'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[Buchholz]

If you read the Bangkok Post today you'll find that it's Juttaporn who was responsible for handing over the report to the Reuters

LOL... Jatuporn up to his old tricks and Reuters fell for it...

I could be wrong, but why do you think you know better than journalists who've been involved with Thailand for ten years who speak and read fluent Thai? They could've been misled, but the evidence points against it, so why are you so sure of yourself?

Did Reuters get the "leaked" report from Jatuporn or not?

[Buchholz]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

Yes... my point was, even if there was a gunman inside, surely they could've just retreated? Why did they feel the need to "take" the temple at that point? Bizarre.

Is bombing a temple sinful?

Bundit confessed to being hired by a man with ties to a political party for Bt500,000 to bomb the Temple of the Emerald Buddha (Wat Phra Kaew), but the rocket missed the target as it hit an electric wire and bounced to hit the Defence Ministry instead.

Following Bundit's arrest, police also interrogated Muang Pattaya police Pol Lt-Colonel Supachai Puikaewkham, Passakorn Sirilak and Wayupak Noree. They found Supachai and Bundit were friends and that Supachai's wife and red-shirt protester Jureeporn Sindhiprai used Bundit as her chauffeur and bodyguard. She and Bundit went together to join the red-shirt rally in Bangkok prior to the attack.

Regarding the other temple:

The Nation: Channel 3: Pathumwanaram Temple offers itself as refuge for any side on condition that no weapons would be allowed to be carried in.

May 15, 2010

The Nation: Petrol bombs and boxes labelled 'grenades' were found by authorities near Lumphini park. Weapons were also found belonging to the red shirts in Sarasin and Pathumwaranaram temple. Bomb-making materials were amongst the items confiscated.

May 20, 2010

[Pi Sek]

I've just got online for the first time since Christmas Eve and I was really hoping to see a published report categorically administering responsibility for some of the 91 casualties. It would be great to put this to bed.

Instead, days later, the credibility of the report is still under question and, of course, there has been nothing released.

Disappointing.

[Insight]

Disappointing.

Yet utterly predictable.

[animatic]

If you read the Bangkok Post today you'll find that it's Juttaporn who was responsible for handing over the report to the Reuters

LOL... Jatuporn up to his old tricks and Reuters fell for it...

I could be wrong, but why do you think you know better than journalists who've been involved with Thailand for ten years who speak and read fluent Thai? They could've been misled, but the evidence points against it, so why are you so sure of yourself?

It was obvious to many here last spring that most foreign journalists didn't understand things close enough to give accurate reporting.

It was obvious at the time and increasingly clear since then.

Releasing a report Jatuporn hands them, without 2 external sources for verification is poor journalism.

[animatic]

'rubl' timestamp='1293174928' post='4107296'

PM Abhisit probably said 'clear up the area with as limited injuries as humanly possible'. In gunfire exchange with unarmed protesters that's a wee bit difficult. Like vanderGrift on the 19th, together with some soldiers getting a grenade lopped on them.

In a close-to war-zone with militants, burning buildings, innocents will get harmed. The fault of the government? Should they have rolled over and submit to terrorists? Grow up.

Abhisit probably had nothing to do with it or very little input over what the troops actually did. Where did I say it was the fault of the government? No, they shouldn't have rolled over. They had a right to clear the area, but it doesn't follow from that that all the army's use of force was justified... I mean this is an extreme case, but in policing operations in Europe, protesters often get out of hand and try to occupy areas which the state would rather they didn't occupy. Does it follow that the state has a right to kill them? Obviously not. There are measures which are considered reasonable and measures that are not. Sometimes measures & orders are reasonable but actions of individuals operating on behalf of the state are not reasonable. It remains to be determined in this case what the orders and actions were. But in the specific case of the wat, I'd question why orders were given to fire? Surely, even if there were militants, it would've been better to withdraw and let the militants disappear rather than risking the lives of innocents?

PM Abhisit would know once he gave to order to clean-up, he should leave the army to it. That's delegation, no need for a boss to watch his troop's every move. not all the army violence might be fully justified, but that's hindsight. At the time the main goal was 'clean-up with minimal casualties'. With gunfire exchange and troops getting grenades lobbed on them, troop may have thought 'better safe than sorry'. Anyone having been in combat situations will probably confirm this.

In Europe the situation would never have been allowed to evolve as it did here. In Europe we also have functioning police forces. In Europe protesters tend to be really unarmed. All this makes a comparison difficult to the point of not adding any value.

As for the situation around the wat, see my first paragraph. Very regrettable, but under circumstances somewhat understandable. Remember by that time CentralWorld and ZEN were truly ablaze, lots of smoke and a need to clean-up before sunset.

I agree with your points about Abhisit.

"Very regrettable, but under circumstances somewhat understandable" How so? Much of the shooting happened after sunset. What did it have to do with CTW? You're right in Europe it wouldn't have happened, and neither would the military refusing to obey orders from the PM in 2008, and in fact maneuvering against him.

"In Europe protesters tend to be really unarmed." They often use what most of the red shirts used, molotovs, rocks and so fourth. But I would agree that because there were men amongst them armed with high powered rifles and grenades that the army's use of live bullets was justified. My point is, it doesn't follow that they were always justified in using that level of force.

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

And the corollary is :

Shooting FROM Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorrent and sinful

Well, 'shooting into' really does depend on what was happening IN those temple walls. If you are being shot at from within, or see weapons being deployed, against your fellow soldiers as they prepare to enter the temple, that changes the rules on what is in and out of bounds in that temple.

It is sanctuary only if it is being used properly as sanctuary by all parties, not just some. If some see soldiers over-viewing and then instigate them, that is also beyond the pale. If for example Black shirts drew fire to the temple for political reasons, that changes the game. We know some died in there, and that is truly saddening, but the circumstances are still unclear. And it has yet to be stated unequivocally that innocents were not shot inside the temple by radicals to embarrass the army & government. That would politically be a perfect storm to create against them, if it works... and they are still trying to make it work.

Edited December 27, 2010 by animatic

[SomTumTiger]

Animatic is still talking sense - but the reds ain't listening lol

[Siam Simon]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

And the corollary is :

Shooting FROM Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorrent and sinful

Well, 'shooting into' really does depend on what was happening IN those temple walls. If you are being shot at from within, or see weapons being deployed, against your fellow soldiers as they prepare to enter the temple, that changes the rules on what is in and out of bounds in that temple.

It is sanctuary only if it is being used properly as sanctuary by all parties, not just some. If some see soldiers over-viewing and then instigate them, that is also beyond the pale. If for example Black shirts drew fire to the temple for political reasons, that changes the game. We know some died in there, and that is truly saddening, but the circumstances are still unclear. And it has yet to be stated unequivocally that innocents were not shot inside the temple by radicals to embarrass the army & government. That would politically be a perfect storm to create against them, if it works... and they are still trying to make it work.

Of course, despite there being no factual evidence to support Animatic's above theory, it's completely and utterly unthinkable that an army whose entire modern history is framed by violent and murderous acts of suppression against it's own people just may, possibly, sometimes have reverted to type. Despite the emerging evidence leaning that way.

[nicknostitz]

It was obvious to many here last spring that most foreign journalists didn't understand things close enough to give accurate reporting.

It was obvious at the time and increasingly clear since then.

Releasing a report Jatuporn hands them, without 2 external sources for verification is poor journalism.

While much of the foreign media may have not described in enough depth the enormous complexities of the political situation here, what happened on the streets during those days have been reported quite accurately by especially the foreign media, which has been constantly on the front lines on both sides, as much as we were allowed to. Don't forget - the only known footage, for example, of Red Shirt militants during the fighting in May came from the foreign media. Most of the footage of protesters who were killed came from the foreign media as well, screened very quickly after it happened, while Thai TV mostly switched to soap operas and comedies as soon as the military began to shoot (an exception was TVThai - the former ITV, which has managed to show a bit more than the other channels). Thai TV still has no reports on dead or injured protesters, as if silencing events would make the mess disappear.

Some of the Thai Newspapers did better, especially Khao Sot and Thai Rat. They did and still do a much more professional job than the Nation and the Bangkok Post.

Assuming that Reuters did not verify the documents that were leaked to them (quite possibly not by Jatuporn), is rather naive. Reuters is extremely careful to observe those standard procedures, especially in such sensitive issues. As to independent sources, well, as reported, i have confirmed the authenticity of at least the leaked document concerning the case i am witness of. The reporter of the Nation read to me out of the leaked report, and it came straight out of my statement to the DSI. I can only assume that the remainder of the leaked documents are as authentic as the one i was named as a witness.

One of the other killings that the Nation described in one of the leaked documents, the protester who died while video graphing events on May 13, i (and many other journalists) have been present as well, and can only confirm that the bullets came from the direction of the military without any doubt whatsoever.

And before i get accused here - i had nothing whatsoever to do with the leaks. I am a witness in one case, and have no access to the documents (and i did not try to get access either). I still eagerly wait to see the announced translations of the leaked documents.

I will not get bogged down into a debate of how acceptable "collateral damage" was. From my personal perspective some of the comments by armchair "observers" here are extremely distasteful, as i could have easily been one of such "collateral damage". Furthermore, each one of the dead that are categorized here as "collateral damage" have relatives and friends who still suffer from the death of their loved ones. I would suggest a bit more sensitivity - this is an open forum, and relatives of dead can access and read these not very nice comments.

Dead Red Shirts, dead soldiers, the dead Yellow Shirt - all were human, and none deserved to die for political convictions or doing their duty.

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here, and the results from the different commissions that have been put in place.

[jayboy]

It was obvious to many here last spring that most foreign journalists didn't understand things close enough to give accurate reporting.

It was obvious at the time and increasingly clear since then.

Obvious to you and those who think like you possibly.Most longer term residents (particularly those who have worked professionally here over many years) took a more nuanced and informed view.

I spoke to a Cambridge friend at the BBC who confirmed there had indeed been complaints from foreigners in Thailand.He said it was strange that many of them seemed to have been penned by semi literates who had difficulty in pulling their thoughts together in a rational argument.

My own view is that while there were some legitimate complaints about foreign reporting, it was on the whole quite fair.Much of the displeasure seemed to be because it touched on some home truths that the supine Thai press tended to ignore.Still I agree the Bangkok middle class, Thailand's "useful idiots" didn't enjoy the scrutiny.

[philw]

It was obvious to many here last spring that most foreign journalists didn't understand things close enough to give accurate reporting.

It was obvious at the time and increasingly clear since then.

Releasing a report Jatuporn hands them, without 2 external sources for verification is poor journalism.

While much of the foreign media may have not described in enough depth the enormous complexities of the political situation here, what happened on the streets during those days have been reported quite accurately by especially the foreign media, which has been constantly on the front lines on both sides, as much as we were allowed to. Don't forget - the only known footage, for example, of Red Shirt militants during the fighting in May came from the foreign media. Most of the footage of protesters who were killed came from the foreign media as well, screened very quickly after it happened, while Thai TV mostly switched to soap operas and comedies as soon as the military began to shoot (an exception was TVThai - the former ITV, which has managed to show a bit more than the other channels). Thai TV still has no reports on dead or injured protesters, as if silencing events would make the mess disappear.

Some of the Thai Newspapers did better, especially Khao Sot and Thai Rat. They did and still do a much more professional job than the Nation and the Bangkok Post.

Assuming that Reuters did not verify the documents that were leaked to them (quite possibly not by Jatuporn), is rather naive. Reuters is extremely careful to observe those standard procedures, especially in such sensitive issues. As to independent sources, well, as reported, i have confirmed the authenticity of at least the leaked document concerning the case i am witness of. The reporter of the Nation read to me out of the leaked report, and it came straight out of my statement to the DSI. I can only assume that the remainder of the leaked documents are as authentic as the one i was named as a witness.

One of the other killings that the Nation described in one of the leaked documents, the protester who died while video graphing events on May 13, i (and many other journalists) have been present as well, and can only confirm that the bullets came from the direction of the military without any doubt whatsoever.

And before i get accused here - i had nothing whatsoever to do with the leaks. I am a witness in one case, and have no access to the documents (and i did not try to get access either). I still eagerly wait to see the announced translations of the leaked documents.

I will not get bogged down into a debate of how acceptable "collateral damage" was. From my personal perspective some of the comments by armchair "observers" here are extremely distasteful, as i could have easily been one of such "collateral damage". Furthermore, each one of the dead that are categorized here as "collateral damage" have relatives and friends who still suffer from the death of their loved ones. I would suggest a bit more sensitivity - this is an open forum, and relatives of dead can access and read these not very nice comments.

Dead Red Shirts, dead soldiers, the dead Yellow Shirt - all were human, and none deserved to die for political convictions or doing their duty.

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here, and the results from the different commissions that have been put in place.

Thanks Nick and appreciated.

As you say, let's see how the procedures play out and if the truth and facts will prevail.

[animatic]

Nick and Jboy should re-notice the word 'MOST' used in the 1st sentence.

To be clear.

I had several friends and acquaintances, in and around, several major incidents

many often inadvertently, but there none the less, and direct first person reports from them

contradicted, quite clearly, much of what the International press was reporting.

Not all were as out of the loop in their reporting,

Nick I know you were there, and I am glad you were not injured or worse.

And I don't remember using 'collateral damage' as an excuse for deaths.

On the other hand personal responsibility also needs to go hand in hand

with convictions guiding your actions.

I have a friend that works in Reuters NYC offices, and she bemoans

the general 'must get to press, the clock is ticking' attitude to verification vs being scooped

and she also has worked with CBS and CNN. In all, the line between go to press and

wait for another verification has been receding and blurring noticeably the last 10 years.

Editors are under intense pressure to make a news cycle.

So based on first hand info,

It is not so naive to imagine that facts might not have been checked

quite as well as possible even in a Major network.

Edited December 27, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

And the corollary is :

Shooting FROM Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorrent and sinful

Well, 'shooting into' really does depend on what was happening IN those temple walls. If you are being shot at from within, or see weapons being deployed, against your fellow soldiers as they prepare to enter the temple, that changes the rules on what is in and out of bounds in that temple.

It is sanctuary only if it is being used properly as sanctuary by all parties, not just some. If some see soldiers over-viewing and then instigate them, that is also beyond the pale. If for example Black shirts drew fire to the temple for political reasons, that changes the game. We know some died in there, and that is truly saddening, but the circumstances are still unclear. And it has yet to be stated unequivocally that innocents were not shot inside the temple by radicals to embarrass the army & government. That would politically be a perfect storm to create against them, if it works... and they are still trying to make it work.

Of course, despite there being no factual evidence to support Animatic's above theory, it's completely and utterly unthinkable that an army whose entire modern history is framed by violent and murderous acts of suppression against it's own people just may, possibly, sometimes have reverted to type. Despite the emerging evidence leaning that way.

Of course the army knew in advance this was exactly what the Red Leaders wanted to make them look like. The whole game was to force the army to over react and maybe get a nation wide backlash... didn't work. If the army were not caring at all about the after affects, they would have just cleared them out weeks or months earlier. And let the chips fall... etc.

If they didn't care about changing their image for the better, why wait?

Edited December 27, 2010 by animatic

[nicknostitz]

I have a friend that works in Reuters NYC offices, and she bemoans

the general 'must get to press, the clock is ticking' attitude to verification vs being scooped

and she also has worked with CBS and CNN. In all, the line between go to press and

wait for another verification has been receding and blurring noticeably the last 10 years.

Editors are under intense pressure to make a news cycle.

Yes, i know that there are many problems with verification when it comes to deadlines. These documents are quite different though, there is enough time.

Also, again, the parts that have been read to me were out of my statement to the DSI verbatim.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

Can you tell us please which incidents in particular have your friends and acquaintances seen differently from the western press, in which distance have they been in the incidents, what is their experience in violent incidents? Just the broad "several major incidents" is not enough, accusations have to be based on detailed evidence. I am always interested in hearing different versions to particular incidents.

And in regards to the "collateral damage" comment, i commented not on your post, but in general over a few comments i have read here.

Anyhow thanks, i am also quiet glad that i came away without a scratch.

[Buchholz]

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

[animatic]

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

The best way to spread 'plausible disinformation' is to include some real information with it.

[Buchholz]

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

The best way to spread 'plausible disinformation' is to include some real information with it.

Another is to presume they are valid with overwhelming certainty before they are proven as such.

[nicknostitz]

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

Well, i am quite sure you will get that additional corroboration sooner or later. Just be patient.

[Buchholz]

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

Well, i am quite sure you will get that additional corroboration sooner or later. Just be patient.

Will do. In the meantime, can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty of unknown authenticity?

[cdnvic]

I removed one unhelpful post but otherwise I have to say I'm impressed with the civility that is being shown in debating what is normally a very divisive topic.

Hope i didn't just jinx things.

[Siam Simon]

Of course the army knew in advance this was exactly what the Red Leaders wanted to make them look like. The whole game was to force the army to over react and maybe get a nation wide backlash... didn't work.

I've heard this conspiracy theory more than a few times from people of a particular political persuasion. There was that Wikileaks stuff about an unnamed senior PAD leader allegedly wanting at least a couple of dozen deaths at the big PAD demo outside Parliament in order to force the Army's intervention. But, IMO, at worst this was just dark hope and bluster on the part of that PAD leader. Is there any evidence to support your conspiracy theory? A speech by a red leader? A secretly-recorded conversation? Any leaked Army intel? Anything?

If the army were not caring at all about the after affects, they would have just cleared them out weeks or months earlier. And let the chips fall... etc.

If they didn't care about changing their image for the better, why wait?

There could be any number of reasons why they took a few weeks to try to disperse. I've heard all sorts of speculations on this, most of them plausible and some that can't be discussed here, but none at this time can be proven to be the actual reason.

[Siam Simon]

The best way to spread 'plausible disinformation' is to include some real information with it.

We must just be incredibly lucky to have as a forum member someone who can substantiate some of that real info. Unless, of course, the DSI leaks were intended for the attention of TV Forum.

[Siam Simon]

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

I think most people (and media) have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that the DSI leaks are genuine.

[mkawish]

nicknostitz

Perhaps, you have been at it too long, thus becoming insensitive to issues at hand.

Whether the dead people wore yellow, red, black or dark blue shirts or uniforms,

they were at the spots where they had had been forewarned numerous times and under numerous different conditions that

it was extremely dangerous to be out with the movement et cetera.

More importantly, if a group of unruly crowd came to mess up my properties as the demonstrators did to the public properties in and around RardPraSong and DinDang areas, I would definitely took up arms to protect myself, my properties and everything else.

With hind sight, many agreed that it took the govt too long, way too long to react to control the messy situation which could have been stopped some two months before the shooting and burning.

Similarly, the same govt currently appears to take too long again to react and to tell the world in the matter PraVeeHarn temple dispute that

Thailand does not agree nor does it ever agree with the JBC to remap the areas around the temple in question, particularly the remapping of the areas extended beyond the temple as the other side requests and determines to use the JBC as a tool to accomplish that end.

Sadly enough, the current govt just does not understand, especially the PM, Apisit, that the world stage does not operate on being nice and kind and not speaking out against the surmounting injustice confronting Thailand in the coming month, June/July in particular; if the PM does not announce on the world stage the withdrawal of the MOU immediately and categorically. Just to cite as an example.

Call it what you want, the PM and the current govt on one hand are too inexperient and too coy to nip the bud early.

But more importantly, on the other hand, many assistants around the PM are former friends and business partners of the now in exile 'Tuxsin', many are still hoping that he would return to power, so they could somehow continue to do their businesses as usual.

The PM, Apisit, alone just could not get the job done right. In a way, I really feel sorry for him, especially for Mr. Chuan.

I better stop here. Happy New Year everyone.

Hope my beloved Thailand will be able to hold on to the land that rightfully belong to her, is my earnest prayer for the new year.

It was obvious to many here last spring that most foreign journalists didn't understand things close enough to give accurate reporting.

It was obvious at the time and increasingly clear since then.

Releasing a report Jatuporn hands them, without 2 external sources for verification is poor journalism.

While much of the foreign media may have not described in enough depth the enormous complexities of the political situation here, what happened on the streets during those days have been reported quite accurately by especially the foreign media, which has been constantly on the front lines on both sides, as much as we were allowed to. Don't forget - the only known footage, for example, of Red Shirt militants during the fighting in May came from the foreign media. Most of the footage of protesters who were killed came from the foreign media as well, screened very quickly after it happened, while Thai TV mostly switched to soap operas and comedies as soon as the military began to shoot (an exception was TVThai - the former ITV, which has managed to show a bit more than the other channels). Thai TV still has no reports on dead or injured protesters, as if silencing events would make the mess disappear.

Some of the Thai Newspapers did better, especially Khao Sot and Thai Rat. They did and still do a much more professional job than the Nation and the Bangkok Post.

Assuming that Reuters did not verify the documents that were leaked to them (quite possibly not by Jatuporn), is rather naive. Reuters is extremely careful to observe those standard procedures, especially in such sensitive issues. As to independent sources, well, as reported, i have confirmed the authenticity of at least the leaked document concerning the case i am witness of. The reporter of the Nation read to me out of the leaked report, and it came straight out of my statement to the DSI. I can only assume that the remainder of the leaked documents are as authentic as the one i was named as a witness.

One of the other killings that the Nation described in one of the leaked documents, the protester who died while video graphing events on May 13, i (and many other journalists) have been present as well, and can only confirm that the bullets came from the direction of the military without any doubt whatsoever.

And before i get accused here - i had nothing whatsoever to do with the leaks. I am a witness in one case, and have no access to the documents (and i did not try to get access either). I still eagerly wait to see the announced translations of the leaked documents.

I will not get bogged down into a debate of how acceptable "collateral damage" was. From my personal perspective some of the comments by armchair "observers" here are extremely distasteful, as i could have easily been one of such "collateral damage". Furthermore, each one of the dead that are categorized here as "collateral damage" have relatives and friends who still suffer from the death of their loved ones. I would suggest a bit more sensitivity - this is an open forum, and relatives of dead can access and read these not very nice comments.

Dead Red Shirts, dead soldiers, the dead Yellow Shirt - all were human, and none deserved to die for political convictions or doing their duty.

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here, and the results from the different commissions that have been put in place.

[mkawish]

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

I think most people (and media) have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that the DSI leaks are genuine.

Siam Simon

How did you ever come to that conclusion that

I think most people (and media) have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that the DSI leaks are genuine?

Judging from past vivid experiences, many people in Thailand in particular, with some sane and sound mind would categorically question any and all statements and whatever that 'JaTuPorn' has to offer; is more accurate, imho.

[animatic]

Nice try to spin it Simon.

No sale; but that's typical.

[Siam Simon]

Nice try to spin it Simon.

No sale; but that's typical.

Nice try to spin what? Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theories or don't you?

And Nick has asked you for some specifics about your friends' experiences of this year's troubles in Bangkok. Are you going to provide some?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Siam Simon

[Buchholz]

A good idea, as well, for the supposedly leaked documents.

Can we agree that the leaked documents are with an overwhelming certainty not fake?

If the contents of the documents consisted only of your portion, but just because that portion leaked may match your statements is no reason to conclude that the entire set of documents are authentic as there is no corroboration of the documents beyond your portion.

I think most people (and media) have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that the DSI leaks are genuine.

Siam Simon

How did you ever come to that conclusion that

I think most people (and media) have accepted beyond reasonable doubt that the DSI leaks are genuine?

Judging from past vivid experiences, many people in Thailand in particular, with some sane and sound mind would categorically question any and all statements and whatever that 'JaTuPorn' has to offer; is more accurate, imho.

Very much agreed.

That Jatuporn has a severe credibility problem, eg. doctored audiotapes, claims that Abhisit ordered for the killing of protesters, and countless others over the years... it is beyond bizarre that now, all of a sudden, he's the beacon of truth that "most people (and media)" are flocking to as the stalwart of honesty.

[rubl]

Begin removed, look for original post ...

I will not get bogged down into a debate of how acceptable "collateral damage" was. From my personal perspective some of the comments by armchair "observers" here are extremely distasteful, as i could have easily been one of such "collateral damage". Furthermore, each one of the dead that are categorized here as "collateral damage" have relatives and friends who still suffer from the death of their loved ones. I would suggest a bit more sensitivity - this is an open forum, and relatives of dead can access and read these not very nice comments.

Dead Red Shirts, dead soldiers, the dead Yellow Shirt - all were human, and none deserved to die for political convictions or doing their duty.

These events are very complicated, lets wait and see how the eventual court procedures play out here, and the results from the different commissions that have been put in place.

A bit more sensitivity, on an open forum? What about the right to an opinion? What about the 'right to know'? Many articles in newspapers, or even topics here give gruesome and graphical details on accidents, murder, bomb & grenade attack. Should we refrain from that?

Needless speculation, insinuations and lies should be avoided, I'm afraid that's all.

[SomTumTiger]

People have a right to know, but people have the right to expect their government and military to protect them from black shirted terrorists lobbing grenades and burning shopping malls. The price to restore order was high, but the price had to be paid, and the bill should be sent to Thaksin directly.

As for reporters in the crossfire - they knew the risks - warnings were posted, aried on tv, radio, newspapers etc, several days before any action was taken. They should have been wearing vests and helmets, if they were combat reporters. If they weren't prepared, and were casualties of the retaking of the area, that is regrettable, and I am saddened by it. But what was the alternative? Allowing the terrorists to stay in place? The reds never seem to want to speak to this, they were committing, or at the very least enabling terrorist acts (via the Black Shirts) against the general population. Nick and SiamSimon et al haven't really addresses that tidbit, that I am aware.