Thread: Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists

Originally Posted by tomta

Mr Lick

The government and army has not come out with one single statement covering the events of April and May that denies responsibility for every death. That would be so patently ridiculous that their case would be revealed as absolutely laughable.

What they do is simply to deny responsibility for every particular death or even wound that the troops are accused of causing. Have you seen one instance of the government or army accepting responsibility for a death or injury? Have the complete results of one autopsy been published six months after the events ?

This shouldn't be too hard. The government could say "Soldier X shot and wounded protestor Y with such and such a gun and ammunition while Protestor Y was looting/shooting/burning." Such an admission would be a propaganda victory for the government in that it would tend to justify their argument that they were using legitimate force. They've had six months to come up with just one such a story and haven't done so,

Mid has provided you with a link to a denial of responsibility for the the shootings at Phan Fa in April. It should be remembered that at first they denied using live bullets. They only admitted to using live bullets when the evidence was so overwhelming that it was pointless to continue their denials.

You must have seen their denials of prominent cases like the shooting of Seh Daeng. Here is Anupong's denial of responsibility for the shootings at Wat Panatharum Bangkok Post : Anupong: Troops didn't kill at temple

You will notice in this article that Anupong claims to have evidence that they didn't shoot anyone but he chooses not to reveal it.

These denials are part of a pattern . Has the army admitted to the killings in 1973, 1976, 1992, No. Tak bai, Kru Sae? Sort of but it was all an accident. Has any army disciplinary committee reccommended that particular persons be charged for these events? Has anyone been charged?

The army and the government has a culture of denial and lying. Look at this typical statement from Sonthi, made during the planning stages of the coup: "The army will not get involved in the political conflict. Political troubles should be resolved by politicians. Military coups are a thing of the past.", 6 March 2006, (Wikipedia).

The denial is perpetrated by many means: lying, active denial of particular events, asserting that the "men in black " shot those on their own side, asserting that the army would never harm the Thai people,refusing to respond to or counter particular allegations with credible evidence, waiting till everyone despairs of getting the truth and gives up asking questions, saying the accusations are all from ill-intentioned people who want to destroy the state and overthrow the monarchy.

The denial is not a single event; it is a process. Notice too that the emphasis of all the "independent" commissions (whose reports are due in three years) is on "reconciliation" not on "truth".

I am totally with you Tomta, as my posts #144 and #153 would indicate. The government cannot deny that events took place but accepting responsiblity, well, lets just say that it's not a Thai trait.

The shootings at the temple and the journalists particularly concern me but i suspect that they will be seen as 'casualties of war'.

When the pressure is on, when bullets are flying and adrenaline is flowing then ones world takes on a whole different perspective. Mistakes are easily made when faced with the enemy who are firing back or merely waiting for you in hiding.
Challenges are important in order to reduce casualties and certainly prevent the deaths of innocent people. Did the military personnel possess those skills? It's certainly no fault of the men on the ground if they haven't been involved in firearms tactical training. It would be the leaders to blame for sending in their troops, putting more lives at risk.

In my view the use of snipers was a good idea, given that the government had made the decision to clear the area and that advancement would most probably would be met with violence.

History tells us that the likely outcome is that an announcement will be made that 'the army were just doing their job'. It's a difficult one to call, if the security services shot the people at the temple, they probably did so mistakingly believing they were at risk and tensions were high. There surely cannot be a justifyable reason why shots were fired unless armed red/black shirts were identified as hiding within. Even if that was the scenario, some form of tactical training would have led them to surround the temple grounds thereby confining the problem.

We hear of many incidents during other conflicts such as the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars where allies are killed by 'friendly fire'. Incidents where innocent civilians are killed merely because they were in the line of fire or troops were high on adrenaline. These troops do not suffer prison sentences, they rarely are charged or come before a court unless it is seen as a malicious killing.

I am afraid Thailand is not alone in denials when it comes to armed conflict. Every government will try to turn things to their advantage. Ten of thousands of innocent civilians/troops have been killed in the middle east on the basis of WMD. I see neither T. Blair or GW Bush sitting in a prison cell.

I suspect individual soldiers will not be charged with any killing, indeed i would be amazed if that did occur. Were the government complicit in the killing of innocent civilians? Well in my view they had a duty to clear the area and were prepared for violence. Soldiers were no doubt briefed beforehand but sitting in a room listening to senior officers is a wee bit different to being on the ground with bullets flying. The government/army generals will say that the soldiers were correctly briefed in minimising the loss of life.

Yes, i would prefer the Thai Government to acknowledge that mistakes were made by individual soldiers during the conflict which they clearly were but then in every armed conflict this occurs.
If the government state something to the contrary then not for the first time they will be making fools of themselves.