Jump to content

Thai Troops Likely Shot Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi: Inquest


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

You mean like you do with the men in black, violent intent from Arisman, armed reds etc... ?

He's baaaaack! Arisman again.

Arisman's name must be mentioned often, together with his infamous "burn list" because so many posters dishonestly try to either deny the existance of his incitement to terrorism, or flat out claim not to have heard/seen his incitement. Ironically, I remember you being one of them.

"Whether posters have heard of him or not (and actually I hadn't until he was brought to my attention) there is a ludicrous aspect to his constant invocation by those who wish to justify repression.There will always be rabble rousers around."

So it's ok to stand in front of a massive crowd of paid off illiterate farmers, feeding them lies that they soak in like hungry sheep, inciting them to burn, kill, destroy? You don't feel the govt. has a right to protect it's citizens, their lives and property, from these thugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is it a happy coincidence that Khunying Porntip was pushed aside one week before this ruling was made? there is no clear evidence as to who shot this guy or anyone else. For sure some people were shot by the army, doing their job, after the people in the area were warned for two weeks that the area was going to be cleared by military with live rounds. For sure some people were shot by red/black shirts and others taking advantage of the confused situation to conduct their own mayhem around Bangkok. But no one can say for sure who shot whom, where and when, especially not just on the basis of "belief" that only a certain group were in a certain area and that the ammunition used was similar to the type used by a certain group. This is no more than circumstantial and proves nothing in this case. As usual, to the victors goes the spoils and the opportunity to rewrite the truth to suit their needs. Having watched much of the stupidity over the course of the period from early March through to May 20th it is apparent who was breaking the law and why the military was needed to regain control over the city/country's valuable strategic assets. If a bunch of thugs did this in downtown London, Paris, Washington or anywhere else there would not have been 2 months of negotiation and discussion, they would have been cleared out by the police and military/national guard in days. That it was let go on for so long merely shows that there was back-room power brokering going on to see who could gain most from the opportunity. The fat lady ain't singing yet, this isn't over!

During the days of unrest innocent people were murderd by kill shots that must have been fired by military personnel. Although the snipers managed to remove most of the shell casings the can be little doubt than some of the dead were executed by snipers. Military snipers never fire a kill shot unless that have been instructed to by someone in authority. That person or persons must be identifyable and also would also be able to determine which soldier killed which victim. Any of you that have experienced military service will know that this observartion is true. This is where the investigation into who killed who should start. Identifying the officer (or officers) that gave the orders to the snipers should be easy. Futher that once you know who the resposible officer is it will be easy to establish who ordered him (or them) to instruct the spipers to use kill shots. What one is looking for is a member of government with a track record for irrational thought.

Edited by indyuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disturbed by the number of comments that imply that the Red Shirt Protest was a kind of battle whereat fusilades of rifle fire were streaming between the Red Shirts and the Army personnel. That was clearly not the case. Futher the referral to the mysterious men in black is no mystery. The Thai Military police 'PARU' wear black uniforms with blacked service badges and rank insignia. The PARU may well have bee sent in to take out 'targets' on either side of the alledged battle line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

indyuk, on 30 May 2013 - 12:22, said:

During the days of unrest innocent people were murderd by kill shots that must have been fired by military personnel. Although the snipers managed to remove most of the shell casings the can be little doubt than some of the dead were executed by snipers. Military snipers never fire a kill shot unless that have been instructed to by someone in authority. That person or persons must be identifyable and also would also be able to determine which soldier killed which victim. Any of you that have experienced military service will know that this observartion is true. This is where the investigation into who killed who should start. Identifying the officer (or officers) that gave the orders to the snipers should be easy. Futher that once you know who the resposible officer is it will be easy to establish who ordered him (or them) to instruct the spipers to use kill shots. What one is looking for is a member of government with a track record for irrational thought.

.

"What one is looking for is a member of government with a track record for irrational thought."

So that narrows it down to about 400.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A foreign military analyst who accompanied the soldiers during the assault said he was
stunned by the poor standard of the military operation:
The whole operation was staggering in its incompetence. You had scared
young conscripts blazing away at the tents in Lumphini Park without any fire
control. There wasn’t the command and control that you would expect during
such an operation. There were two main operations, the movement up the
road and the operation to clear the park. They were totally uncoordinated.
When I was with the troops in the park along the fence, they were opening
fire at people in the park, including on the other military unit that was inside
the park. You had incipient “friendly fire” incidents. The park was used
essentially as a free-fire zone, the soldiers moved and took shots along
Wireless and Rama IV Road.176

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back on topic, the RTA shot the man and should be held accountable.

Like who issued the orders, rules of engagement, immediate superiors, after action "inquest" ( bad choice of words there, sorry.) accountability for discharge of a weapon etc etc...........

Looks like he was murdered by the army.

Can they plausibly deny it ??

Don't think so.

Prayuth did so and is still denying that the army killed anybody!!

the PT government has long sold out the red shirts in exchange for assurances that there will be no coup - and of course keeps not only greasing their own wheels but those of the armed forces to keep them happy. Would not be surprised if a wall / fence is built at the Malaysian border - nice fat kickbacks are waiting!

Human rights watch had this to say:

Quote:

Thailand: Army Chief Interfering in Investigations

Source: Human Right Watch

The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

Prayuth is also using Thailand’s archaic criminal defamation law to deter public criticism, Human Rights Watch said. On August 17, Prayuth ordered an army legal officer to file a criminal defamation complaint against Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer representing the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and Amsterdam’s translator. At a UDD rally on May 19, Amsterdam gave a speech in which he alleged that the army committed brutality against demonstrators for which it should be held accountable.

“Abuses by soldiers took place in full view of the Thai public and the world’s media, yet the Thai army chief is now trying to intimidate investigators and critics into silence,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The government should prosecute all those responsible for crimes during the 2010 violence, including members of the military, who should not be above the law.”

Not one soldier or official has been held accountable for the 2010 violence as criminal investigations have progressed very slowly. Of the 98 known deaths, the Department of Special Investigations and the police have sent 19 cases – believed mostly to be deaths caused by soldiers – to the prosecutor for post-mortem inquests. On August 14, the special investigations department deputy chief, Prawet Moolpramuk, said in a media interview that the agency was planning to question soldiers seen in video footage that also showed military snipers in action near Bangkok’s Lumphini Boxing Stadium.

In response, Prayuth said that soldiers did not kill anyone during the confrontations. He also asserted that soldiers seen in photographs and video armed with telescopic rifles were not “snipers,” but were only using their weapons for self-defense. However, a document signed by then-deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban on April 18, 2010, which Human Rights Watch has seen, authorized the deployment of sharpshooters and snipers to more broadly “protect security forces and the public.”

“It is ludicrous for the army chief to claim that the army did not deploy snipers who fired on civilians,” said Adams. “Instead of going after critics, he should be ensuring accountability within his ranks.”

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra appears to have sided with the military over its Justice Ministry. Rather than order Prayuth to end his interference in the criminal investigations, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said on August 16 that he had ordered the Special Investigations Department chief, Tarit Pengdith, to apologize to Prayuth and to stop talking publicly about its ongoing investigations. Chalerm also announced that soldiers would be treated as witnesses in the investigations and that they would be fully protected from criminal prosecution.

Families of UDD members killed during the violence told Human Rights Watch that they had little hope for obtaining justice for their loss. To receive financial reparations from the government, the families had to sign a settlement forfeiting their rights to file a court case against the army for civil damage.

“Prime Minister Yingluck came to power promising justice to the victims of political violence,” Adams said. “By siding with the army chief in his attempts to shut down investigations into army abuses, she is breaking her promise to the victims and the Thai people.”

unquote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The court therefore believes [...]"

A verdict based on belief. Seems this is becoming a habit with Thai criminal courts in the recent trials concerning the Red Riot 2010.

A verdict based on the facts put before the inquest.

I can't quite work this out yet, perhaps you can help. First of all during the Abhisit period a number of posters on this forum had the opinion that all Judges were whiter than white and could no wrong especially if they found against a member of the UDD or PTP.3 Years later, the Judges still can do no wrong when in the recent inquests they couldn't really tell if the Army were responsible for killing someone and say so in their verdict.

Yet the minute they find that the Army is responsible for the death of an civilian all kinds of excuses are dragged out as to how these very same Judges are suddenly mistaken in their verdicts.

Any thoughts?

Take a few moments for rational thought. The only ballistic evidence they have is that the caliber of the bullet was similar to that used by the military. Such rounds are most common in Thailand and such weapons are also common place. There were several instances where the "men in black" and other quasi civilians were seen carrying arms of a similar caliber.

I have neither seen or heard of any ballistic azimuth being conducted to determine the direction of the fatal shot, therefore, it is pure speculation and conjecture that this bullet emanated from a military position.

The conclusions of this court are highly speculative at best and most probably politicaly movitated and are certainly not based on any conclusive evidence of any form.

It is indeed a posibility that the fatal round could have come from a military position, however it is just as plausible that it could have come from elsewhere.

This country is a chaotic farce in all aspects and the court ruling such as was handed down, only serve to prove this point.

This journalist was there by choice doing his job in total awareness of the prevailing conditions and as such owing to the complete lack of physical evidence, can only be considered as collateral damage.

There is more substance in a bad soap opera.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder
Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

Putting oneself in the crossfire of violent citizens being suppressed is mindless; along with those who want to blame soldiers for trying to prevent further terrorism on the city, when the police failed to do anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

Putting oneself in the crossfire of violent citizens being suppressed is mindless; along with those who want to blame soldiers for trying to prevent further terrorism on the city, when the police failed to do anything.

I assume your comments arise from ignorance and lack of imagination rather than malice.So I will move on, but the last comment from me on this topic will be to pay tribute to Fabio Polenghi with the words of a wonderful journalist Marie Colvin who was herself recently killed in Syria.

“Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos,

destruction and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to

find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or

terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself

but often for the people who work closely with you.” Marie Colvin in a speech made at St Bride’s Church, London, 10 November 2010, in honour of war wounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indyuk, on 30 May 2013 - 12:34, said:

I am disturbed by the number of comments that imply that the Red Shirt Protest was a kind of battle whereat fusilades of rifle fire were streaming between the Red Shirts and the Army personnel. That was clearly not the case. Futher the referral to the mysterious men in black is no mystery. The Thai Military police 'PARU' wear black uniforms with blacked service badges and rank insignia. The PARU may well have bee sent in to take out 'targets' on either side of the alledged battle line.

.

In many situations that clearly was the case.

It strange that the Thai military police that wear black uniforms were able to roam freely behind the red shirt barricades, and even had their own tents within the protest area.

Not something our resident red-shirt apologist cheerleaders ever like to bring up...a bit like never mentioning Arisman and his terrorist threats against innocent citizens and private property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indyuk, on 30 May 2013 - 12:34, said:

I am disturbed by the number of comments that imply that the Red Shirt Protest was a kind of battle whereat fusilades of rifle fire were streaming between the Red Shirts and the Army personnel. That was clearly not the case. Futher the referral to the mysterious men in black is no mystery. The Thai Military police 'PARU' wear black uniforms with blacked service badges and rank insignia. The PARU may well have bee sent in to take out 'targets' on either side of the alledged battle line.

.

In many situations that clearly was the case.

It strange that the Thai military police that wear black uniforms were able to roam freely behind the red shirt barricades, and even had their own tents within the protest area.

Spot on and youtube can back you up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies for his family, he was only trying to do a job

BUT.

The fact is he was in a dangerous live fire zone during an exchange of gunfire between armed protesters and armed soldiers.

Some places call that collateral damage? What do you call it?

Murder

Playing with fire, and getting burned more like it.

If red dicatators weren't in office, unlikely soldiers are found guilty.

Soldiers have never been found guilty for their crimes in Thailand and this latest incident is no exception.

Your comments on a reporter in a conflict situation is simply mindless.

The DSI and PT /Thaksin have already cleared the army. They have stated that the army hasn't done anything wrong and all the killings were done by AV and Suthep...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thai at Heart, on 30 May 2013 - 12:40, said:

A foreign military analyst who accompanied the soldiers during the assault said he was

stunned by the poor standard of the military operation:

Quote

The whole operation was staggering in its incompetence. You had scared

young conscripts blazing away at the tents in Lumphini Park without any fire

control. There wasn’t the command and control that you would expect during

such an operation. There were two main operations, the movement up the

road and the operation to clear the park. They were totally uncoordinated.

When I was with the troops in the park along the fence, they were opening

fire at people in the park, including on the other military unit that was inside

the park. You had incipient “friendly fire” incidents. The park was used

essentially as a free-fire zone, the soldiers moved and took shots along

Wireless and Rama IV Road.176

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pd

Yes...but the use of weapons and deadly force was hardly one-sided on the Army's part:

Quote

The extensive casualties also

resulted from deliberate attacks by militant armed elements

of the UDD, whose leaders contributed to the violence with

inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, including urging

their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting.

The heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, apparently

connected to the UDD and operating in tandem with it, were

responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and

civilians.

Quote

As night fell, renewed clashes erupted when the army

attempted to move in on the Phan Fa camp and were

confronted by well-armed and organized groups of armed

militants affiliated with the UDD. Known as the “Black

Shirts,” they fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at soldiers,

and used M79 grenade launchers and M67 hand grenades at

the Khok Wua junction and at the Democracy Monument,

devastating army troops in the process. The army unit’s

commanding officer, Col. Romklao Thuwatham, was among

the first to be killed, apparently in a targeted M79 grenade

attack. Many senior officers were wounded. Panicked and

leaderless, the troops withdrew into backstreets, often firing

directly at UDD protesters massed before them.

Let's remember, the Army, for all its faults, didn't just start willy-nilly firing on crowds of protestors one day. The gunfire came at the end of a weeks long standoff (many argued TOO long) where the Red shirt crowds had gathered illegally, refused to disperse, conducted various violent acts and provocations. They basically brought areas of the capital to a standstill and put many areas under siege.

Various folks can fault the Army for the way they handled the operation and debate whether a better organized, better trained force could have ended the illegal occupation without so many innocents getting caught in the crossfire. But let's not be one-sided in assessing blame. There was plenty to go around.

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Based on the evidence, the bullet that killed the victim was the same

type used that day by the security forces," the Southern Bangkok

Criminal Court said.

"The court therefore believes the bullet that killed the victim came

from the security forces, but we do not know who fired the bullet."

And we all know that in Thailand it is impossible for an outsider to get hold of army/police weapons.. Therefor it MUST have been the army..

So, I suppose all the Rifles and ammo stolen from Army bases (many reported) could not have been used by anyone else other than army/security forces ?? give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...