Insight

"I acknowledged and denied all the charges and will give more testimony in a written statement," he told reporters.

Of course. The whole lot was photoshopped and faked. He didn't say "tonight we'll be ready" the night battlefield war weapons were fired from Lumpini park into a crowd of unarmed opposing demonstrators, and reinstatement of the 1997 constitution will prove that. Duh.

I could respect this scum just an inch more if they would turn around and say "yeah, we done it, and here's why..." - but they clearly can't even manage that.

Maybe he got a wedding invitation... Could he be the only one coming to town???

He might not be "invited" as such. Rather hired for "security" purposes...

Toys are being thrown out of the pram.

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Is it ok now to flame another member, as long as transliterated Thai is used?

.

Thank you for identifying the offending "gutter level" content I was questioning before.

I do not get why this is "as close to gutter level as one can possibly get."

You made a claim that the army were using tactics beyond their flawed water cannon/tear gas approach during the daytime of April 10th 2010 - an accusation which could very well shift public support towards the actions taken by the red shirts and their militia that evening if it could be proven. Either from a supportive point of view, or a publicity/promotional point of view, the public release of such evidence has very real value.

And yet you refuse to. Most puzzling.

I am not surprised that you don't get it.

From a historical point of view publication of the context of last year's events are of enormous importance. But Thaivisa and its peer review by a bunch of anonymous posters is hardly the venue for such a release.

I am not here to release any "new evidence", but only to correct a few misconception over already publicly available evidence. As to the images you requested, i would suggest to go on a youtube search as there are tons of videos available of the clashes i mentioned.

Now, can we please lay that to rest, as this tit for tat quite possibly bores the shit out of everyone as much as it bores me to death, and most likely will soon be deleted by the moderators anyhow.

So you don't actually have anything new to offer after all, for now at least. Fine. And I don't think this issue "bores the shit out of everyone", especially when there's the potential to learn more about what exactly occurred that day.

Also note, I never once mentioned the word "liar" (except now, obviously, in reference to your previous post). Make what you will.

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

You get the wrong idea if you think that arguing here on Thaivisa would either "further my cause" or "boost my reputation" - on the opposite, it quite likely does damage to my reputation, given that the quality of the discussion is about as close to gutter level as one can possibly get.

I do not get why this is "as close to gutter level as one can possibly get."

You made a claim that the army were using tactics beyond their flawed water cannon/tear gas approach during the daytime of April 10th 2010 - an accusation which could very well shift public support towards the actions taken by the red shirts and their militia that evening if it could be proven. Either from a supportive point of view, or a publicity/promotional point of view, the public release of such evidence has very real value.

And yet you refuse to. Most puzzling.

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

First of all, this little argument has nothing to do with my photos.

Secondly, yes, it is offensive to ask a complete stranger to provide something for free he makes a living with. Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much.

What is offensive as well is that your idea about me that i would be so stupid to lie in a public forum while posting under my real name, and that you have the chutzpa to ask me to back this up with my images (for free), and when i refuse you insult my professional integrity by accusing me of acting in "typical UDD/Puah Thai style".

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

I have "released" the images on April 11, 2010, already. The are at my agency, and you can contact them, and they will quote you a price.

It is entirely up to me where and in which context i publish *my* images for free. Thaivisa, for reasons jayboy has outlined in a previous post, and hammered as well, hardly belongs to the places i consider publishing things for free, unless the moderators and owners decide to clean this place from the fanatic rabble that clogs any political discussion by serial-posting propaganda and bullying anyone away who does not agree with their distorted view.

So there's a price behind the images which could massively benefit the red shirt cause? Well I guess that's what it's always been about since day one.

Any chance the mods could have a whip around? If not, any chance of a little linky to a site you can generate some cash out of?

I was there, and i have images of parts of the violence before sunset (no, i will not post them here). I was stuck at the military lines for the most part because the soldiers have thrown teargas against the wind, hitting them (and me), delaying their own dispersal, in addition to throwing teargas canisters from helicopters. This, by the way, was the nastiest teargas i have ever experienced, three days after my skin still burned.

No the soldiers should have started their dispersal at the appropriate time - just after sunrise - and if they could not have achieved their goal, retreated well before sunset. The "rioters" only clashed with the army because of the dispersal.

Yet there is also the question why the dispersal at the Pan Fa stage, and not at Rajaprasong, as the problematic protest area was not Pan Fa, but the Rajaprasong occupation.

Whatever you may say here - the April 10 dispersal action of the military was a complete screw up, a fact that most officers i talked with do accept. But for some strange reason Thavisa seems to know better.

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

That theory is quite wrong. The Red Shirts have not relocated by nightfall to Kok Wua, as it was well within the Red Shirt protest area all along. Kok Wua was from the start part of the military's assault plan together with Dinso Rd, and over Pin Klao bridge (they troops there though fled). Troops have amassed at both Kok Wua and Dinso for more than one hour before the assault. Before the militants arrived there were already several rounds of clashes between Red Shirts and soldiers. Sorry, you are far off.

And still, you ignore the fact that the military has acted against standard procedures for crowd dispersal.

Photographic and video evidence please. Particularly of the "several rounds of earlier clashes" (which I presume happened in broad daylight...?).

I do believe the red shirts themselves were under orders to get as much video evidence as possible of any confrontation which occurred.

So come sundown, the soldiers should of left the rioters and militants to their own devices. Don't worry, I get it.

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

It's not a question of freedom of speech which I support wholeheartedly.

It's a matter of approach - bullying, hectoring, obtuse - whenever the yellow narrative is challenged.It's only a few people involved however.

Having said that my comment on re-reading looks somewhat pompous, so apologies for that.It's really born out of frustration that someone of Nick Nostitz's calibre is treated so appallingly on the forum, usually by those manifestly less well informed, less articulate and always with a axe to grind.

The bigger tragedy is the speed in which people cry foul when very reasonable doubt is raised.

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

The military was just plain incompetent, and then defeated, but not unprepared. The military chose the day and time of the assault, not the Red Shirts. Can you explain me why the military chose the late afternoon against all standard procedure here in Thailand which dictates that dispersal actions are to be started just after sunrise to avoid gunmen appearing under cover of darkness?

So you have now have absolute solid proof that it was the military that shot first?

Sounds like more hearsay to me.

I have images of Red Shirts running, of soldiers with the guns, of bullet holes, etc. from that morning, which describe the scene quite well. And i have written about it. That should be sufficient. Images show only a small perspective anyhow, just what it in the frame and not what is out of the frame. try to get in darkness protesters being shot from soldiers a 200 or so meters away into the same frame and you are a magician. More important than the so called "exclusive" image is the honesty in the report.

Given this alleged incident is being used to justify a militant force carrying out a surprise attack on an unprepared army which resulted in many deaths we unfortunately don't have to go far to find evidence of, personally I do not find it sufficient at all.

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Well, if it is not enough for you that i say that i was there on the Red Shirt side, and was shot at from the military lines (and have written about it at the time), there was, not long before the recent election a civil court case in which the military was sentenced to pay damages of a few hundred thousand baht to two (i think) of the injured there. The case at the criminal court is still outstanding, as far as i am aware.

You were there?

As a photojournalist who has been covering the red shirt activities all along you must be kicking yourself to this day for not getting an event of this enormity on camera. Also, given lack of photographic evidence of it elsewhere you would of had yourself an exclusive! What a shame.

Frankly I'm surprised this disappointment isn't expressed in your post.

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Suggest you do a simple google search and then retract the above post for disingenuity.

Hang on, are you expecting me to research your side of the debate for you?

You might want to be careful when carelessly throwing the "Google it" challenge around, especially when attempting to make a point.

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Yeah yeah yeah, conspiracy, whatever. What I want to know is, who advised him on that jacket? Really? A big man should NOT wear short lapels. He should talk to the man on his right and find out where his tailor is.

I remember something about it be alleged, that the military were pointing out people with a laser, they wanted the sniper to shoot.

Don't know if I can quotefrom this site, but a seemingly red-shirt supporter wrote

2010-04-17:

"iReport — Eyewitness report, Thai devil government slander "Red shirt kill their own". But the truth is the devil Thai army kill 23 innocent people death more than 800 injured. In the video has shown that after Red shirt protester against the rubber bullet and tear gas from the army.

After they start to used up. Then Thai army start to shoot to Red shirt protester by their sniper army in the building with real bullet. After the first one death the army try to steal the body like last year(2009) to secrete the NEWS.

The unknown heroes start to help the Red shirt protester by locate the target with green laser and attack they back with M79 bom and AK-47 gun. Then the army retreat to their base."

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-433496

Shame the first two paragraphs were not caught on the tens of other cameras there were in the area recording footage.

The army killed 23 people, injured 800 others, and only then started with the snipers. Surely all that must of been caught by somebody else.

There's plenty of footage showing the damage done by the "heroes" however, so I presume the cameras were rolling beforehand....

Edited to add: I think every moderate I know who ever attended a PAD rally expects Thaksin to return and isnt going to do anything to stop it as they are reconciled to it and accept that what came after him was equially as bad, so I cant see these types uniting again with groups they think are discredited. Thinking of it some I know are now actually with team red

Bloody hell. Your viewpoint once upon a time was reasonable and accurate. God knows how far south (or north, as it where) it's gone for you to come up with this presumption.

I assure you if this pardon/amnesty lark continues you will be reminded of the feelings of these moderates towards Thaksin.

There is also a difference between the PAD now and then. Back then it had quite large support as it was seen as an anti-corruption movement and the new style Abhisit Dems were considered clean. Now the PAD has split many times and is seen as a small facist irrelevence that annoyed the middle classes by blocking the airport. This image was even perpetuated by the Dems and their handlers when they assumed power and thought if we sacrifice the PAD then all the silly people upcountry will think we are fair when we put the boot into the reds, which was a misguided policy as they have learned over time. The multicoloureds are an extreme nationalist group led by an extreme nationalist and they have little support. For any of these now small groups to put a demo togther and they would love to do so, they will need the Dems to ship in the southerners to keep things going daytime and the private sector that still supports that side to encourage their workforces to attend after the sun sets backed by a bunch of guards recruited from the vocational school mobs. This side has no mass street movement as they have destroyed it themselves. Also if you add the people who want Thaksin to return to the people who dont give a toss either way, you have a monsterous majority. Playing the numbers game is something this side will want to avoid.

Regarding numbers, I think you missed what happened recently with a certain botched pardon attempt. For people like yourself who are doubtful to the amount of momentum any movement opposing such action would have, it's a big shame the coward in Dubai backed off. If there's one subject which unites all the varying factions you describe, it's the outright opposition to any form of deal with the coward.

The way things are shaping however another opportunity will soon prevail. Just like the red protests last year, given the abhorrent nature of the red and Phua Thai leaders, it won't take many observers long to figure out the game being played here.

Even Abhisit believes in it and he was Eton/Oxford educated.

What gives you that impression?

His rebuke to Hun Sen's curses on him was something along the lines of "I don't believe in witchcraft".

It's not about Thaksin

Given the blatantly trumped-up nature of whatever charges that will be thrown against him, it would give Abhisit the opportunity to play a *real* Nelson Mandela/Aung San Suu Kyi role, further highlighting the flaws of the square headed coward that fled to Dubai and sponsored a war within his own country.

If the charges are trumped up or not proven, that's the end of it.

Refresh my memory but I don't remember Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi being accused of ordering the army to murder unarmed civilians.Personally I'm sure Abhisit didn't either despite the need for further investigation.But your very reference to these figures is grotesque - another example that those obsessed with hatred of Thaksoin tend to lose their moral compass.

a) Warning after warning after warning was given the protesters which remained. I'm not the only person that believes the moment you glue yourself knowingly to an armed movement, you can hardly be labelled as peaceful and "unarmed".

You call my reference to Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi as "grotesque"? I don't believe I'm the first person to compare a Thai ex-PM to such people.

c) My "hatred" of Thaksin stems from many other "grotesque" actions of his own, such as his promise to be on the front line the minute the first shots were fired. Which I believe were by his own red army on the April 10th. No sign of him then, no sign of him now. Coward.