Are Journalists Biased?

[misterjag]

Were the speakers advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Yes. Their main demand was for the government to step down. And they were using violence to get that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=F2vRhaHRzuo

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

Edited May 24, 2010 by misterjag

[hammered]

There's no need to shout. Which Red Shirt leader(s) said this?

See for yourself:

Is it difficult to identify Red Shirt leaders that advocate violent overthrow of the government? If you have audio and video tapes of them speaking, identifying them should be a relatively trivial matter. Perhaps the problem is, the big shots aren't dumb enough to say things in public that would earn them extended prison sentences.

The speeches on their stage were filled with hateful rhetoric and calls for various people to die usually but not only by lesser speakers. It has been widely commented on. Terry Fredrickson refused to translate some it was so bad and other commnetators such as Michael Nelson have said they couldnt listen to such hate filled speeches for more than a few minutes. That is one area where the organization certainly matched stuff of Europe in the 30s although not in others

[Orion76]

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

[whybother]

Were the speakers advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Yes. Their main demand was for the government to step down. And they were using violence to get that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=F2vRhaHRzuo

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Dissolve parliament or we will burn Bangkok to the ground."

Demanding the government hold snap elections AND inciting violence in the same speeches is using violence to get what you want.

"Defend yourselves from soldeiers"

Hurling grenades and shooting at soldiers to try to force the government to step down is a the same as advocating a violent overthrow.

Black shirts moving freely amongst the red shirts = Red shirts

Edited May 24, 2010 by whybother

[thaihome]

From Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-sh...00521-w1ur.html

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

The sniper and his comrade are like two surgeons operating with great precision. Ahead of the bunker, Rama IV Road, normally a major arterial road, is empty. The soldiers are becoming agitated by the return gunfire and exploding M79s, and send back a rain of bullets at the Red Shirts.

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I am mortified. There is a pause before the answer is screamed back from the adjacent bunker: ''No''.

I crane my head around a cement wall that adjoins the bunker and I can see foreign photojournalists in the distance. I call a colleague on my mobile phone and ask where she is. It is close to where the sniper is aiming. I say quietly: ''I am with army snipers and I think you are in their sights, get the f--- out of there, move to the side. I would go down the side street now, they are going to shoot!''

His finger squeezes again - it is excruciatingly slow - and his deadly payload is delivered again but she has moved out of the line of fire.

Well, Jack can certainly write a riveting story. You think he speaks enough Thai to have actually understood what the soldiers were saying or could that have been a bit of literary license?

I do wonder why the storey was titled to be about shooting journalists rather then the Army fighting armed protestors:

The Red Shirts are about 200 metres up the road. They pop out of the side street and hurl one of their primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets (fire crackers) that explode far short of the bunker I am in. I can't help thinking that the army is replying with heavy-handed and disproportionate force. But then I hear the sickening whirl of incoming high-velocity bullets, coming close to the bunker, followed by the thump of M79 grenades.

Is making the question about shooting journalist and foreigners the main thrust of storey rather then the confirmation that the Army was under attack by more then "primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets " a bias or just simple sensationalism?

TH

[misterjag]

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

The Red Shirts aren't a unified, monolithic organization. There's no manifesto AFAIK. Almost anyone with Red Shirt sympathies was allowed to speak from the platform, including a few farangs! Obviously some speakers, but (apparently) none of the major leaders, were guilty of inflammatory speeches calling for violence against the government. Should the leadership of a loosely knit organization like the Red Shirts be held responsible for the inflammatory speeches of a few radical fringe followers? Were these speeches answered? We don't know. Maybe the leaders disavowed any association with the remarks. Edited May 24, 2010 by misterjag

[whybother]

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

The Red Shirts aren't a unified, monolithic organization. There's no manifesto AFAIK. Almost anyone with Red Shirt sympathies was allowed to speak from the platform, including a few farangs! Obviously some speakers, but (apparently) none of the major leaders, were guilty of inflammatory speeches calling for violence against the government.

The UDD is a single group with leaders. Those leaders spoke on stage. They demanded government dissolution. They advocated violence to get this.

What more do you need?

[clausewitz]

Was PAD any better with their propaganda? Funny how no PAD media outlet has v\ever been banned?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12 ... 090273.php

BURNING ISSUE

Is Sondhi's PAD now a brainwashed political cult?

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on December 5, 2008

So the prophet said it over the weekend: "If by dying the country will improve, let death visit us today. It's better than being alive otherwise".

These Davidian-like words were from no other than the supreme prophet, Sondhi Limthongkul, leader of the self-styled anti-Thaksin and anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy on Saturday, as he anticipated a possible clash with the police as the government tried to re-capture Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport, invaded and occupied by the protesters.

Today the PAD movement resembles a political cult. Sondhi himself was a former cheerleader of Thaksin Shinawatra but is now a repentant man on a mission to eradicate Thaksin and his proxy from power. This gives him an almost messianic aura and mission. And there are rituals PAD supporters have gone through over the past two years, in order to prepare them for their "final battle". Never mind if the expression "final battle" has been used many times by PAD leadership - like some born-again Christians who await the Judgement Day, the date can always be re-set to fit the expired deadline.

One daily ritual PAD followers and members go through at their protest sites is the highly frenzied clapping of hands and cheering, encouraged by their five leaders who appear on stage almost every evening. Co-leaders like Sondhi and Somsak Kosaisuk, and others, enter the stage and lift their hands with palms upward, exciting their followers into frenzies. There's also the daily queue for free donated hot meals at the site; and T-shirts glorifying the leaders and their cause to protect the monarchy and promote their controversial "New Politics" of governance. Daily one-sided news and analysis feeds followers through ASTV satellite television and the Manager Group of newspapers. Even plastic Swatch-like watches with faces of the five PAD co-leaders can be purchased for Bt199 at Government House.

This, along with the good and bad times, and the loss of life and injuries among fellow followers, has bonded them.

Gathering in large numbers creates a sense of what anthropologists call "communitas": a heightened bond which threatens law and order as the mob feels invincible and empowered by its sheer numbers.

This kind of ritual and experience has been fostered over the months and it's wrong to simply blame the leaders for brainwashing their followers. The supporters' frenzied response and support has created a mutual brainwashing of the leaders too. A leader like Sondhi must be heavily intoxicated by his own propaganda, as if he is capable of ordering his people to do anything and at whatever cost.

These prophets also promote the worshipping of the Thai monarchy institution. Everyone was encouraged to wear yellow, symbolising the present King. But whether people like Sondhi are true royalists is debatable. The media's inability to discuss the role of the Thai monarchy due to censorship laws and culture has hampered the analysis and understanding of the current political crisis, to say the least.

As for Thaksin. PAD followers do not just hate his actions but deeply abhor the man, his cronies and proxies including Somchai Wongsawat. Thaksin to them is like Satan, and must be destroyed.

It's thus a zero-sum game in their view and no price is too high. Never mind the Thai economy is now reeling from the shutting down of two airports, their prophet claims they would rather die than allow the current regime and Thaksin to cling to power.

Sondhi himself told the PM to first resign, then they would negotiate. But what is left to negotiate? Such a remark reflects how out of touch the PAD leader has become.

After months of mutual brainwashing, and with the majority of Thai mainstream media nurturing and uncritically psupporting them, these people no longer dwell in rationality, law and responsibility. By now, the PAD has grown into a self-righteous semi-fascist monster propelled by its own intolerant political cult willing to ruin Thailand in order to achieve its elusive political "salvation".

[misterjag]

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

The Red Shirts aren't a unified, monolithic organization. There's no manifesto AFAIK. Almost anyone with Red Shirt sympathies was allowed to speak from the platform, including a few farangs! Obviously some speakers, but (apparently) none of the major leaders, were guilty of inflammatory speeches calling for violence against the government.

The UDD is a single group with leaders. Those leaders spoke on stage. They demanded government dissolution. They advocated violence to get this.

What more do you need?

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

[whybother]

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

[mic6ard]

We all know that media sources are never impartial, so this comes as no surprise to anyone. But I have to say that CNN pushed things too far, most biase sources usually distort views, but CNN actually ignore the government's side of the story. This situation deserves to be cover more effectively, it's bigger than elections or other political stories.

I know that CNN is certainly biase, if you watch the various coverages of the Obama election its a 'battle' between FOX and CNN. But when you start painting the government's use of force as being unnecessary and the REDs were unarmed, well that really below the belt.

Doesn't it make you wonder of how many other stories that we never hear the truth about? How many protests, revolts, demonstrations were wrongly reported?

[321niti123]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Very true but is it fair to say the foreign media is bias when Thai media is 10x more bias?

Thai media is biased, everyone knows it, but i expected more from an internationally respected foreign media.

[csolgosz]

Noting that 45% of those who voted said there was not too much censorship or made no comment, I think it says a lot for the calibre of people represented here.

Ostriches.

[misterjag]

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

Of the four video links provided above, I viewed three. (One link was dead.)

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

Edited May 24, 2010 by misterjag

[lannarebirth]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

The problem with the western media is that they decided that they story they wanted to tell was about "poor ignorant farmers seeking democracy". They had to ignore a lot of facts to sell this story. Maybe it wasn't as appealing as the real story of "Thai government allows protests despite violence and danger for general public". They had to ignore many violent acts by reds to cast them as peaceful protesters. They didn't notice that the reds have had their preferred parties in power for the at least 10 of the last 15 years. Western media tends to select the angle they want and report stories that support it. The American press is really bad for that. Around 2007 they decided that "America elects Black Man" was a great story and the media went about making sure it happened.

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction was peddled by what some (maybe mistakenly) regard as a free liberal press. Few are aware that the Georgian artillery shelled crowded towns of ethnic Russians before the Russian invasion of that country. Etc etc

What is printed in the media is just as likely to be a lie as a truth or something inbetween. It is up to each individual if they want to believe it or not and whether people decide to believe it or not is usually a reflection of their own biases rather than anything else.

The media erspecially the so called free media are the most powerful propaganda agencies on earth these days as people are taught to trust them, which is scary.

Yes.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. " -- Anais Nin

[markokang]

BBC sure lost credibility. I know ol' Dan was in the camp and scared, but as a reporter, can't he enter and exit? His expressions showed he thought of them as "victims" reduced to only slingshots and such. No research into the root of the problems were presented. Man, CNN did the same sort of things.

Actually, I though Reuters presented it more unbiased.

In times like this, you'll have propaganda.

I agree, I know a few Reuters journos and they ask a lot of questions to a lot of people and then make up their own mind. CNN etc, come in and get an interview from whoever and leave without much research or even worse incorrect research. Many of the Reuters reporters have been here for years and so already know a lot of background and have a lot of contacts.

[monkeycircus]

@mic6ard But when you start painting the government's use of force as being unnecessary and the REDs were unarmed, well that really below the belt.

you think it was necessary to kill 60 people to clear the protest site? have you not seen the countless pictures of clearly unarmed people lying with their brains in the gutter? including medics. the reds may of been armed, but the majority of the casualties were on the first few days, before the army even got near the camp. those guys they were shooting at were armed with catapults and mlotov cocktails. deadly force was unnecessary and inciteful.

[lannarebirth]

From Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-sh...00521-w1ur.html

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

The sniper and his comrade are like two surgeons operating with great precision. Ahead of the bunker, Rama IV Road, normally a major arterial road, is empty. The soldiers are becoming agitated by the return gunfire and exploding M79s, and send back a rain of bullets at the Red Shirts.

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I am mortified. There is a pause before the answer is screamed back from the adjacent bunker: ''No''.

I crane my head around a cement wall that adjoins the bunker and I can see foreign photojournalists in the distance. I call a colleague on my mobile phone and ask where she is. It is close to where the sniper is aiming. I say quietly: ''I am with army snipers and I think you are in their sights, get the f--- out of there, move to the side. I would go down the side street now, they are going to shoot!''

His finger squeezes again - it is excruciatingly slow - and his deadly payload is delivered again but she has moved out of the line of fire.

Well, Jack can certainly write a riveting story. You think he speaks enough Thai to have actually understood what the soldiers were saying or could that have been a bit of literary license?

I do wonder why the storey was titled to be about shooting journalists rather then the Army fighting armed protestors:

The Red Shirts are about 200 metres up the road. They pop out of the side street and hurl one of their primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets (fire crackers) that explode far short of the bunker I am in. I can't help thinking that the army is replying with heavy-handed and disproportionate force. But then I hear the sickening whirl of incoming high-velocity bullets, coming close to the bunker, followed by the thump of M79 grenades.

Is making the question about shooting journalist and foreigners the main thrust of storey rather then the confirmation that the Army was under attack by more then "primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets " a bias or just simple sensationalism?

TH

Yellow Journalsim

Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Edited May 24, 2010 by lannarebirth

[TheBarbarian]

It seems that the brains of Thai visa readers have been deteriorated from the long time that they have been exposed to the intellectually lazy and slavish way the Thai media do their reporting. They are like dead row prisoners they have no understanding anymore of what is going on outside. Only very simple people would be able to call the reporting of the international press biased towards the reds and that of the local press fair. How can you call something fair when you close down each and every website, newspaper, TV and radio station that reports something that is not to your liking.

I bet that all those people who voted "Fair" for the Thai press and "biased" towards the redhsirts for the international press find their shoe-prints on the toilet seat and use toilet paper with texts that the airport occupation was fun... I personally use toilet paper with the picture of Thai ministers that wipes better.

[rabo]

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

Perhaps the meaning is different than you suppose. Can you please tell us the phrase he used to describe the phrase he used to say "if the government seized power"? If you can't write the Thai then just spell out the phonetics.

Edited May 24, 2010 by rabo

[Ulysses G.]

From Sydney Morning Herald

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I have been here many years and I know about 5 farangs who might have been able to clearly understand this sentence in Thai in the middle of gunfire. I really have to wonder how fluent this journalist is in a very difficult language.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[animatic]

@mic6ard But when you start painting the government's use of force as being unnecessary and the REDs were unarmed, well that really below the belt.

you think it was necessary to kill 60 people to clear the protest site? have you not seen the countless pictures of clearly unarmed people lying with their brains in the gutter? including medics. the reds may of been armed, but the majority of the casualties were on the first few days, before the army even got near the camp. those guys they were shooting at were armed with catapults and mlotov cocktails. deadly force was unnecessary and inciteful.

Someone who has just thrown a grenade at you would then appear unarmed...

But from a distance would you know, or want to risk him having another grenade to throw?

Or if you saw him throwing it at innocents, stop him or not?

How many of those killed, came out from the barricades and assaulted the army?

How many of those killed were part of groups assaulting others of any grouping?

How many died with no hand from the army at all?

It is not proved in any way that all or even most deaths were caused by the army's weapons.

It is sad about the Italian Photographer, but he should not have been wearing 'Black' at this site.

When the press is saying Red shirts with 'Black Warriors' in their midst,

he shouldn't have worn the colors of a protagonist...this was a big mistake.

A long lense camera could be mistaken for a RPG launcher in thick smoke.

I have refrained from mentioning it earlier, but the moment I saw him on the stretcher,

I understood why he got shot. Someone saw him as part of the most dangerous group

on the field that day. All too sad.

I've been burned. A Molotov cocktail is a deadly weapon.

People have died from being engulfed by them.

Sling shot are used for hunting, because they can drop prey.

Catch one ball in the temple and your gone, in most likelihood.

Or it can take out an eye. It is illegal in many places to carry them.

And you ignore the RPG's completely.

I have seen many of the pictures and videos, and you points are only

anti-Gov hyperbole, and apologetics for the Reds.

Edited May 24, 2010 by animatic

[misterjag]

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

Perhaps the meaning is different than you suppose. Can you please tell us the phrase he used to describe the phrase he used to say "if the government seized power"? If you can't write the Thai then just spell out the phonetics.

Here's the video:

[monkeycircus]

im no apologist. i just think the death toll speaks for itself. of course, there is a school of thought that says if they are stupid enough to confront the army, then they should expect to get shot....but you have to ask why they were ready to die...its because the armies actions were heavy handed and it just inflamed the crowd. they were meant to be containing the protest and instead it spiralled out of control. Infact, you have to say that no matter what your political leaning, the whole protest has been completely mismanaged from the very start. obviously some of the soldiers were extremely brave and were ordered to do what must of been a horrible job, but why get sucked into pointless street fighting. were they separating terrorists from genuine protestors? or were they using deadly force when rubber bullets would of done the same job? we are talking about 60 lives here...its a lot.....not to mention the injured. central world will be rebuilt, but whos gonna rebuild these families?

[zank]

im no apologist. i just think the death toll speaks for itself. of course, there is a school of thought that says if they are stupid enough to confront the army, then they should expect to get shot....but you have to ask why they were ready to die...its because the armies actions were heavy handed and it just inflamed the crowd. they were meant to be containing the protest and instead it spiralled out of control. Infact, you have to say that no matter what your political leaning, the whole protest has been completely mismanaged from the very start. obviously some of the soldiers were extremely brave and were ordered to do what must of been a horrible job, but why get sucked into pointless street fighting. were they separating terrorists from genuine protestors? or were they using deadly force when rubber bullets would of done the same job? we are talking about 60 lives here...its a lot.....not to mention the injured. central world will be rebuilt, but whos gonna rebuild these families?

Your posts clearly take the view that the deaths, or at least the majority of deaths, were inflicted by bullets from the guns of the Thai military.

Have you considered the very real possibility, that the many of the victims were murdered by, let's say Cambodian mercenaries for instance, funded by an overseas businessman, with vested interests in discrediting the current government. The said mercenaries would be more than happy, to take shots at Thai soldiers, murder innocent unarmed Red Shirt protesters to cause confusion and contempt towards the military, and take part in the destruction and mayhem in the aftermath. In fact, they would probably be loving watching Thailand self destruct, and would be more than willing to assist in the process.

It is just a theory without any supporting evidence, as are your opinions, yet still, just as credible.

There were a number of reports from people within the protest site, that many of the Black Shirt Guards, were not speaking Thai amongst themselves at all. Rather, they were speaking Cambodian.

There is also one particular foreign businessman, and former Thai politician, who now has many vested interests within Cambodia, and with the Cambodian Government.

Overseas foreign press seem to overlook such possibilities as well.

[Ulysses G.]

Really? I wonder why?

[eeconomist]

The Singapore media are pro-red. While they don't really attack the Government, but you can tell that the Singapore media folks in Thailand are quite sympathatic towards the reds. I think recently the Thai embassy in Singapore complained about the issue to the Singapore Government on the Singapore media!

For the Thai English media, it is an understatement to say that they are pro-Government. They are in my opinion the mouth piece of the Government. Anything Government and Yellow are good and correct, anything red is wrong and criminal!! I'm not just talking about this year, but all this while!!

The only person in the English media that I find writing objectively is Atiya Achakulwisut of BP. He articles are fair and objecitve. She presents both sides of the story and both view points. Sometimes she side the Government, sometimes the reds, but usually her comments are fair and unbaised!!

One example of extreme case of pro-Yellow and anti Red is Veera (whatever) of BP. His article are soooo biased and I stopped reading them for a long while (did he change recently?) If you can find an article or thing that he praises the reds, I'll buy you a big mac!

[gemini81]

im no apologist. i just think the death toll speaks for itself. of course, there is a school of thought that says if they are stupid enough to confront the army, then they should expect to get shot....but you have to ask why they were ready to die...its because the armies actions were heavy handed and it just inflamed the crowd. they were meant to be containing the protest and instead it spiralled out of control. Infact, you have to say that no matter what your political leaning, the whole protest has been completely mismanaged from the very start. obviously some of the soldiers were extremely brave and were ordered to do what must of been a horrible job, but why get sucked into pointless street fighting. were they separating terrorists from genuine protestors? or were they using deadly force when rubber bullets would of done the same job? we are talking about 60 lives here...its a lot.....not to mention the injured. central world will be rebuilt, but whos gonna rebuild these families?

I almost lost my life by red shirt protestors on sukhumvit, armed? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. Military there? No. Unprovoked random senseless violence? Yes. Subhuman? Indeed. Means to an end for "democracy"? Of course not, a communist's tactics.

You've seen the videos, you know the score. Its like being a Holocaust denier.

At least you chose your screen name well.

[monkeycircus]

er...no...i havent considered that scenario. you HAVE seen the videos of the thai soldiers firing into crowds of people havent you? its not rocket science (the countless video clips of this happening, by the way could be considered evidence....i cant believe this is even being debated!) of course....these videos were all biased news reports etc etc

[jitenshaman]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-sh...00521-w1ur.html

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

The sniper and his comrade are like two surgeons operating with great precision. Ahead of the bunker, Rama IV Road, normally a major arterial road, is empty. The soldiers are becoming agitated by the return gunfire and exploding M79s, and send back a rain of bullets at the Red Shirts.

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I am mortified. There is a pause before the answer is screamed back from the adjacent bunker: ''No''.

I crane my head around a cement wall that adjoins the bunker and I can see foreign photojournalists in the distance. I call a colleague on my mobile phone and ask where she is. It is close to where the sniper is aiming. I say quietly: ''I am with army snipers and I think you are in their sights, get the f--- out of there, move to the side. I would go down the side street now, they are going to shoot!''

His finger squeezes again - it is excruciatingly slow - and his deadly payload is delivered again but she has moved out of the line of fire.

Well, Jack can certainly write a riveting story. You think he speaks enough Thai to have actually understood what the soldiers were saying or could that have been a bit of literary license?

I do wonder why the storey was titled to be about shooting journalists rather then the Army fighting armed protestors:

The Red Shirts are about 200 metres up the road. They pop out of the side street and hurl one of their primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets (fire crackers) that explode far short of the bunker I am in. I can't help thinking that the army is replying with heavy-handed and disproportionate force. But then I hear the sickening whirl of incoming high-velocity bullets, coming close to the bunker, followed by the thump of M79 grenades.

Is making the question about shooting journalist and foreigners the main thrust of storey rather then the confirmation that the Army was under attack by more then "primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets " a bias or just simple sensationalism?

TH

TH, not only is your assessment of this spot on, but people need to start investigating their media reports a lot more thoroughly. The reporter writes "I am in a Thai army bunker," meaning he has obviously been allowed in or brought along by the Thai army to give reports, presumably according to the army, that yes, there really is a threat out there and that they are not taking out journalists or innocent bystanders. I would have some fairly sincere doubts about a soldier yelling that across the road, with him understanding it in Thai, not to mention the fact of his yelling that with a farang sitting next to him....my guess is if it really happened, the soldier was wondering if it was okay to still shoot at the perpetrators with grenades and rockets when you could also see farang press reporters near them..but again, i dont believe it....going further with this, I proceeded to google the reporter's name...only one comes up, a freelance Australian photojournalist who lives in Bangkok. When you go to his website, there are no links to articles, stories, etc (maybe some similar journalism from the Sarajevo conflict he mentioned), just offers for a photography course and a portfolio of photos for sale that have no link whatsoever to the type of journalism displayed here. So in terms of a well written report on the ground fronting the Sydney Herald, I think a bit more credibility is needed here.