Sister Of Italian Killed In Thai Protests Slams Money Offer

[surayu]

Fabio Polenghi, Hiro Muramoto, even Se Daeng being shoot by a sniper while he was having an interview, all killed by mistake i guess as the army was just shooting in the air if they were shooting at all, i am just waiting for the next revelation were all the 3 of them will be confirmed that were flying as birds, i actually recall some resentment toward the alien press expressed by the people in power during those days, just a coincidence?

[Piengrudee]

Payen also told France 24 that Rand was either shot at or hit by stray bullets fired by the army, adding that the Thai army was the only side firing gunshots. http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/14/canadian-journalist-gravely-wounded-in-bankgkok-protests/ This prove that stray bullets can injured and kill Farang. Stray = accidental. So the italian woman can have no claims. In Thailand, if someone die, we give the relative a small amount of money, to help they pay for the funeral. It is not a compensation to shut one's mouth.

[animatic]

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

Shameful post but he is probably incapable of understanding why.

So you say. I disagree.

It's sad, but he made made serial mistakes that led to his end.

And no need to flame me because you do not see that.

Pathetic post with no obvious reason other than a flame..

Edited December 4, 2010 by animatic

[creck]

Payen also told France 24 that Rand was either shot at or hit by stray bullets fired by the army, adding that the Thai army was the only side firing gunshots. http://news.national...kgkok-protests/ This prove that stray bullets can injured and kill Farang. Stray = accidental. So the italian woman can have no claims. In Thailand, if someone die, we give the relative a small amount of money, to help they pay for the funeral. It is not a compensation to shut one's mouth.

The word Farang should be people. All people have a right to life.

Accidents do happen – but deaths should be investigated. Trained Army personnel should not have 90 or so accidents in such a short time. They knew they were moving against (in the main) unarmed civilians and should have taken that into account. Even accidents should be compensated and action taken against the originators if negligence is found.

The international view is that unnecessary force was used. It may take a long time for the government to be brave enough to properly investigate. But while they do not; Thailand is downgraded in the worlds eyes.

[jayboy]

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

Shameful post but he is probably incapable of understanding why.

So you say. I disagree.

It's sad, but he made made serial mistakes that led to his end.

And no need to flame me because you do not see that.

Pathetic post with no obvious reason other than a flame..

It was obvious that to understand why your post was so shameful was beyond your comprehension.

Predictable also you accuse me of flaming for pointing this out.

[creck]

All deaths should be openly investigated – it is the absence of that taking place (and clear report issued) that is causing the problem here. Maybe his clothing was likely to place him in danger – that should come out in the investigation.

I think the use of the word war is not justified. Do you consider the Tiananmen Massacre a war? The only real difference here is scale and that the civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents. An armed man certainly risks his life. I contend that a photographer’s death is different and should be investigated thoroughly. It was not a battlefield before the Army moved in. And afterwards the two sides were so disparate it was closer to a massacre than a battle.

If the army were shooting at men in black – where are the bodies? It is strange that the only man in black that I know of, turns out to be a photographer. I do expect that any armed civilians (in black or not) found, would have been on display. Finding arms is not the same as finding an armed man shot. Were any found? I do not remember any.

[whybother]

All deaths should be openly investigated – it is the absence of that taking place (and clear report issued) that is causing the problem here. Maybe his clothing was likely to place him in danger – that should come out in the investigation.

I think the use of the word war is not justified. Do you consider the Tiananmen Massacre a war? The only real difference here is scale and that the civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents. An armed man certainly risks his life. I contend that a photographer's death is different and should be investigated thoroughly. It was not a battlefield before the Army moved in. And afterwards the two sides were so disparate it was closer to a massacre than a battle.

If the army were shooting at men in black – where are the bodies? It is strange that the only man in black that I know of, turns out to be a photographer. I do expect that any armed civilians (in black or not) found, would have been on display. Finding arms is not the same as finding an armed man shot. Were any found? I do not remember any.

"civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents."

Did you miss the video from the BBC of gunmen shooting at the army on May 19 when they moved in? Or the video of the army personnel and reporters injured and killed by grenades on May 19? And plenty of other evidence that the "civil" protesters "may" have been armed?

[jayjay0]

Payen also told France 24 that Rand was either shot at or hit by stray bullets fired by the army, adding that the Thai army was the only side firing gunshots. http://news.national...kgkok-protests/ This prove that stray bullets can injured and kill Farang. Stray = accidental. So the italian woman can have no claims. In Thailand, if someone die, we give the relative a small amount of money, to help they pay for the funeral. It is not a compensation to shut one's mouth.

The word Farang should be people. All people have a right to life.

Accidents do happen – but deaths should be investigated. Trained Army personnel should not have 90 or so accidents in such a short time. They knew they were moving against (in the main) unarmed civilians and should have taken that into account. Even accidents should be compensated and action taken against the originators if negligence is found.

The international view is that unnecessary force was used. It may take a long time for the government to be brave enough to properly investigate. But while they do not; Thailand is downgraded in the worlds eyes.

Yes that may be the international view. You how ever are omitting the fact that the international view is based on a some what semi reliable press. The facts show a different story.

Ask yourself what would you do if you were asked to personally move them out. A far different scene than sitting in a chair behind a computer. Remember that all though they were not all armed some were and they were shooting at you. Would you run up to each one to see if he had a gun. Remember they were not in full view all of the time. Behind barricades and burning tires.

[jayjay0]

All deaths should be openly investigated – it is the absence of that taking place (and clear report issued) that is causing the problem here. Maybe his clothing was likely to place him in danger – that should come out in the investigation.

I think the use of the word war is not justified. Do you consider the Tienanmen Massacre a war? The only real difference here is scale and that the civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents. An armed man certainly risks his life. I contend that a photographer's death is different and should be investigated thoroughly. It was not a battlefield before the Army moved in. And afterwards the two sides were so disparate it was closer to a massacre than a battle.

If the army were shooting at men in black – where are the bodies? It is strange that the only man in black that I know of, turns out to be a photographer. I do expect that any armed civilians (in black or not) found, would have been on display. Finding arms is not the same as finding an armed man shot. Were any found? I do not remember any.

"civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents."

Did you miss the video from the BBC of gunmen shooting at the army on May 19 when they moved in? Or the video of the army personnel and reporters injured and killed by grenades on May 19? And plenty of other evidence that the "civil" protesters "may" have been armed?

Yes that phrase MAY HAVE jumped right out at me. How do you have a intelligent conversation with people who are in denial of there part in a sad situation.

And to even try to compare it to the Tienanmen Massacre is ludicrous. It is a direct insult to the victims in the Tienanmen Massacre to put them in the same class as the for hire red shirts.

[jayboy]

Yes that may be the international view. You how ever are omitting the fact that the international view is based on a some what semi reliable press. The facts show a different story.

Ask yourself what would you do if you were asked to personally move them out. A far different scene than sitting in a chair behind a computer. Remember that all though they were not all armed some were and they were shooting at you. Would you run up to each one to see if he had a gun. Remember they were not in full view all of the time. Behind barricades and burning tires.

I'm guessing you meant "unreliable" international press.I disagree and thought despite some errors it was possible to gain a good understanding from international reporters.It's always a good idea to look at several sources.The local cowed press were generally either silent, particularly on context, or just cheerleaders for repression like some on this forum.

But my reasaon for posting is to point out the irony in this very thread one of your kindred spirits invokes the BBC to make his point.Kind of confirms my view that those who criticise the foreign media do so when it upsets their prejudices but are much more relaxed when it confirms them.

[creck]

All deaths should be openly investigated – it is the absence of that taking place (and clear report issued) that is causing the problem here. Maybe his clothing was likely to place him in danger – that should come out in the investigation.

I think the use of the word war is not justified. Do you consider the Tiananmen Massacre a war? The only real difference here is scale and that the civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents. An armed man certainly risks his life. I contend that a photographer's death is different and should be investigated thoroughly. It was not a battlefield before the Army moved in. And afterwards the two sides were so disparate it was closer to a massacre than a battle.

If the army were shooting at men in black – where are the bodies? It is strange that the only man in black that I know of, turns out to be a photographer. I do expect that any armed civilians (in black or not) found, would have been on display. Finding arms is not the same as finding an armed man shot. Were any found? I do not remember any.

"civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents."

Did you miss the video from the BBC of gunmen shooting at the army on May 19 when they moved in? Or the video of the army personnel and reporters injured and killed by grenades on May 19? And plenty of other evidence that the "civil" protesters "may" have been armed?

A better wording may have made it plain that I meant the really vast majority of protesters were not armed and that the army's approach should have been in that light. I meant that an individual in the army may have been targeted by an armed man. The army were not in any sense going to face an armed horde. The point is, that many weapons could and should have been used before live rounds. Water cannon and tear gas (or other nonfatal gasses) should have been used first. These are quite effective even against armed men.

The use of APC against the (possibly mined) barriers was quite obviously a correct tactic, but they did not need the protection of live fire.

Again, I say that a good investigation (and clear report) would show what the army faced and whether they, at a local level, were given the orders that were announced publically and did act responsibly. If it can be established who fired first that would be a very important fact. If the Army had used non fatal weapons until they were fired on, they could have made it very clear who was at fault and they would have gained backing in their action.

At the moment, I don’t see that the conclusion that unnecessary force was used, is based on unreliable reports. Were armed civilian casualties found?

[whybother]

Yes that may be the international view. You how ever are omitting the fact that the international view is based on a some what semi reliable press. The facts show a different story.

Ask yourself what would you do if you were asked to personally move them out. A far different scene than sitting in a chair behind a computer. Remember that all though they were not all armed some were and they were shooting at you. Would you run up to each one to see if he had a gun. Remember they were not in full view all of the time. Behind barricades and burning tires.

I'm guessing you meant "unreliable" international press.I disagree and thought despite some errors it was possible to gain a good understanding from international reporters.It's always a good idea to look at several sources.The local cowed press were generally either silent, particularly on context, or just cheerleaders for repression like some on this forum.

But my reasaon for posting is to point out the irony in this very thread one of your kindred spirits invokes the BBC to make his point.Kind of confirms my view that those who criticise the foreign media do so when it upsets their prejudices but are much more relaxed when it confirms them.

Yes. I used the BBC. Because they showed video of armed red shirts shooting at the army. The distinct lack of reporting that the red shirts were armed by some of the international press made that piece all the more relevant.

[gemini81]

May be I am reading a different article to the rest of TV members?

The way I understand the article is that she isn't really complaining about the fact he was killed.

But about the fact that no information is being released.

Because they don't really have a heck of a lot of info on it, and that makes them feel embarrased I suppose.

You'd think more would be known since there was countless footage about more precise details

Deductive reasoning sorta puts it together though, dressed the way he was, and the desire to play with fire resulting in getting burned, wearing all the wrong clothes and being in all the wrong places.

[whybother]

A better wording may have made it plain that I meant the really vast majority of protesters were not armed and that the army's approach should have been in that light. I meant that an individual in the army may have been targeted by an armed man. The army were not in any sense going to face an armed horde. The point is, that many weapons could and should have been used before live rounds. Water cannon and tear gas (or other nonfatal gasses) should have been used first. These are quite effective even against armed men.

The use of APC against the (possibly mined) barriers was quite obviously a correct tactic, but they did not need the protection of live fire.

Again, I say that a good investigation (and clear report) would show what the army faced and whether they, at a local level, were given the orders that were announced publically and did act responsibly. If it can be established who fired first that would be a very important fact. If the Army had used non fatal weapons until they were fired on, they could have made it very clear who was at fault and they would have gained backing in their action.

At the moment, I don't see that the conclusion that unnecessary force was used, is based on unreliable reports. Were armed civilian casualties found?

Yes. The vast majority of the protesters were not armed. Also, a vast majority of the red shirt protesters were not provoking and attacking the army. AND a vast majority of the protesters were not killed or injured.

There were rubber bullets and water cannons used, particularly at Thaicom, where it made little difference. Even on April 10, rubber bullets were used. But at what stage should the army start using live rounds when they are being hit by live bullets and grenades from the red shirts. We don't know, and it will be impossible to know, who started firing on April 10, but the point is, the red shirts were armed on that night. WHY WERE THEY ARMED? They were supposed to be peaceful protesters.

Ofcourse the army needed the protection of live fire on May 19. They were being shot at!!!

Here is a similar story from Brazil where the police went in to some slums to get armed drug gangs out of there. http://www.latimes.c...0,1390151.story

Do you think they should have gone in with rubber bullets and water cannons?

Edited December 4, 2010 by whybother

[creck]

All deaths should be openly investigated – it is the absence of that taking place (and clear report issued) that is causing the problem here. Maybe his clothing was likely to place him in danger – that should come out in the investigation.

I think the use of the word war is not justified. Do you consider the Tienanmen Massacre a war? The only real difference here is scale and that the civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents. An armed man certainly risks his life. I contend that a photographer's death is different and should be investigated thoroughly. It was not a battlefield before the Army moved in. And afterwards the two sides were so disparate it was closer to a massacre than a battle.

If the army were shooting at men in black – where are the bodies? It is strange that the only man in black that I know of, turns out to be a photographer. I do expect that any armed civilians (in black or not) found, would have been on display. Finding arms is not the same as finding an armed man shot. Were any found? I do not remember any.

"civil protest in Thailand may have included some armed insurgents."

Did you miss the video from the BBC of gunmen shooting at the army on May 19 when they moved in? Or the video of the army personnel and reporters injured and killed by grenades on May 19? And plenty of other evidence that the "civil" protesters "may" have been armed?

Yes that phrase MAY HAVE jumped right out at me. How do you have a intelligent conversation with people who are in denial of there part in a sad situation.

And to even try to compare it to the Tienanmen Massacre is ludicrous. It is a direct insult to the victims in the Tienanmen Massacre to put them in the same class as the for hire red shirts.

I certainly did not and would not class the redshirts with the populous of Beijing who backed the student protests. I would never insult the victims in the Tiananmen Massacre. At least one of those who died was a friend of mine, maybe that is why it is often in the front of my mind.

However, to send in an Army firing live rounds (albeit on a different scale) is what happened in both cases. There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

The redshirts may have caused much more disruption and damage (in a much smaller area) than did the Chinese Protests of ’89, but that did not justify the action taken in Bangkok. If I did not shock you into seeing the similarities; then I failed. I would not say that either side of the two actions acted in the same way. Certainly not; I am sorry if I gave that impression. It certainly would be ludicrous to say the two events were similar in any detail. For a small example, the protestors in Beijing covered the CCTV cameras; the CCTV cameras were destroyed in Bangkok. The Chinese government is much tougher and more efficient in covering up what happened, no relative of or colleague of a person that died is allowed to mourn or to refer to it. In Bangkok, no bodies were burnt as far as I know.

[whybother]

<snip>

However, to send in an Army firing live rounds (albeit on a different scale) is what happened in both cases. There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

<snip>

You don't consider storming through police and army lines at parliament or Thaicom as riot?

There doesn't really need to be riot to send police in to disperse a protest. It just depends on how entrenched or how violent the protesters become as to how forceful the police need to get.

There are numerous cases world wide where police were sent in to disperse protests. I don't remember any others where the protesters started fighting back with guns and grenades.

[rubl]

Having read through the comments so far the consensus appears to be that the reporter only had himself to blame, by either being there in the first place, not realising he could be shot by the red shirts according to one poster, wearing black and therefore offering himself as a target by another poster, being obscured by smoke and therefore a target, having the temerity to die from one bullet instead of several and best of all getting shot because he probably had a camera with a long lens that could be mistaken with a grenade launcher whilst mingling with people who were carrying and allegedly using grenade launchers. Now take a long hard look at yourselves and accept that it looks likely that he was doing a dangerous job, wearing a flak jacket and helmet, identified as press, was shot and died as a result of a gunshot wound to the stomach, probably by the army as the initial report after 6 months from CRES suggests. Why all the angry noise about the deceased? Why is it that the army more than likely were responsible for killing the photographer upset you so? Does it upset your ordered view of the events of April/May?

It's only in the last two sentences I start to disagree. The most likely fact that Fabio P. was shot by troops is discomforting and regrettable. Doesn't upset me though. I only got upset when some poster wrote 'trigger happy' and 'Fabio was shot again and again' which is totally incorrect. The rest of the posts here regurgitate point of views, correct and incorrect ones. May be love of democracy, but not necessarily truth

[rubl]

Fabio Polenghi, Hiro Muramoto, even Se Daeng being shoot by a sniper while he was having an interview, all killed by mistake i guess as the army was just shooting in the air if they were shooting at all, i am just waiting for the next revelation were all the 3 of them will be confirmed that were flying as birds, i actually recall some resentment toward the alien press expressed by the people in power during those days, just a coincidence?

Fabio and Hiro probably shot by the army while extreme unrest, violence erupted. Those black-shirts who caused it responsable. Seh Daeng asked for it, sorry, but he almost literally did just that.

As for resentment towards alien press, red-shirts tried to burn down Channel3 building with occupants, BP office evacuated, journalists harassed, equipment smashed.

Any co-incidence with smashed CCTV camera's ? Surely those peaceful red-shirts had nothing to hide (apart from a handful of grenades) ?

Edited December 4, 2010 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

<snip>

However, to send in an Army firing live rounds (albeit on a different scale) is what happened in both cases. There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

<snip>

You don't consider storming through police and army lines at parliament or Thaicom as riot?

I don't. It was civil disobedience. If the protestors had used large scale violence at Parliament or Thaicom they would have been rioting. But they didn't. So they weren't.

There doesn't really need to be riot to send police in to disperse a protest. It just depends on how entrenched or how violent the protesters become as to how forceful the police need to get.

Except that it was the Army that was sent in to disperse. Plus, it was sent in to disperse long after the Parliament and Thaicom incidents had been and gone. Plus, the protestors were peaceful at the time the Army was sent in. Plus, the decision to disperse was taken in full knowledge that the whole situation had a real possibility of costing large-scale casualties.

Lessons on crowd control at all types of protests in first world countries are always being learned, and practices being improved. In Thailand, it's groundhog day.

Interesting that recent events in Brazil are being used as comparison. History on the whole of that continent shows us that violence tends to lead to more violence, whatever side it's coming from.

[housepainter]

Pasted from:

Reporters Without Borders [ 16 May 2010] ......

called on the Thai Army and the Red Shirts to guarantee the safety of journalists covering ongoing clashes in Bangkok after three reporters were injured: a cameraman for France 24, a photographer for Thai newspaper Matichon, and a photographer for the Thai daily The Nation.

“The confusion reigning in various parts of Bangkok do not suffice to explain the shooting injuries sustained by several Thai and foreign journalists since April,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Both camps must comply fully with the requirements of international law, according to which journalists cannot be military targets. We also call for an investigation to establish who gave the orders to shoot a rebel general as he was being interviewed by journalists.”

The press freedom organisation added: “We note that Thailand has just got itself elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we urge the government to guarantee the safety of civilians and put an end to news censorship, in particular, the blocking of the Prachatai website.”

Nelson Rand, a Canadian reporter employed by the French TV news station France 24, was badly injured today by automatic gunfire near the Suan Lum night bazaar. Cyriel Payen, France 24’s Bangkok bureau chief, said he was hit in an exchange of shots between soldiers and Red Shirts. A photographer with the Thai newspaper Matichon also sustained a gunshot injury in the same place.

“He underwent a very long operation and came out of the operating room at about 6 pm,” Payen said about Rand. “He is slowly recovering consciousness. He was hit three times by shots from an assault rifle. Once in the leg, causing the loss of a lot of blood. Once in the abdomen and once in the hand, causing multiple fractures. The doctors say his condition is now stable.”

A third journalist, working for The Nation, Chaiwat Pumpuang, was shot in the right leg on 15 May as the army tried to disperse Red Shirts blocked a road at Din Daeng in Bangkok. Continued shooting in the area prevented the photographer from being taken to hospital for half an hour.

A journalist working for Voice TV, a Thai cable station that supports the Red Shirts, was also reportedly injured in Bangkok. Red Shirt protesters harassed a TV crew working for Thailand’s Channel 3, accusing them of supporting the government. After an argument, the journalists were able to leave the scene.

Hiroyuki Muramoto, a Japanese cameraman working for the Reuters news agency, was fatally shot and a France 24 cameraman was injured in clashes in Bangkok on 10 April. The results of the official investigation into Muramoto’s death have still not been released.

Reporters Without Borders is also shocked by the methods used by the army to eliminate the pro-Red Shirt general Khattiya Sawasdipol, who was shot in the head yesterday while being interviewed by International Herald Tribune reporter Thomas Fuller. Another journalist who was there said the shot appeared to have been fired by a sniper.

Fuller told CNN: “I was facing him, he was answering my questions, looking at me and the bullet hit him in the forehead, from what I could tell. It looks like the bullet came over my head and struck him.”

At least three people have been killed and more than 60 have been injured in the past 24 hours in Bangkok.

[creck]

Fabio Polenghi, Hiro Muramoto, even Se Daeng being shoot by a sniper while he was having an interview, all killed by mistake i guess as the army was just shooting in the air if they were shooting at all, i am just waiting for the next revelation were all the 3 of them will be confirmed that were flying as birds, i actually recall some resentment toward the alien press expressed by the people in power during those days, just a coincidence?

Fabio and Hiro probably shot by the army while extreme unrest, violence erupted. Those black-shirts who caused it responsable. Seh Daeng asked for it, sorry, but he almost literally did just that.

As for resentment towards alien press, red-shirts tried to burn down Channel3 building with occupants, BP office evacuated, journalists harassed, equipment smashed.

Any co-incidence with smashed CCTV camera's ? Surely those peaceful red-shirts had nothing to hide (apart from a handful of grenades) ?

Don’t smudge the chronology of events, it makes a great deal of difference. The unrest and violence was not much in evidence before the army went in. I don’t think it an exaggeration to say the army action caused the lethal violence and unrest to erupt. Certainly, they had the greater fire power and responsibility. They did not go in to calm things down.

The red shirt actions (nobody disputes that it was the redshirts) after the army went in (like the Cannel3 building attack etc.) were horrendous – truly awful. Finding those responsible and proving their culpability is extremely important. It is as important as finding facts on the circumstances of the deaths at the rally site and around when the army ‘went in’.

The Press? Neither side liked them because they were revealing the sins of both sides.

As for Se Daeng - No action of a sane person can be said to be literally asking to be shot. No action justifies summary execution in a society that has law and order.

[babsy65]

[it's only in the last two sentences I start to disagree. The most likely fact that Fabio P. was shot by troops is discomforting and regrettable. Doesn't upset me though. I only got upset when some poster wrote 'trigger happy' and 'Fabio was shot again and again' which is totally incorrect. The rest of the posts here regurgitate point of views, correct and incorrect ones. May be love of democracy, but not necessarily truth

The fact that a killing of a fellow human being does't upset you, that's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, even though nobody asked for it.

But please, out of respect for other fellow human beings, including his widowed wife, his family, his 4 yrs kid who do not share the same feelings about his killing as you do, it would be best if certain personal comments were kept to yourself.

Edited December 4, 2010 by babsy65

[creck]

Not sure how the events in Brazil can be relevant. Every member of those Drug Gangs was armed and intent on killing to pursue their ends. Only the Army could have subdued them and impossible to do that without causalities. Thier problem could be called a war.

To draw them into the discussion is ludicrous.

[whybother]

Don't smudge the chronology of events, it makes a great deal of difference. The unrest and violence was not much in evidence before the army went in. I don't think it an exaggeration to say the army action caused the lethal violence and unrest to erupt. Certainly, they had the greater fire power and responsibility. They did not go in to calm things down.

The red shirt actions (nobody disputes that it was the redshirts) after the army went in (like the Cannel3 building attack etc.) were horrendous – truly awful. Finding those responsible and proving their culpability is extremely important. It is as important as finding facts on the circumstances of the deaths at the rally site and around when the army 'went in'.

The Press? Neither side liked them because they were revealing the sins of both sides.

As for Se Daeng - No action of a sane person can be said to be literally asking to be shot. No action justifies summary execution in a society that has law and order.

The unrest and violence WAS in evidence as shown when the protesters stormed parliament and Thaicom.

The army went in to disperse the protesters on April 10 . There were armed red shirts. How would you expect the army to respond to being shot at with bullets and grenades.

Not sure how the events in Brazil can be relevant. Every member of those Drug Gangs was armed and intent on killing to pursue their ends. Only the Army could have subdued them and impossible to do that without causalities. Thier problem could be called a war.

To draw them into the discussion is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous to compare the situations. One group were armed drug gang members. The other group were armed protesters.

How is that different than when the army moved in on armed protesters in May? As you say, only the army could have subdued the armed protesters and it was impossible to do that without casualties, especially some behind red shirt barricades.

[SergeiY]

Apologist looking for reasons to justify murder.

He was wearing a black T-shirt, didn't understand the 'dress code' ...

How absurd some people can get. disgusting

[animatic]

'apollo13'

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

Shameful post but he is probably incapable of understanding why.

So you say. I disagree.

It's sad, but he made made serial mistakes that led to his end.

And no need to flame me because you do not see that.

Pathetic post with no obvious reason other than a flame..

It was obvious that to understand why your post was so shameful was beyond your comprehension.

Predictable also you accuse me of flaming for pointing this out.

Because what you say is intentionally insulting.

{ Forum rules

1) To respect fellow members.

4) Not to flame fellow members. Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. }

I have a different opinion on the issue.

Only you seem to feel it's your position to apportion shame, That is not your job, shame on you for attempting that. I feel sorry that he's dead of course, but he is more than a small part of the cause. No amounts of flames from you can change those basic facts.

As to another posters assertion of the absurdity of going into a live fire zone dressed like EITHER side of the combatants, if someone can NOT see the reasons to observe and follow the way people are dressing, then it's not my fault they can't follow some simple logic to it's end.

Why do you think different armies wear different uniforms on combat zones?

Edited December 4, 2010 by animatic

[jayboy]

I have a different opinion on the issue.

Only you seem to feel it's your position to apportion shame, That is not your job, shame on you for attempting that. I feel sorry that he's dead of course, but he is more than a small part of the cause. No amounts of flames from you can change those basic facts.

I will leave it to forum members to decide whether your dress code post was appropriate.I think it was shameful and lacking in sensitivity, and I doubt whether I am alone in that view.

[babsy65]

Apologist looking for reasons to justify murder.

He was wearing a black T-shirt, didn't understand the 'dress code' ...

How absurd some people can get. disgusting

Absurd and insensitive... and completely ignorant of the facts as they really happened.

A Dutch photographer/reporter was standing only a couple of metres away from the Italian when the army started firing in their direction.

As they started to run, the Italian reporter as well as the Dutch were hit from behind by a single bullet. Luckily for the Dutch guy, the bullet did not kill him. The Dutch guy was wearing a WHITE T-SHIRT. Is this perhaps the reason why is still alive?

Get the facts right before posting .... read the sad article on Prachathai where the last moments of the Italian photographer are described in details.. and if you have another 5 mins to spare, read the extract of the press conference held by his sister soon after his death.

Then, and only THEN start posting your insulting comments.

[apollo13]

Apologist looking for reasons to justify murder.

He was wearing a black T-shirt, didn't understand the 'dress code' ...

How absurd some people can get. disgusting

Absurd and insensitive... and completely ignorant of the facts as they really happened.

A Dutch photographer/reporter was standing only a couple of metres away from the Italian when the army started firing in their direction.

As they started to run, the Italian reporter as well as the Dutch were hit from behind by a single bullet. Luckily for the Dutch guy, the bullet did not kill him. The Dutch guy was wearing a WHITE T-SHIRT. Is this perhaps the reason why is still alive?

Get the facts right before posting .... read the sad article on Prachathai where the last moments of the Italian photographer are described in details.. and if you have another 5 mins to spare, read the extract of the press conference held by his sister soon after his death.

Then, and only THEN start posting your insulting comments.

Here is the article :http://friskodude.bl...o-polenghi.html .....

[animatic]

Apologist looking for reasons to justify murder.

He was wearing a black T-shirt, didn't understand the 'dress code' ...

How absurd some people can get. disgusting

Absurd and insensitive... and completely ignorant of the facts as they really happened.

A Dutch photographer/reporter was standing only a couple of metres away from the Italian when the army started firing in their direction.

As they started to run, the Italian reporter as well as the Dutch were hit from behind by a single bullet. Luckily for the Dutch guy, the bullet did not kill him. The Dutch guy was wearing a WHITE T-SHIRT. Is this perhaps the reason why is still alive?

Get the facts right before posting .... read the sad article on Prachathai where the last moments of the Italian photographer are described in details.. and if you have another 5 mins to spare, read the extract of the press conference held by his sister soon after his death.

Then, and only THEN start posting your insulting comments.

Here is the article :http://friskodude.bl...o-polenghi.html .....

Neither this Parkes article nor the hyperventilation at my comments has changed a thing. It neither states why the Dutch photographer was not killed, nor if he was in front or behind, nor if he was accidentally at the instant at shooting in or out of line with the Italian photographer. If it was snipers, then obviously they could not be in line unless by random chance. Snipers from above do not shoot horizontally.

None of this at all states who actually shot him, or why and and none of it makes any addition to the facts as known at that time. And this in now way makes him less culpable for putting himself there in the first place. You could not have paid me enough to go in there.

It is sad, I'm sorry he's dead.

All this hyperventilation always misses that point that I stated several times.

Edited December 4, 2010 by animatic