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

[tragickingdom]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

[Roadman]

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.

Well said that person.

[airconsult]

Can't say what orders were issued to this soldier.

But what is known and stated by the TRC (set up immediately afterwards) is this section in their report.

"597,500 rounds of ammunition were disbursed by the army from its arsenal to support the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation’s activities from 11 Mar until the end of the rallies, and 479,577 rounds were returned. That means that 117,923 were used. The total number includes 3,000 sniper rounds of which 880 were returned, and 10,000 blank rounds of which 3,380 were returned…."

The paper which cannot be quote here states an Army source as saying that actually 200,000 rounds were not returned (no comment on their source's reliability).

[whybother]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

The men in black were possibly army personnel organised by Seh Daeng supporting the red shirts.

And this evidence doesn't point to army units that were under kill to shoot orders from Suthep.

Edited June 20, 2013 by whybother

[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/

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.

Only thing is that while the soldier claimed some of his comrades have been injured by gunfire, it is somewhat unclear which confrontation we are talking about. It is though clear that the first Red Shirt who was killed, was killed during the afternoon clashes, and that several Red Shirts were injured as well by gunfire from the soldiers during that clash. There are more than enough witness to that, including journalists.

As to Kwanchai leading protesters to provoke the military. A better description would be that the Red Shirts acted on intel they received of a military crackdown, and tried to preempt it this way. Do not underestimate that behind all the stage talk and posturing on TV by both sides, there were levels of this conflict the general public may not be completely aware of. One part of this is that both sides naturally had far ranging intelligence operations going on as well. And on the side of the Red Shirts they reached well within the 11th Infantry Regiment and CRES.

The death of Col. Romklao came towards the end of the clashes, at around 21.00, *after* the major clash at Khok Wua was already finished. The first known death of a protester during the late afternoon clash at Khok Wua was at around 18.40 (data taken from images a Thai colleague has taken in which you could still see the last bits of the sunset as well). By all reports the so called "Blackshirts" came to the scene later, at around the time the soldier has stated when the 14 M79 grenades were fired.

As to all these theories over the supposed identity of these "Blackshirts", i would suggest to stick here with what is publicly known, and to try to get away with the massive amount of misinformation, such as these theories, so far completely unproven - that for example Red Shirts were killed by militants, or that Romklao was killed by his own soldiers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any of those theories (sorry, but speculating on stage talk is no evidence - it's still speculation). Another massive piece of misinformation that is particularly spread by Suthep is that the death of Col. Romklao came first. No it came at the end.

As to the testimony of the soldier - no soldier who gives testimony will state his own personal agenda or views. Soldiers will follow orders, also in the courts. The soldiers are briefed by the army's legal team before testifying.

[GentlemanJim]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

A completely unfounded and baseless claim. Tragic really!

[nicknostitz]

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.

There is no evidence of this other than your wishful thinking and pure speculation.

On the other hand, there is not just evidence that soldiers have killed and injured Red Shirts, there were already several court decisions in the ongoing inquests that have declared that the bullets that killed protesters were fired by the soldiers in the May mess, such as Pan Kamkhong, Channarong Ponsrila, etc.

[GentlemanJim]

As to the testimony of the soldier - no soldier who gives testimony will state his own personal agenda or views. Soldiers will follow orders, also in the courts. The soldiers are briefed by the army's legal team before testifying.

And I suppose you think redshirts and their ilk are different?

[nicknostitz]

As to the testimony of the soldier - no soldier who gives testimony will state his own personal agenda or views. Soldiers will follow orders, also in the courts. The soldiers are briefed by the army's legal team before testifying.

And I suppose you think redshirts and their ilk are different?

No.

And that is why journalists are so important, and it explains why in the aftermath of the 2010 mess many of us who worked the mess on the ground were so massively discredited by pro-government forces (such as the vile campaign against Dan Rivers, where for example Chirmsak Pinthong accused Dan on his show on Channel 11 to have an affair with Jakrapob Penkair). Attempts of intimidation were made as well, some more, some less successful.

[rubl]

"As to all these theories over the supposed identity of these "Blackshirts", i would suggest to stick here with what is publicly known, and to try to get away with the massive amount of misinformation, such as these theories, so far completely unproven - that for example Red Shirts were killed by militants, or that Romklao was killed by his own soldiers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any of those theories (sorry, but speculating on stage talk is no evidence - it's still speculation). Another massive piece of misinformation that is particularly spread by Suthep is that the death of Col. Romklao came first. No it came at the end."

I can agree with this. Still unfortunately 'what is publicly known' may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
For instance, if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day. The unnamed major was commanding a unit, but was his the only unit present? Probably not. Still a few questions to be answered it would seem.

Please note that the discussion on the MiB should be factual as well. For this inquest it's not relevant if those MiB had a right to be there or could be simply labelled as 'terrorists'. The inquest just tries to get insight in the actual activities without putting a particular coloured label on any of those.

[nicknostitz]

"As to all these theories over the supposed identity of these "Blackshirts", i would suggest to stick here with what is publicly known, and to try to get away with the massive amount of misinformation, such as these theories, so far completely unproven - that for example Red Shirts were killed by militants, or that Romklao was killed by his own soldiers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any of those theories (sorry, but speculating on stage talk is no evidence - it's still speculation). Another massive piece of misinformation that is particularly spread by Suthep is that the death of Col. Romklao came first. No it came at the end."

I can agree with this. Still unfortunately 'what is publicly known' may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For instance, if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day. The unnamed major was commanding a unit, but was his the only unit present? Probably not. Still a few questions to be answered it would seem.

Please note that the discussion on the MiB should be factual as well. For this inquest it's not relevant if those MiB had a right to be there or could be simply labelled as 'terrorists'. The inquest just tries to get insight in the actual activities without putting a particular coloured label on any of those.

For instance, if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day.

This is true. After the grenade blast that killed Romklao and wounded many other soldiers there was a brief lull in which the injured were brought away (there was much chaos, some Red Shirt guards helped injured soldiers, while other enraged Red Shirts tried to attack them). But then while the soldiers retreated/ran away they shot into the crowd (maybe covering fire, maybe panic), and the sniper on the roof of the school operated. That is when Hiro died.

The evidence is quite clear - at Dinso there were holes in the tarmac from the grenade blasts. There were many bullet holes shot from the military lines towards the Red Shirts, and none that i could see that were shot from the Red Shirt towards the soldiers (which doesn't mean that there were none, just that i haven't seen any, quite different at Khok Wua, where you could see also many bullet holes shot from the side of the Red Shirts).

[nicknostitz]

<snip>

I guess for anyone that is biased then photo's of red armed militia were just never that attractive, much easier to point and press in another direction.

Do we really have to go down that way again?

Are such personal accusations and insults really necessary?

[kimamey]

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/

Good pictures. makes it more real than just hearing reports.

[nicknostitz]

Good pictures. makes it more real than just hearing reports.

Thank you

[GentlemanJim]

<snip>

I guess for anyone that is biased then photo's of red armed militia were just never that attractive, much easier to point and press in another direction.

Do we really have to go down that way again?

Are such personal accusations and insults really necessary?

It is not an insult. It is an insult to the intelligence of many people on here when you try to display yourself as speaking with authority and make statements like 'it is ridiculous to consider that reds would shoot their own'. I find that insulting, but won't be pressing the report button.

As for the 'is it really necessary', you are on a thread discussing whether or not soldiers have been shooting reds and then tell us to have a look at your images as if they are some sort of proof of something. They prove nothing other than bullets were fired, that's all nothing else. Maybe photos of people firing the bullets would have been more helpful. Your images bear no relation to this thread.

[rubl]

"As to all these theories over the supposed identity of these "Blackshirts", i would suggest to stick here with what is publicly known, and to try to get away with the massive amount of misinformation, such as these theories, so far completely unproven - that for example Red Shirts were killed by militants, or that Romklao was killed by his own soldiers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any of those theories (sorry, but speculating on stage talk is no evidence - it's still speculation). Another massive piece of misinformation that is particularly spread by Suthep is that the death of Col. Romklao came first. No it came at the end."

I can agree with this. Still unfortunately 'what is publicly known' may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For instance, if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day. The unnamed major was commanding a unit, but was his the only unit present? Probably not. Still a few questions to be answered it would seem.

Please note that the discussion on the MiB should be factual as well. For this inquest it's not relevant if those MiB had a right to be there or could be simply labelled as 'terrorists'. The inquest just tries to get insight in the actual activities without putting a particular coloured label on any of those.

For instance, if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day.

This is true. After the grenade blast that killed Romklao and wounded many other soldiers there was a brief lull in which the injured were brought away (there was much chaos, some Red Shirt guards helped injured soldiers, while other enraged Red Shirts tried to attack them). But then while the soldiers retreated/ran away they shot into the crowd (maybe covering fire, maybe panic), and the sniper on the roof of the school operated. That is when Hiro died.

The evidence is quite clear - at Dinso there were holes in the tarmac from the grenade blasts. There were many bullet holes shot from the military lines towards the Red Shirts, and none that i could see that were shot from the Red Shirt towards the soldiers (which doesn't mean that there were none, just that i haven't seen any, quite different at Khok Wua, where you could see also many bullet holes shot from the side of the Red Shirts).

Nick, I'm just playing 'advocate for the devil' here. Note this is not a personel attack.

You wrote

"Another massive piece of misinformation that is particularly spread by Suthep is that the death of Col. Romklao came first. No it came at the end.""

I wrote

"if memory serves me right, AFTER the grenade attack on General Romklao more people died that day."

You reply

"This is true.After the grenade blast that killed Romklao and wounded many other soldiers there was a brief lull ... But then while the soldiers retreated/ran away they shot into the crowd (maybe covering fire, maybe panic), and the sniper on the roof of the school operated. That is when Hiro died."

This may not seem important, but it shows the difficult task the court has in this inquest where people remember and/or say things which may seem to contradict their own statements. Same like the unnamed major who had no authority to shoot, had weapons in a weapons carrier truck and was told to shoot only in self-defence'.

[kimamey]

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.

Whilst most soldiers would follow orders it's not really possible to say that all of them would. Although I have no military service I would guess that it comes down to training and and experience. Dealing with a situation like this is going to be more difficult than just fighting a known enemy facing you and I don't know how well the Thai army are prepared for this sort of thing although they were certainly better prepared than the police.

I've seen what is claimed to be the ROE and it does authorise live firing in limited circumstances. Whether this incident falls within these rules I don't know but the shooting of the Italian journalist definitely didn't appear to.

[rixalex]

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.

There is no evidence of this other than your wishful thinking and pure speculation.

On the other hand, there is not just evidence that soldiers have killed and injured Red Shirts, there were already several court decisions in the ongoing inquests that have declared that the bullets that killed protesters were fired by the soldiers in the May mess, such as Pan Kamkhong, Channarong Ponsrila, etc.

You say that there is evidence of killed protesters being shot by soliders, but as i understand it, the evidence that exists in most, if not all cases so far, only goes as far as saying that is probable, based on the type of bullet and the direction from which the shot came. In other words, the evidence is strong, perhaps very strong even, but not conclusive.

That is not to say that i personally think that protesters were not shot by soldiers. I think some certainly were. The point i am making is that if we are only to discuss what can be proven as a matter of certainty with regards what happened on those fateful days, we wouldn't be left with much to discuss. So with that said, i don't think that discussing the possibility that reds were killed by other reds, be they dressed in black or any other colour, should be so quickly dismissed. As with any crime, one of the first aspects to consider is who had motive. Do you not think that the reds had as much, if not more, motive for reds to be killed? Accepting that does not mean agreeing that that is what happened, it simply means being open-minded to the possibility. At the moment, your mind seems rather closed. Perhaps you too are guilty of wishful thinking...

[rubl]

As to the testimony of the soldier - no soldier who gives testimony will state his own personal agenda or views. Soldiers will follow orders, also in the courts. The soldiers are briefed by the army's legal team before testifying.

And I suppose you think redshirts and their ilk are different?

No.

And that is why journalists are so important, and it explains why in the aftermath of the 2010 mess many of us who worked the mess on the ground were so massively discredited by pro-government forces (such as the vile campaign against Dan Rivers, where for example Chirmsak Pinthong accused Dan on his show on Channel 11 to have an affair with Jakrapob Penkair). Attempts of intimidation were made as well, some more, some less successful.

To be fair the UDD / red-shirts were no longer in a postion to discredit anyone who wrote against them. Mind you the Abhisit 'kill me some' tape from 2009 is still very popular upcountry even to this day.

BTW "many of us who worked the mess on the ground were so massively discredited" suggest 50% or more. I find that somewhat difficult to believe, unless you mean a certain group of like minded journalists.

[GentlemanJim]

<snip>

I guess for anyone that is biased then photo's of red armed militia were just never that attractive, much easier to point and press in another direction.

Do we really have to go down that way again?

Are such personal accusations and insults really necessary?

It is not an insult. It is an insult to the intelligence of many people on here when you try to display yourself as speaking with authority and make statements like 'it is ridiculous to consider that reds would shoot their own'. I find that insulting, but won't be pressing the report button.

As for the 'is it really necessary', you are on a thread discussing whether or not soldiers have been shooting reds and then tell us to have a look at your images as if they are some sort of proof of something. They prove nothing other than bullets were fired, that's all nothing else. Maybe photos of people firing the bullets would have been more helpful. Your images bear no relation to this thread.

What a shameful post - rude and ignorant.If you are unequal to discussing the issues with a widely acknowledged expert, whom we are lucky to have on the forum, then silence is best.If you have rational questions I'm sure NN would address them.

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

Edited June 20, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[jayboy]

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

It's not a question of what you consider to be the ideological underpinnings (your comments on this verge on the nonsensical but let that pass) of the redshirt movement but rather how the Japanese reporter was killed.Nick Nostitz is not a "self proclaimed expert" but a courageous, honest and widely acclaimed photojournalist whose written and visual recoprd of the events of 2010 will be studied for many decades to come.One of the foremost historians of modern Thailand, Chris Baker thinks extremely highly of his work (I am looking at Baker's effusive comments in an old clipping from the Bangkok Post right now).Other members of this forum with a strong record of hostility to Thaksin manage to quiz NN with some good questions and get good responses.As I noted earlier we are extremely lucky to have NN on the forum.

[rubl]

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

It's not a question of what you consider to be the ideological underpinnings (your comments on this verge on the nonsensical but let that pass) of the redshirt movement but rather how the Japanese reporter was killed.Nick Nostitz is not a "self proclaimed expert" but a courageous, honest and widely acclaimed photojournalist whose written and visual recoprd of the events of 2010 will be studied for many decades to come.One of the foremost historians of modern Thailand, Chris Baker thinks extremely highly of his work (I am looking at Baker's effusive comments in an old clipping from the Bangkok Post right now).Other members of this forum with a strong record of hostility to Thaksin manage to quiz NN with some good questions and get good responses.As I noted earlier we are extremely lucky to have NN on the forum.

Nice commercial, but the topic is not NN but the inquest into the japanese reporter's death.

[khunken]

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

It's not a question of what you consider to be the ideological underpinnings (your comments on this verge on the nonsensical but let that pass) of the redshirt movement but rather how the Japanese reporter was killed.Nick Nostitz is not a "self proclaimed expert" but a courageous, honest and widely acclaimed photojournalist whose written and visual recoprd of the events of 2010 will be studied for many decades to come.One of the foremost historians of modern Thailand, Chris Baker thinks extremely highly of his work (I am looking at Baker's effusive comments in an old clipping from the Bangkok Post right now).Other members of this forum with a strong record of hostility to Thaksin manage to quiz NN with some good questions and get good responses.As I noted earlier we are extremely lucky to have NN on the forum.

Nice commercial, but the topic is not NN but the inquest into the japanese reporter's death.

Yes.

The fact that Chris Baker - or Somchai the vendor - 'thinks extremely highly of his work' is meaningless to this thread and is no more than one opinion.

I have respect for Nick's expertise but his opinions are pretty obviously coloured (sic) by his reporting. Alastair Leithead of the BBC shamelessly left out some rather important parts of the protests ('we didn't have the translators') during his also biased reporting of the protests & riots.

Reporters & photographers far too often end up taking sides in conflicts they are involved with. There are exceptions but Nick is not one of them.

I have no doubt that the army was responsible for shooting some innocents as well as some not so innocent. This whole process is focused on what the army may or may not have done with the added 'Tarit & stick' effort to shift some of the blame on to Abhisit & Suthep. It's not quite working.

[PS2]

The red/black shirt used the same tactics as 2009.

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09BANGKOK893

[phantomfiddler]

From where I was sitting, albeit in front of the TV, I got the distinct impression that the blackshirts were allied with the redshirts, and have been at a loss as to why Abhisit keeps getting charged with murder when the antogonists were clearly reddish coloured.

[waza]

Pretty conclusive testimony

http://youtu.be/z8X1rRxHjtE

This guy is a better reporter than some of the hacks who declare themselves professional journalists.

Edited June 20, 2013 by waza

[rubl]

Pretty conclusive testimony

Now you're jumping the queue. Mind you personally I'm thinking of a possible outcome if previous inquests can be used as guidance. It could be

"Army issue bullet, maybe fired from the army side, but other armed elements around. At the moment it is not possible to place guilt on anyone or any group specifically."

[Tatsujin]

It is not an insult. It is an insult to the intelligence of many people on here when you try to display yourself as speaking with authority and make statements like 'it is ridiculous to consider that reds would shoot their own'. I find that insulting, but won't be pressing the report button.

As for the 'is it really necessary', you are on a thread discussing whether or not soldiers have been shooting reds and then tell us to have a look at your images as if they are some sort of proof of something. They prove nothing other than bullets were fired, that's all nothing else. Maybe photos of people firing the bullets would have been more helpful. Your images bear no relation to this thread.

What a shameful post - rude and ignorant.If you are unequal to discussing the issues with a widely acknowledged expert, whom we are lucky to have on the forum, then silence is best.If you have rational questions I'm sure NN would address them.

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

+1

[rixalex]

From where I was sitting, albeit in front of the TV, I got the distinct impression that the blackshirts were allied with the redshirts, and have been at a loss as to why Abhisit keeps getting charged with murder when the antogonists were clearly reddish coloured.

The moral of the story i think is if you are going to organise a violent and heavily armed insurrection of a capital city in an attempt to topple a government, get the violent members of your group to throw on a different colour shirt, that way you can later throw a cunning veil of mystery over who these people were, and thereby protect the group as a whole, and most importantly of course, its leaders.

[Tatsujin]

Pretty conclusive testimony

Now you're jumping the queue. Mind you personally I'm thinking of a possible outcome if previous inquests can be used as guidance. It could be

"Army issue bullet, maybe fired from the army side, but other armed elements around. At the moment it is not possible to place guilt on anyone or any group specifically."

Let us not also forget the large amounts of ammunition and weapons that had been stolen/misplaced prior to these events, some of which were used and publicised such as the grenade attacks. Saying a bullet is from a particular weapon is great if only one side had that weapon, the reality was that the Red side were just as well armed as the soldiers were.

Let us not also forget that at that time a SoE had been declared + a curfew + public warnings issued widely that people would be shot if they appeared to threaten the soldiers. None of which stopped the Red shirts on their rampage. They got exactly what they wanted in the end.