Sister Of Italian Killed In Thai Protests Slams Money Offer

[Piengrudee]

So you figure someone should have just run out there and told him don't torch the gas truck.

I hate you say this again & again to stubborn people who does is lazy to look up the FACT. Yes indeed, CRES keep saying that it is a gas truck. It is a lie. It is a YELLOW water truck BMA use to water the road side plant. Get it now, or there are still thick people who simply obey CRES out there.

[AleG]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this is true has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

So:

there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people

Where are they then?

I'm quite sure Army soldiers did shoot unarmed protesters, either intentionally (unlikely) or got shot in the cross fire with armed "protesters" or where wrongly assumed to be armed, like the guy I saw on a video behind a tire barricade, setting off a string of fire crackers and then using a broom to pretend to be shooting at the soldiers down the street. Now if the soldiers hear the bangs, amid the smoke see someone that seems to be holding a weapon and shoot him dead, there you have a dead "unarmed" protester.

Your statement that "there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people" implies that, besides stating as a fact that such videos exists, there are a ton of cases of soldiers shooting, purposely, unarmed people. I'd like to see proof of that. Since there's a ton of photos and videos it should be easy to pick a few compelling instances.

[jayjay0]

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from.

That's just not true. There is, or at least was, plenty of video evidence on youtube which directly contradicts that statement.

Aren't you taking it out of context. While there is video evidence contradicting that statement there is also evidence of it happening.

In fact there is probably video evidence of both sides of contradictorily events. Believe what you want you will find proof of it. However if it is the truth you are looking for. That is a whole new ball game.

[philw]

"yokel" , so that's all right then.

Barman, trebles all round.

So you figure someone should have just run out there and told him don't torch the gas truck.

The shot in the foot was a prudent decision, in very dangerous circumstances,

for more than just the soldier and the wannabe arsonist.

The rioters apologists are really clutching at straws this week.

I wonder why?

usually it's a warm-up to some escalation

Love it baseball lover, are you wearing your helmet yet ??

[Siam Simon]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

[jayjay0]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this is true has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

So:

there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people

Where are they then?

I'm quite sure Army soldiers did shoot unarmed protesters, either intentionally (unlikely) or got shot in the cross fire with armed "protesters" or where wrongly assumed to be armed, like the guy I saw on a video behind a tire barricade, setting off a string of fire crackers and then using a broom to pretend to be shooting at the soldiers down the street. Now if the soldiers hear the bangs, amid the smoke see someone that seems to be holding a weapon and shoot him dead, there you have a dead "unarmed" protester.

Your statement that "there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people" implies that, besides stating as a fact that such videos exists, there are a ton of cases of soldiers shooting, purposely, unarmed people. I'd like to see proof of that. Since there's a ton of photos and videos it should be easy to pick a few compelling instances.

Actually I don't think there is any video's or pictures of that happening.

That would entail showing the soldier and the victim in the same shot. A picture of a soldier shooting a gun proves nothing. A picture of a unarmed dead civilian proves nothing. Now if you could show a soldier taking aim at a unarmed person that would be news. People make those claims only to try to justify there actions or beliefs. If in fact that is there belief and just not what they get paid to say.

[Buchholz]

Love it baseball lover, are you wearing your helmet yet ??

No need.

The rioter apologists are all just text on a screen.

Some even learn how to master that difficult aspect known as quotes. Some, that is.

[Piengrudee]

The Italian shoot (picture) first, perhaps even used the rapid shooting function of his camera to take more photos. Worst, he could be using the continuous shooting mode call viedo recording. The army is merely shoot back, where the shot came from. The fatal error was that 1. He should not have worn black (own fault, can blame no one), and 2. Shooting camera at the army (another own fault, can blame no one too).

[Buchholz]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

[jayboy]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

[Siam Simon]

Sorry, Fred, not to include the other bit from the news:

The man has been accused of multiple M79 grenade attacks in Bangkok and Chiang Mai province between April and September.

But didn't the grenade attacks prior to the Army crackdown take place in Chiang Mai?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

I'm quite sure Army soldiers did shoot unarmed protesters, either intentionally (unlikely) or got shot in the cross fire with armed "protesters" or where wrongly assumed to be armed, like the guy I saw on a video behind a tire barricade, setting off a string of fire crackers and then using a broom to pretend to be shooting at the soldiers down the street. Now if the soldiers hear the bangs, amid the smoke see someone that seems to be holding a weapon and shoot him dead, there you have a dead "unarmed" protester.

Your statement that "there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people" implies that, besides stating as a fact that such videos exists, there are a ton of cases of soldiers shooting, purposely, unarmed people. I'd like to see proof of that. Since there's a ton of photos and videos it should be easy to pick a few compelling instances.

You seem to repeating your earlier post and I've already responded to that, but perhaps to repeat myself, your criticism is partially right, in that there quite possibly aren't a ton of videos which show soldiers shooting and at the same time, unarmed demonstrators being hit. I guess I also assumed a certain amount of shared interpretation, which again was perhaps a mistake but - as I said before - in view of the fact that soldiers were shooting directly at demonstrators and that demonstrators were shot dead and that there is - and I'm talking here more at the May killings than the April killings - pretty much bugger all evidence that the demonstrators were armed, a natural and compelling conclusion is that the soldiers shot the demonstrators intentionally and without justification. So...when I said there was a ton of video evidence, I should have said that there is a ton of evidence which seems to lead to only one conclusion. As for the possibility of all 80 people holding up brooms, or sticks or whatever - the video I posted above shows pretty clearly that that wasn't the case. There are other similar videos on youtube and I hope you won't take offence if I don't bother hunting them down for you; I'm sure that if you have an open mind, you'll be happy to look for them yourself.

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[Buchholz]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

There's a number of less biased and reputable journalists that don't let their own personal persuasions intrude so overwhelmingly on their writing.

Nick just isn't one of them.

[SomTumTiger]

So you figure someone should have just run out there and told him don't torch the gas truck.

I hate you say this again & again to stubborn people who does is lazy to look up the FACT. Yes indeed, CRES keep saying that it is a gas truck. It is a lie. It is a YELLOW water truck BMA use to water the road side plant. Get it now, or there are still thick people who simply obey CRES out there.

Water truck? I watched it on TV live. The announcers were quite clear it was a gas truck. Stop smoking so much before miday

[Siam Simon]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this is true has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

So:

there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people

Where are they then?

I'm quite sure Army soldiers did shoot unarmed protesters, either intentionally (unlikely) or got shot in the cross fire with armed "protesters" or where wrongly assumed to be armed, like the guy I saw on a video behind a tire barricade, setting off a string of fire crackers and then using a broom to pretend to be shooting at the soldiers down the street. Now if the soldiers hear the bangs, amid the smoke see someone that seems to be holding a weapon and shoot him dead, there you have a dead "unarmed" protester.

Your statement that "there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people" implies that, besides stating as a fact that such videos exists, there are a ton of cases of soldiers shooting, purposely, unarmed people. I'd like to see proof of that. Since there's a ton of photos and videos it should be easy to pick a few compelling instances.

Actually I don't think there is any video's or pictures of that happening.

That would entail showing the soldier and the victim in the same shot. A picture of a soldier shooting a gun proves nothing. A picture of a unarmed dead civilian proves nothing. Now if you could show a soldier taking aim at a unarmed person that would be news. People make those claims only to try to justify there actions or beliefs. If in fact that is there belief and just not what they get paid to say.

Or you could have an eyewitness report, with photos, from an internationally respected photojounalist, such as the one to which I just posted a link.

[Siam Simon]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

There's a number of less biased and reputable journalists that don't let their own personal persuasions intrude so overwhelmingly on their writing.

Nick just isn't one of them.

Wonder if he'll notice the Freudian slip in this one .

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The rioter apologists are all just text on a screen.

I thought this was pathetic until I saw

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?.

[SomTumTiger]

With the number of bullets flying around, on both sides, it would be virtually impossible to tell in most cases. But the government warned people to get out of there, a long time ago. Any journalist in the area, would know it was a live fire area, because there were signs posted all around. If he didn't have a vest, and got hit, it seems as if his own personal responsibility for being there is being overlooked.

[hammered]

At a guess I would say most people got shot by troops, some by reds and some by others who could be linked to (add a name you fancy). What was justified and what wasnt, what was ordered and what was panic and what was response and what wasnt and the details I will leave to others to decide and I doubt the truth will ever be known and there will be those that believe other variations as facts. There were many different events at different times and to just look at one to show what happened doesnt help. Every incident needs to be examined to get an overall picture. That many are murky and rely on little, no or degraded evidence doesnt help either.

The best way past this may evetually be a truth and reconcilliation commission. However, that needs all to be willing to hold up their hands and admit to mistakes. The main players arent ready for this yet if they ever will be.

[Buchholz]

The rioter apologists are all just text on a screen.

I thought this was pathetic until I saw

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?.

You mean he's not overt enough for you to see that?

OR

do you mean you are including audio clips along with your text?

Edited December 7, 2010 by Buchholz

[Insight]

So today's lesson is: don't accompany rioters while they roll tyres into a petrol station under watch by an armed force.

Frankly, if that was my petrol station and I was armed, for the safety of those surrounding the station I'd probably find it difficult to keep the thing mounted.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

You mean he's not overt enough for you to see that?

OR

do you mean you are including audio clips along with your text?

Shocking enough, neither. If, at 6 tonight, you're still having difficulty working it out, PM me and I'll give you a clue.

[SomTumTiger]

You mean he's not overt enough for you to see that?

OR

do you mean you are including audio clips along with your text?

Shocking enough, neither. If, at 6 tonight, you're still having difficulty working it out, PM me and I'll give you a clue.

Yes, because I we all care enough to set our schedule around random internet guy's schedule.

[Buchholz]

[Pi Sek]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

But he is clearly a "red" (he can deny it all he wants but the use of vocabulary, his affiliations and the content of his reports suggest otherwise). I don't accept a lot of things he writes, but hats off to him for giving it his best shot. To be more specific - I agree with his interpretation of why the reds aren't happy, but I have to say that the glaring omissions in his reports suggests to me that he is pretty one-sided in his reporting, and that he is selective over which truths he brings up. I'm sure such propaganda is on both sides, so one has to take the rough with the smooth.

Given his affiliation with Australia National University, who have been a vocal critic of "the army's massacre of unarmed protesters" and who give king-bashing airtime to fugitive Ji Ungpakorn, his report doesn't surprise me at all. Personally I'd like to see this university make seminars based on given facts rather than (one-sided) hearsay - such a creditable higher learning establishment does itself no favours by not doing so.

[Siam Simon]

So today's lesson is: don't accompany rioters while they roll tyres into a petrol station under watch by an armed force.

Frankly, if that was my petrol station and I was armed, for the safety of those surrounding the station I'd probably find it difficult to keep the thing mounted.

It would be if anybody had rolled any tyres into a petrol station. But nobody did. So the lesson will have to wait at least until the next series of troubles. Care to make any more subtle mis-representations before you log off for the day?

Edited December 7, 2010 by Siam Simon

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Yes, because I we all care enough to set our schedule around random internet guy's schedule

Hey, I'm just being the good Samaritan, trying to help the needy and less fortunate but if you want to spurn a genuine offer of help....

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[Siam Simon]

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

But he is clearly a "red" (he can deny it all he wants but the use of vocabulary, his affiliations and the content of his reports suggest otherwise). I don't accept a lot of things he writes, but hats off to him for giving it his best shot. To be more specific - I agree with his interpretation of why the reds aren't happy, but I have to say that the glaring omissions in his reports suggests to me that he is pretty one-sided in his reporting, and that he is selective over which truths he brings up. I'm sure such propaganda is on both sides, so one has to take the rough with the smooth.

Given his affiliation with Australia National University, who have been a vocal critic of "the army's massacre of unarmed protesters" and who give king-bashing airtime to fugitive Ji Ungpakorn, his report doesn't surprise me at all. Personally I'd like to see this university make seminars based on given facts rather than (one-sided) hearsay - such a creditable higher learning establishment does itself no favours by not doing so.

But putting all the prevarication aside, do you think Nick was telling the truth or lying in his eyewitness report?

[Insight]

So today's lesson is: don't accompany rioters while they roll tyres into a petrol station under watch by an armed force.

Frankly, if that was my petrol station and I was armed, for the safety of those surrounding the station I'd probably find it difficult to keep the thing mounted.

It would be if anybody had rolled any tyres into a petrol station. But nobody did. So the lesson will have to wait at least until the next series of troubles. Care to make any more subtle mis-representations before you log off for the day?

If there's red shirts, there's tyres nearby. And if they're running into a petrol station I doubt I'm the only one getting nervous.

I'll probably be hitting F5 on this page most of the day in between my day job. Not much effort involved in it really.

[whybother]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this is true has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

Were there snipers on April 10? Was he shot by a stray army bullet or a stray red shirt bullet?

Do you really think he was targeted by the army?

I don't know if red shirts were targeting their own, but given they way they kept on escalating their protests to get a reaction from the government, and that more dead protesters would supposedly help their cause, I wouldn't put it out of the realms of possibility.