Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

[philw]

Nick it would seem that unless you personally stood beside a military officer and he counted every shot fired and who they were fired out then proof read your report and countersigned it then shot you in the leg for good measure then some here just will not accept that it happened.

I don't care if you are for the reds or yellows, if you saw indiscriminate shooting then you saw it, regardless of your sympathies.

Good to see someone who was actually there and experience it first hand give a report on it.

I don't think anyone disregards the value of Nick's first hand observations. They certainly carry more weight than those of people not in Bangkok, or not even in Thailand.

Doesn't mean they are above question though. I would certainly question a comment like, "if you were there, you would know exactly who shot whom". Would you not?

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

Round and round and round and round....................I can't see the point of the constant denial nd nitpicking criticism of witness accounts.

Please get used to the fact that the RTA shot unarmed Thai citizens, in some cases in cold blood.

The last Government were not interested in any meaningful enquiry or investigation.

Why could that be ??

Almost everyone else recognises this and it may, just possibly, however remotely, have some bearing on the election result.

[Wallaby]

Nick it would seem that unless you personally stood beside a military officer and he counted every shot fired and who they were fired out then proof read your report and countersigned it then shot you in the leg for good measure then some here just will not accept that it happened.

I don't care if you are for the reds or yellows, if you saw indiscriminate shooting then you saw it, regardless of your sympathies.

Good to see someone who was actually there and experience it first hand give a report on it.

I don't think anyone disregards the value of Nick's first hand observations. They certainly carry more weight than those of people not in Bangkok, or not even in Thailand.

Doesn't mean they are above question though. I would certainly question a comment like, "if you were there, you would know exactly who shot whom". Would you not?

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

Which is why I do not think a trained military should have been firing unless they knew exactly who they should be aiming at.

[TAWP]

I have also not seen yet enough evidence that the burning of Central world that convinces me that the burning was organized by the UDD leadership.

I haven't seen anyone claim that the UDD leadership organized the burning. People are saying that Red shirts burnt it down. Hooligan and destructive ride-along Red shirts, but still Red shirts. And they might have taken their leaders speeches as a sign that the confrontations (revolution) was something that was sought.

Well, have i said that actions of Red Shirts have not most likely been the cause for the fire? I don't think so.

Have i propagated or endorsed one of the more outlandish conspiracy theories? I don't think so.

Ofcourse not, I assume you to be biased, not a nutter.

However other posters on this board and on Twitter has proposed both of those things.

Some of those people that seem to cheer you on do infact claim that the military burnt CW down and will accept that without evidence...while accepting only a change of view if the evidence in the other direction is 100% above reproached (unattainable).

[jdinasia]

Nick it would seem that unless you personally stood beside a military officer and he counted every shot fired and who they were fired out then proof read your report and countersigned it then shot you in the leg for good measure then some here just will not accept that it happened.

I don't care if you are for the reds or yellows, if you saw indiscriminate shooting then you saw it, regardless of your sympathies.

Good to see someone who was actually there and experience it first hand give a report on it.

I don't think anyone disregards the value of Nick's first hand observations. They certainly carry more weight than those of people not in Bangkok, or not even in Thailand.

Doesn't mean they are above question though. I would certainly question a comment like, "if you were there, you would know exactly who shot whom". Would you not?

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

Which is why I do not think a trained military should have been firing unless they knew exactly who they should be aiming at.

Which is why it is impossible to lay at the feet of the military alone. Military units using suppressing fire when taking fire would seem to be w/i the RoE. Claiming to know "exactly who shot whom" is simply a fabrication.

I have just finished reading a "guest column" by Nick on NewMandala and can safely say that it did not change my opinion regarding a bias on the part of the author.

[nicknostitz]

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

When you are working at a frontline, then your life depends, to a large part, on knowing where bullets come from. And to stay as calm as you can, and not to give in to the urge to panic or to the adrenalin rush.

When you know that the bullets come from the direction of the military, and there is nobody in between you and the military (other than a few poor lost souls hiding out in the no-man's land), then the bullets come most likely from the military. Especially if that view is corroborated by videos and photos from different angles of the same scenes that show soldiers shooting, and at times running towards protesters in combat style.

There were incidents which indeed were confusing and chaotic, but there were others which were not.

[hyperdimension]

Nick , could you also answer my question regarding "context" that I previously asked, as I truly wish to understand your way of thinking:

Context means that you should be showing here what Nattawut has said before and after the sentence that was screened, if possible the full speech, and not just edited by CRES - which is not exactly an impartial party of this confrontation.

Ok, I understand that picking out a few lines from a speech without its original context can change what was originally meant. That is why I asked the question which you still have not answered:

In what "context" would it have been acceptable for the leaders to have incited violence and destruction?

Are you able to answer it?

They were not acting in a play on stage, nor was Arisman singing a new song that he wrote. I can't see how incitement of violence and destruction in any context other than acting or singing would be acceptable.

Natthawut himself claims the context in which he said to "burn the country" was as a reaction to a coup. Would such a context make his incitement any more acceptable?

[Insight]

This is one of the videos which emerged from the chaos of April 10th, giving people the impression that something wasn't entirely correct with the red shirt narratives of the army being responsible for all deaths.

There's the other video of the sniper victim which won't be linked to for obvious reasons.

As 'Rix eluded to, how does the army gain by having a high body count? It doesn't; it would be simply conforming to the brutality it is being accused of by the red shirt side.

[nicknostitz]

Ofcourse not, I assume you to be biased, not a nutter.

However other posters on this board and on Twitter has proposed both of those things.

Some of those people that seem to cheer you on do infact claim that the military burnt CW down and will accept that without evidence...while accepting only a change of view if the evidence in the other direction is 100% above reproached (unattainable).

Thanks for the confirmation of my sanity.

I cannot control who cheers me on, and who discredits me. I am not a leader of anything.

I can only do my job as good as i can - which is taking photos, and writing about stuff, and being as objective and factual as i can manage to, with all that this entails - speaking with people on all sides, corroborating information, and constantly reviewing the results of my research.

If someone doesn't like how i do my job, i can only advise to do it better then. Lets see how long they last in this cesspool of perceptions, making barely enough money to survive...

[whybother]

Ofcourse not, I assume you to be biased, not a nutter.

However other posters on this board and on Twitter has proposed both of those things.

Some of those people that seem to cheer you on do infact claim that the military burnt CW down and will accept that without evidence...while accepting only a change of view if the evidence in the other direction is 100% above reproached (unattainable).

There is one poster that believes that the military burnt down CW based on someone being shot in the leg ... what's more, by a "shotgun sniper".

[jdinasia]

This is one of the videos which emerged from the chaos of April 10th, giving people the impression that something wasn't entirely correct with the red shirt narratives of the army being responsible for all deaths.

There's the other video of the sniper victim which won't be linked to for obvious reasons.

As 'Rix eluded to, how does the army gain by having a high body count? It doesn't; it would be simply conforming to the brutality it is being accused of by the red shirt side.

The Thai at the top of the video reads "From the mouth of a red shirt, the army didn't shoot, but the people/person shooting ..."

I am not going to try and translate the whole thing. There was mention of "black shirts" etc ...

[rixalex]

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

When you are working at a frontline, then your life depends, to a large part, on knowing where bullets come from. And to stay as calm as you can, and not to give in to the urge to panic or to the adrenalin rush.

When you know that the bullets come from the direction of the military, and there is nobody in between you and the military (other than a few poor lost souls hiding out in the no-man's land), then the bullets come most likely from the military. Especially if that view is corroborated by videos and photos from different angles of the same scenes that show soldiers shooting, and at times running towards protesters in combat style.

There were incidents which indeed were confusing and chaotic, but there were others which were not.

Knowing the direction of bullets is quite a different matter from knowing exactly who killed whom, which is what you stated.

[whybother]

...

What i have pointed out here, from the beginning, that there has not enough evidence been presented to convict the accused in the ongoing court case, lacking witnesses that identified them, or video or photo evidence showing them. I also pointed out the failure by the state of performing what usually is mandatory to perform - a proper investigation that would confirm the exact causes of the fire, and if all safety measures in building and upkeep by Central World have been kept, which could have been the difference between slight damage without much effects on the structure, and the mess we have seen.

...

Safety measures and upkeep may have had an effect on the severity, but doesn't change the cause. The red shirts aim was to cause damage to the building. The got more than they bargained for.

[nicknostitz]

Natthawut himself claims the context in which he said to "burn the country" was as a reaction to a coup. Would such a context make his incitement any more acceptable?

The 1997 constitution had an article that permitted the people to resist a military coup. I can't recall if the 2007 constitution still has this article.

It's a difficult question to answer, morally seen. I personally think that in a Democracy people have the right to resist a military coup, even violently. Would i ask people to violently resist a military coup? No, i don't think so. Because i don't think i could bear the consequences of this request - the inevitable loss of lives and my part of the responsibility.

I don't know if that makes me a coward, a hypocrite, or a sane person. What i know is that i would not want to be in the situation of being a leader of people, and having to make such decisions.

Would i personally resist violently a military coup in the country i am a citizen off? Dunno, maybe, but fortunately it is a hypothetical question in today's Germany. But given Germany's history the "what-would-I-do" question i naturally have asked myself since i was very young, especially both of my parents lived through the Nazi regime.

[nicknostitz]

Knowing the direction of bullets is quite a different matter from knowing exactly who killed whom, which is what you stated.

I hope you don't force me to discuss semantics here.

Because i will not consult my editor to go over my posts here before i click the "add reply" button.

[nicknostitz]

Safety measures and upkeep may have had an effect on the severity, but doesn't change the cause. The red shirts aim was to cause damage to the building. The got more than they bargained for.

It has an effect on the severity of the damage, and also on the severity of the punishment. There is also the question of mitigating circumstances, such as reaction out of affect, temporarily insanity, or if this was a high level planned and prepared action (which has not been proven, so far, IMO).

There clearly were Red Shirt protesters who have thrown petrol bombs and explosives into Central World. I don't think that i have ever denied that fact. There were many other Red Shirts who didn't do that. So it was the aim of the one's who did it, and not a summary "the Red Shirt's aim was". This is not a semantic difference, but the difference between painting the entire Red Shirt movement as terrorists, and the reality that the Red Shirt movement has both peaceful and violent elements, as many social mass movements all over the world have.

[TAWP]

Natthawut himself claims the context in which he said to "burn the country" was as a reaction to a coup. Would such a context make his incitement any more acceptable?

The 1997 constitution had an article that permitted the people to resist a military coup. I can't recall if the 2007 constitution still has this article.

It's a difficult question to answer, morally seen. I personally think that in a Democracy people have the right to resist a military coup, even violently. Would i ask people to violently resist a military coup? No, i don't think so. Because i don't think i could bear the consequences of this request - the inevitable loss of lives and my part of the responsibility.

I don't know if that makes me a coward, a hypocrite, or a sane person. What i know is that i would not want to be in the situation of being a leader of people, and having to make such decisions.

Would i personally resist violently a military coup in the country i am a citizen off? Dunno, maybe, but fortunately it is a hypothetical question in today's Germany. But given Germany's history the "what-would-I-do" question i naturally have asked myself since i was very young, especially both of my parents lived through the Nazi regime.

If you lived in Germany in the 1930ies trying to alter the course of history your course of action wouldn't be to resist a coup - it would be to instigate a coup. Which was exactly what was done against Thaksin...

[jdinasia]

This was not a few killings committed in close proximity. This was 93 killings, mostly at long range, in amongst large crowds with chaos, confusion and fear running amok. How can anybody claim to know EXACTLY who shot whom in those circumstances and with those numbers?

When you are working at a frontline, then your life depends, to a large part, on knowing where bullets come from. And to stay as calm as you can, and not to give in to the urge to panic or to the adrenalin rush.

When you know that the bullets come from the direction of the military, and there is nobody in between you and the military (other than a few poor lost souls hiding out in the no-man's land), then the bullets come most likely from the military. Especially if that view is corroborated by videos and photos from different angles of the same scenes that show soldiers shooting, and at times running towards protesters in combat style.

There were incidents which indeed were confusing and chaotic, but there were others which were not.

Knowing the direction of bullets is quite a different matter from knowing exactly who killed whom, which is what you stated.

Hell. knowing the general direction of some of the bullets doesn't preclude the obvious fact that other shots could have come from other directions. Like I said before something as simple as a 2 man fire-team from almost 360 degrees could do the job. That they could be behind the military, to the side of the military, or behind or to the side of the reds doesn't much matter. I think we all saw the reports on CNN and other stations (al jazeera and Thai stations) showing "firefights and the sounds of shooting from both sides. Sae Daeng's troops were trained for the type and level of violence used as would be any group of army rangers etc.

Did soldiers shoot at and more than likely kill a fair number of the victims? I don't doubt that at all. Did the military take fire from the redshirts? Yeppers.

Does a claim of someone taking refuge from bullets make it more or less likely that he is aware of the point of origin of every shot? Less likely imho.

[rixalex]

Knowing the direction of bullets is quite a different matter from knowing exactly who killed whom, which is what you stated.

I hope you don't force me to discuss semantics here.

Because i will not consult my editor to go over my posts here before i click the "add reply" button.

Are you really saying that knowing exactly who killed whom and knowing the general direction a bullet came from, is a matter of semantics?

[steveromagnino]

Reasons were because i don't really feel competent enough to teach, i am a sort of learning by doing person. I also think that the problem in Thai journalism is less with the working journalists (who often do a very good job), but with editorial policies which make the job of working journalists very difficult. And these editors were not the people i was supposed to teach, but the journalists i feel that i should be learning from......Daily news journalists depend on being given access, so they have to be more diplomatic in their questions than me.

I would add that:

1. 'hey, those guys are our friends, let's pull that story' certain newspapers have ownership or advertisers that guide editorial content (for instance, the infamous AIS favouritism in the early 2000s, where alledgedly reporting in a negative way against them or certain public figures associated with AIS would result in a block on advertising from one of the country's largest advertisers) and so certain stories never run (also can refer to other restrictions relating to forbidden subjects)

2. 'you want a trip to Dubai staying at the Burj?' certain individual journalists are paid directly or indirectly for certain coverage - for instance at the legal end; a trip staying at a beautiful hotel for a week, to interview a specific figure about some subject...who will write negatively and bite the hand that feeds them? Gifts and presents on a regular basis....or at the less legal end...cash payments to related parties with fairly express directions to write favourably

3. 'we know where you live' late night calls; again a popular pasttime in the last 10 years where editors, desk editors and even in a few cases Chairmen were not immune to the late night call demanding either changes or retractions or getting warnings relating to personal safety

4. 'back your bag, you're fired' not just a Donald Trump line, but a popular line in the past few years, based on reporting; ITV's news desk went through this in 2001 when the so called ITV rebels were fired for alledgely reporting negatively on TRT; their complaints of unfair dismissal I believe were held up in court during TRT's reign, but of course....what a lot of effort to defend yourself for just doing your job. Alledgedly most journalists working for Channel 11 and channels associated with the Public Relations Dept of Thailand were called in by Jakapop Penkair at the time when he was running PRD and those reporting under his assessment 'mostly negative' towards Thaksin including individuals and shows were punished

5. 'anyhow, we own you' common to coopt certain business families into the line of reporting; the Maleenonts, Channel 7, ITV, and many others were either directly or indirectly political or owned directly by key families in TRT back at that time

6. 'kee greng jai' and of course it's not quite in the Thai pysche to grill 'phoo yai' and that's the reason why insane antics like the X O cards held up by a former PM was acceptable or why the army and police aren't getting grilled on this stuff. Or why things so recent are so easily forgotten

7. 'kee kiat' (and badly paid); many journalists simply eat up the words from whoever is talking and report that as the news. Leaving them like rabbits in the headlights when a PR astute speaker comes up, who has been prepped and trained to say nothing, look nice, and yet fill up a 3 min news piece or 1/4 page front page article. The rigour of Economist, 60 minutes, etc is somewhat missing, and easy to understand when we realise many of the reporters here doing the leg work are fresh out of university 2 years experience writers; once a little more educated and worldly there are far more lucrative occupations than being a journo yet in the same field (PR for instance)

It's easy to forget but Thailand's slide into the world of substandard journalism began long before the coup, or to think that the enforcement of restricted subject matter is something new; both have been hovering around a while; suddenly now both are made newsworthy however, in some sort of debate about 'democracy and justice'.

Edited July 22, 2011 by steveromagnino

[nicknostitz]

The Thai at the top of the video reads "From the mouth of a red shirt, the army didn't shoot, but the people/person shooting ..."

I am not going to try and translate the whole thing. There was mention of "black shirts" etc ...

No need to translate, i can understand it well enough.

The April 10 events were indeed incredibly chaotic and confusing, and still give me a major headache trying to decipher what really happened there. I don't think we will ever know the exact course of events. We know snippets of this and that (and there are some things that happened that day i will only talk in my next book about), but i am still somewhat at a loss of what really went on there. And i have been there that night, fortunately though always at the wrong place - when the shooting started at Kor Hua i was a Dinso, and just after i walked from Dinso to Kor Hua, the mess began at Dinso, and when waling back to Dinso, i got only the last sniper round while crouching safely behind one of the APC's.

Which doesn't deflect from the enormous incompetence of the military that day - for example beginning their main assault one and a half hours before darkness, not retreating when the operation did not work out, throwing teargas numerous times against the wind and hitting their own forces (and me, thank you, the nastiest teargas i have ever been subjected to), etc.

Here, by the way, is a link to a very important story which was recently published:

http://www.zenjournalist.com/2011/06/in-memory-of-hiro-muramoto/

[nicknostitz]

If you lived in Germany in the 1930ies trying to alter the course of history your course of action wouldn't be to resist a coup - it would be to instigate a coup. Which was exactly what was done against Thaksin...

If you compare Thaksin with Hitler and the Nazis you force me to question your sanity.

Sorry, but that is the only thing i can and will say about that.

[nicknostitz]

It's easy to forget but Thailand's slide into the world of substandard journalism began long before the coup, or to think that the enforcement of restricted subject matter is something new; both have been hovering around a while; suddenly now both are made newsworthy however, in some sort of debate about 'democracy and justice'.

I do not deny that there were more than a few problems with journalistic freedom under Thaksin, or lack of quality in journalism here. That does not divert from the fact that things regarding media freedom went even worse after the coup. I don't want to whine here, but in the past year i have had to bear with quite a few of things you described (and worse).

As to trips to Dubai - when i went recently, the magazine that assigned me as a photographer after i helped them to get the interview organized paid my way and day rate. The hotel we chose was the hotel the father of my writer lives in. I billed the magazine, and not Thaksin, Puah Thai, or the Red Shirts. At no point any money or advantages were offered (nor would they have been accepted, if offered, unless it would have been a few million dollars, which would have enabled my retirement, and my 6 year old son's retirement, but then i would hardly be posting here on Thaivisa, but be on extended holidays in the Cote D'Azur, and i wouldn't care about anything or anybody anymore ).

It was a straightforward trip and interview. Nothing out if the ordinary happened. None of my friends and colleagues who went on the same trips had anything else to say. Of course Korbsak accused me and others of having "sneaked" into Dubai. Which he shouldn't do. Because he was the man that screwed up in not very friendly terms an exclusive interview with Abhisit for the same highly important German language new sources that also interviewed Thaksin, even though Abhisit himself has already readily agreed on the exclusive.

Edited July 22, 2011 by nicknostitz

[rixalex]

If you lived in Germany in the 1930ies trying to alter the course of history your course of action wouldn't be to resist a coup - it would be to instigate a coup. Which was exactly what was done against Thaksin...

If you compare Thaksin with Hitler and the Nazis you force me to question your sanity.

Sorry, but that is the only thing i can and will say about that.

I don't think the point was a comparison between Thaksin and Hitler, the point was that the people of a country may have reasonable moral ground to stand up and fight for a coup, just as they may have reasonable moral ground to stand up and fight against one. Depends on the circumstances.

[nicknostitz]

I don't think the point was a comparison between Thaksin and Hitler, the point was that the people of a country may have reasonable moral ground to stand up and fight for a coup, just as they may have reasonable moral ground to stand up and fight against one. Depends on the circumstances.

Well, but the 2007 elections and especially the 2011 election have quite sufficiently proven that the Thai electorate has not endorsed a coup against the government that was quite clearly elected in the 2001 election, the 2005 elections and also won the later annulled 2006 elections preceding the coup.

Like it or not - Thailand had elections, and whatever Thaksin may have done, he has not taken the possibility of elections from Thais (which would be sufficient grounds to resist). Neither is there enough credible evidence existing that whatever irregularities that do usually go on in Thai elections have skewed the election results so far that they are to be seen as invalid. And in fact - there is no country that has not accepted the Thaksin governments as legal Thai governments at the time. More than a few countries have though condemned the 2006 coup, and have introduced sanctions against Thailand.

Opponents of the elected government had therefore more than sufficient possibilities to work within the democratic framework, but just lacked competence and a track record of improving the lives of a large enough majority of the Thai population when they were in power to be elected by the majority of Thais.

Sorry, but that is how it works - elections do see winners and losers. Coups are not part of the democratic framework, even not the wider framework here in Thailand. If people fight for a coup against a elected government, the are moving far from anything that can be called democratic.

Coups lead to disasters such as last year's mess, which could be described as a delayed bloodshed of the 2006 coup.

And before you accuse me of being a supporter of this or the other party. I am not. I don't care which party wins elections here, as long as they come to power through elections, and not by subverting the system. This is all up to Thai citizens to decide. I am not a Thai citizen, and have no aspirations to become one.

[jdinasia]

The Thai at the top of the video reads "From the mouth of a red shirt, the army didn't shoot, but the people/person shooting ..."

I am not going to try and translate the whole thing. There was mention of "black shirts" etc ...

No need to translate, i can understand it well enough.

The April 10 events were indeed incredibly chaotic and confusing, and still give me a major headache trying to decipher what really happened there. I don't think we will ever know the exact course of events. We know snippets of this and that (and there are some things that happened that day i will only talk in my next book about), but i am still somewhat at a loss of what really went on there. And i have been there that night, fortunately though always at the wrong place - when the shooting started at Kor Hua i was a Dinso, and just after i walked from Dinso to Kor Hua, the mess began at Dinso, and when waling back to Dinso, i got only the last sniper round while crouching safely behind one of the APC's.

Which doesn't deflect from the enormous incompetence of the military that day - for example beginning their main assault one and a half hours before darkness, not retreating when the operation did not work out, throwing teargas numerous times against the wind and hitting their own forces (and me, thank you, the nastiest teargas i have ever been subjected to), etc.

Here, by the way, is a link to a very important story which was recently published:

http://www.zenjournalist.com/2011/06/in-memory-of-hiro-muramoto/

Hmmm I think my statement about not offering to translate was in response to a post by insight. Your criticism of the military action which should have simply been crowd control until it escalated (from the red side .. yet again) is almost valid.

You probably don't need to spend time trying to hawk your books to me, after I read the sales-pitch/article for your last one on NewMandala it reaffirmed to me that what you find acceptable in writing about something from recent history and what I find acceptable are way too far off for me to be supplying you with royalties

[lannarebirth]

The only problem (other than what I see as an open bias) with Nick's "reporting" is that he seems to conclude that people on one side or another is responsible for deaths. "The army was firing" does not preclude the fact that other people may have used the army presence to increase the body count.

If you would have been at the frontlines and not at home in front of your computer, you would know exactly who shot whom.

The notion that Red Shirt militants have shot at Red Shirt protesters is simply absurd.

Sorry, but I am not going to entertain inane strawman arguments such as those.

Maybe not "Red Shirts", bur there is a video on YouTube which i've seen where frontline Red Shirt combatants say that their comrades who died on April 10 were absolutely killed from behind their own lines. There are videos of armed Black Shirts that overlap this timeframe interspersed with the group that make these claims. THEY believe they were shot by their own group. That was PRIOR to the Army using anything stronger than rubber bullets and tear gas.

[rixalex]

Well, but the 2007 elections and especially the 2011 election have quite sufficiently proven that the Thai electorate has not endorsed a coup against the government that was quite clearly elected in the 2001 election, the 2005 elections and also won the later annulled 2006 elections preceding the coup.

Having reasonable moral ground to stand up either for or against a coup is not determined by numbers; were that the case the minority of Germans who made a stand against Hitler were in the wrong. (and no, i am not comparing Thaksin to Hitler).

Opponents of the elected government had therefore more than sufficient possibilities to work within the democratic framework, but just lacked competence and a track record of improving the lives of a large enough majority of the Thai population when they were in power to be elected by the majority of Thais.

Completely disagree. The democratic framework that you speak of was dismantled by Thaksin. Yes we had elections, yes he won, and yes, he was popular, but democracy simply begins with vote. It doesn't end the day after. Thaksin thought it did. He even stated in a brief moment of candour "democracy is not my goal". Do you remember that Nick? The assets concealment case was an early indicator of what was to come. Thaksin felt that providing he had support at the polls, he could do exactly as he pleased and that he would remain above the law. He felt that law and the breaking of it was able to be determined by popularity. That is why he called the snap election in 2006. Because he knew that a win would give him renewed carte blanche. This might be your idea of democracy. It's not mine.

Coups lead to disasters such as last year's mess, which could be described as a delayed bloodshed of the 2006 coup.

Now that's what i call nailing your colours to the mast.

[lannarebirth]

The only problem (other than what I see as an open bias) with Nick's "reporting" is that he seems to conclude that people on one side or another is responsible for deaths. "The army was firing" does not preclude the fact that other people may have used the army presence to increase the body count.

If you would have been at the frontlines and not at home in front of your computer, you would know exactly who shot whom.

The notion that Red Shirt militants have shot at Red Shirt protesters is simply absurd.

Sorry, but I am not going to entertain inane strawman arguments such as those.

I don't mind you keeping a biased viewpoint Nick. Your use of "strawman" in this post is highly inaccurate. I am not using an exaggerated characterization of your position.

I am pointing out that you are, in fact, using an argument of false dichotomy. (Bifurcation) You have clearly stated that there were at least 3 groups of combatants, yet you claim that there is only 1 possible group that fired on any red. Completely leaving out the middle possibility that some group (we can describe them as black-shirts is you wish) could be responsible for the deaths of not only soldiers but also attempted to raise the body count of the red shirts in order to bring down the government.

BTW -- you may wish to examine your first sentence in your reply again. If you know EXACTLY who shot whom ....

(I do agree with hammered's assessment of Nick. The problem that arises out of someone with a known bias is that they tend to rule out possibilities that would severely undermine their position.

One of the hurdles that needs to be overcome when establishing guilt (in the absence of other compelling evidence) is motive. Only one group of the three (of which two were working for the same employer) had any desire to see blood spilled.

My sympathies lie with the people who identify themselves as Red Shirts as well Nick. The Army here needs to be under the command of a civilian government and lese majeste laws are a joke. Still, you should not let your symapthies get in the way of objective reporting. You've damaged your credibility a lot here IMO.

Edited July 22, 2011 by lannarebirth

[nicknostitz]

You've damaged your credibility a lot here IMO.

Well, fortunately for me the few anonymous posters on the Thaivisa forum that will not buy my books or refuse even to read them are not the barometer of my credibility.

You can't make things right for everybody when you are in my job, and i can comfortably with with that fact.

[lannarebirth]

Nick it would seem that unless you personally stood beside a military officer and he counted every shot fired and who they were fired out then proof read your report and countersigned it then shot you in the leg for good measure then some here just will not accept that it happened.

I don't care if you are for the reds or yellows, if you saw indiscriminate shooting then you saw it, regardless of your sympathies.

Good to see someone who was actually there and experience it first hand give a report on it.

I don't think anyone disregards the value of Nick's first hand observations.

I do. He only reports facts that support the "other side", when there is clear documentary evidence already existing and he would be proven a liar if he tried to refute it. As far as "his side" is concerned, it's all "trust me, I saw it with my own eyes".