attempt to make sense of the mess, later, in May, i spoke with many Red Shirts at especially Samliem Din Daeng, who had the same difficulties to comprehend that Thai soldiers killed Thai protesters, and have said that the ones that killed the protesters were Cambodian mercenaries working for the Thai government and Army.

Thais did kill Thais. It's painful. Live with it.

Edited June 20, 2013 by nicknostitz

[GentlemanJim]

Almost as ridiculous as imagining young Thai soldiers, many from the rural North, firing on innocent Thai's isn't it. Russia, yes, North Korea...yes, Thailand..no. Much more likely to be Cambodian mercenaries dressed in black and red, as we were told and witnessed right at the start isn't it. Sae Dengs boys.

I am sorry to say this - but i think you have a slightly warped image of Thailand, Thai society, and in particular of the standards of the Thai army.

It's not that exactly this hasn't happened quite a few times in Thailand's past already...it has, and it will happen again.

I am aware of several DP people proposing this theory of Cambodian mercenaries under Sae Daeng, as they have difficulties to comprehend the stark reality that Thais have killed Thais (on both sides). In a similar attempt to make sense of the mess, later, in May, i spoke with many Red Shirts at especially Samliem Din Daeng, who had the same difficulties to comprehend that Thai soldiers killed Thai protesters, and have said that the ones that killed the protesters were Cambodian mercenaries working for the Thai government and Army.

Thais did kill Thais. It's painful. Live with it.

So if Thai's did kill Thai's then why is it ridiculous to think paid redshirt's killed redshirt's, they were all Thai after all. redshirt's did kill redshirt's. It's painful. Live with it.

[Pi Sek]

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

Regarding what weapons they had/were using, from what I can see from the KhaoSod article, it seems that the Major was describing his orders and his unit's position/status at 09:00 and 11:00.

"According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position."

If I remember correctly, Kwanchai Praiphana led about 500 protesters to provoke the Army 1st regiment at Phan Fa bridge in the daytime of 10 April... this account sounds like the testimony of that incident, although news reports at the time said that the protesters were armed with bamboo sticks, catapults and molotov cocktails; not guns. However if, as the Major says, soldiers had gunshot wounds, I guess the medical records will be able to clear that one up.

"The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day. The Redshirts killed and injured "were not the doing of the military", he said."

That's a fairly absolute claim - and hard to disprove with an inventory of live ammo given that Red Shirts were arrested since with "confiscated" weapons/ammo. However, as we all know the Colonel was killed and this Major claims that he was injured during the Black Shirt assault - it's understandable (to me, anyway) that soldiers might have decided to ramp up their firepower in the absence of senior officers on the ground due to hospitalisation/death. In which case, we have a case of "firearms would be used only for ′self-defense′ or when the protesters started attacking public properties" - which somewhat contradicts what the Major says above. However, note that "his unit" was not authorised to use live ammo... quite possibly other units were.

Of course, it's also quite possible that this Major is perjuring to cover his superiors'/his underlings'/his own ass or he is giving false evidence to discredit the Red Shirts due to his personal views.

Taking everything into account though, for me... he is trying to show that the army was 100% innocent and the Red Shirts were 100% wrong. I do not believe that, just as I don't believe the Red Shirts' claims of the other way round. Simply put, the army was caught off-guard by a surprise heavily-armed ambush, and I fully expect shots were fired in anger back at them - with or without the authorisation from a dead Colonel or an injured Major.

<snip>

As to the sniper - i heard the bang of the gun and the bullet passing while i's was standing behind one of the APC's left by the Army. And in one of the many videos you can see, when shown on a very large screen, a silhouette and a muzzle flash. There was a sniper that shot at Red Shirts. I don't know if was a soldier.

But the theory that it was a Red Shirt militant killing his own is about as ridiculous as the theory that Col. Romklao was killed by one of his own troops from the back.

I don't agree with your dismissal that the sniper was a Red shooting Reds. It had been clear from the days leading up to 10 April - especially given Jatuporn's announcement that a "third armed element" of the protest group had arrived and Arisaman's constant threats of violence if "one drop of blood is shed" in the year leading up to the 2010 protest - that the Reds had been pushing for a violent confrontation to "escalate" the protest.

Also, note that video clip of the Red Shirts on the front line on 10 April who are asking each other in a panic whose side Gen Seh Daeng was on...

It's not just the Reds of course... Chamlong also allegedly admitted after a protest that he needed one or two protesters to lose their lives in order to garner public sympathy.

As you know very well, these protests are breeding grounds for immoral demagogues and charlatans. They want to establish their political goals, not help people.

[Roadman]

The witness went on to claim that his unit was not authorized to use live ammunition on that day.

Another get out of jail card free for Abhisit.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them or use them though. Do you really think that anyone would send a group of soldiers into a position like that with no live ammunition?

If so, lucky they didn't have a mutiny.....

Not the point whether they had them or used them . . . Abhisit was charged with "ordering" the attacks . . . this testimony (which is now on record) shows that they were NOT ordered to use live ammunition, so if they get to charge anyone with "murder", it should be the Army that defied his orders. Simple.

It is so bloody pleasing after all the one sided Thaksin and Pheu Thai garbage courtesy of the weasel within the DSI being thrown at Abhisit that someone is starting to throw it back and fortunately again its hurrah for the Army. It would be pleasing to see more Army testimony in court involving the Black Shirts, Sae Dueang and the trails where they lead. The peoples court convicted fugitive criminal scum in Dubai should start to feel some of the same heat. It will help set the scene for his treason charges should he ever wish to step back into Thailand.