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

[nicknostitz]

the red shirt sword pic i think was altered photoshopped

take a look at the length of the sling shot guys arm.

as i said

an example of resident forum red shirt evidence

Definitely not altered in Photoshop more than the usual contrast and color adjustments.

Just taken after the clash.

[dickyknee]

soapbox.

[hyperdimension]

It is an enormously difficult task to write this book on last year, much more difficult than the two previous volumes. I have to research as many facts as possible, i have to write about emotions, and i also have to consider the soldiers as well, and what they went through, and not only the Red Shirts. Honestly - i am quite terrified sitting in front of that white sheet, and trying to put together an account of last year's mess that not only stands up to scrutiny, but also will reflect the reality of all sides that were involved, and will be a contribution to history.

The concern about Thailand i do share, this is one of my main motivations why i do what i do.

What are your thoughts on other reports of the events that have already been published, such as:

APPLICATION TO INVESTIGATE THE SITUATION OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY by AMSTERDAM & PEROFF LLP

Descent into Chaos by Human Rights Watch

Do you consider the writings of AMSTERDAM & PEROFF LLP in their ICC application and their web site, as neutral and factual? Considering the fact that they are a major upholder of the UDD's ideals of democracy and justice, have you ever spoken with them?

Edited July 24, 2011 by hyperdimension

[nicknostitz]

What are your thoughts on other reports of the events that have already been published, such as:

I have never spoken with Amsterdam, never met him. He is doing what he is doing.

But i am doing what i am doing. And when i finished doing it, you can see the result in a book.

I am sorry though, i will not comment here on either mentioned report, because doing so would mean that i would have to go into certain particulars that i am not able and willing to discuss presently. I hope you can understand that.

[Siam Simon]

You've answered my questions already? Where?

You didn't provide any examples of a post that reflected a change in your thinking.

You didn't provide any examples of my changing a news report or changing a quoted post.

If you can't document a question of a situation that you say has transpired, it makes it impossible to explain a situation that hasn't transpired.

If you have issues with myself or anyone else's membership (and clearly you do), it has been pointed out to you several times by the moderating team to bring it to their attention instead of making pointless public forum posts on the subject. If you have failed to do so, then it only reflects back on you.

First point already answered and ignored.

Second point: Post #445

Third point: What I wrote was pertinent to our discussion about learning from other posters on this forum. I've discussed your return to the forum with moderation. Without going into specifics (as per the forum rules), you are a developing situation.

[Siam Simon]

[

BTW -- I don't consider your writing totally one-sided, just imho, biased.) I really think you shouldn't have quoted me to rant about something posted by someone else, but it sure sounds better when you make it sound is if.....

Really, is that so indeed?

Lets go back some time, and quote what you posted in the past in connection to me, and the particular incident we just a brief debate about:

http://www.thaivisa....t/page__st__100

jdinasia, 2010-10-26 22:05:52:

"Nick N. is so far left that he appear to be right-wing. NM is basically a blog and Nick N's drama-queen stuff from May did in fact make me laugh. I think he may have been the ONLY person on the scene that didn't hear gunfights .."

Post #244

Worth reading again not only for the remark about Nick, but also the comments about Newin, Suthep and the Blue Shirts .

[Buchholz]

You've answered my questions already? Where?

You didn't provide any examples of a post that reflected a change in your thinking.

You didn't provide any examples of my changing a news report or changing a quoted post.

If you can't document a question of a situation that you say has transpired, it makes it impossible to explain a situation that hasn't transpired.

If you have issues with myself or anyone else's membership (and clearly you do), it has been pointed out to you several times by the moderating team to bring it to their attention instead of making pointless public forum posts on the subject. If you have failed to do so, then it only reflects back on you.

First point already answered and ignored.

Second point: Post #445

Third point: What I wrote was pertinent to our discussion about learning from other posters on this forum. I've discussed your return to the forum with moderation. Without going into specifics (as per the forum rules), you are a developing situation.

So on the first point, while you purport to have changed your mind or opinion a number of times, you can't produce a single post that reflects any of those changes. Ok.

Second point. No changes were made to another member's post. I did acknowledge that the poster corrected himself from an earlier post in which he provided erroneous information... but there was no change in any quote of what the poster wrote.

Third point.

It was interesting that in the same thread that jdinasia referenced earlier there was a series of exchanges wherein you were making the same baseless accusations.

So while you abandoned those efforts way back in October, once again, months later, you've attempted to bring them forward. I wonder if these repeated action in which you were told to desist makes you a "developing situation", as well.

.

[Siam Simon]

You've answered my questions already? Where?

You didn't provide any examples of a post that reflected a change in your thinking.

You didn't provide any examples of my changing a news report or changing a quoted post.

If you can't document a question of a situation that you say has transpired, it makes it impossible to explain a situation that hasn't transpired.

If you have issues with myself or anyone else's membership (and clearly you do), it has been pointed out to you several times by the moderating team to bring it to their attention instead of making pointless public forum posts on the subject. If you have failed to do so, then it only reflects back on you.

First point already answered and ignored.

Second point: Post #445

Third point: What I wrote was pertinent to our discussion about learning from other posters on this forum. I've discussed your return to the forum with moderation. Without going into specifics (as per the forum rules), you are a developing situation.

So on the first point, while you purport to have changed your mind or opinion a number of times, you can't produce a single post that reflects any of those changes. Ok.

Second point. No changes were made to another member's post. I did acknowledge that the poster corrected himself from an earlier post in which he provided erroneous information... but there was no change in any quote of what the poster wrote.

Third point.

It was interesting that in the same thread that jdinasia referenced earlier there was a series of exchanges wherein you were making the same baseless accusations.

So while you abandoned those efforts way back in October, once again, months later, you've attempted to bring them forward. I wonder if these repeated action in which you were told to desist makes you a "developing situation", as well.

.

John, you are truly a lost cause. You represent almost everything that has gone wrong with the political discussions on this forum. Management really do need to do a root and branch examination of this section of the forum. Basic standards have slipped badly.

[thaihome]

I was also a witness to the confrontation on Rama IV on the 13th. The Army did use rubber bullets and firing into the air in an attempt to clear that crowd (tear gas would not have worked due to the wind direction). I won't say they were firing blanks, because I suspect they were not. But they did attempt to use non-lethal methods to clear that crowd. There are many photos of that scene and it clearly shows the Army marching in loose formation towards the crowd, firing rubber bullets into the crowd and firing into the air with rifles. This is the same tactic they have used successfully several times without fatal injuries.

Now, again, why are you failing to mention that fact.

TH

I believe you are confusing events here.

There were two confrontations - the first one, of which i was not a witness off, in which the army indeed only used rubber bullets. The second confrontation, not long after, at maybe 10.30pm or so., the army shot directly at the protesters with life ammunition, and no marching soldiers.

There is nothing in the rules of engagement that allows soldiers to fire life rounds against a small crowd of unarmed protesters when they refuse to disperse. It also is not in the rule book to fire at ambulances - what happened there.

Additionally, the idea of firing life bullets into the air as being a valid tactic, especially in urban areas, defies any logic. Bullets shot in the air have a tendency, due the the laws of gravity, to fall back down, and can easily kill or injure people.

It is, by the way, quite easy to see if blanks are fired from automatic rifles. Either they have an attachment on the muzzle, quite visible, which helps to throw out the spent cartridge from the chamber, or they have to manually reload. During the events of April and May last year i have seen neither.

I see now you are talking about the night of the 13th and the events that took place in front of Lumpini Park in the aftermath of Seh Deng being shot. I was indeed referring to the events on the day after that, the 14th.

I certainly was not witnessed to the evening of the 13th, but heard the shooting and explosion through most of the night. I did see TV reports pleading with people to stay away from the area as it was extremely dangerous to be out in that area.

That seemed to all take place on Rama IV in the park area. Was this person shot in the park or right in front of it? You have been a bit imprecise in saying exactly where this happened. As I only heard what was happening I have to depend on other reports of what happened and who attacked who.

Here is the HRW report on events that night.

Later that night, incensed armed Black Shirts began confronting security forces near the King Rama IV statue in Lumphini Park, firing assault weapons. A photographer described the scene:

They [black Shirts] started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn’t fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes

.

He said Black Shirts took garbage bags containing AK-47 assault rifles hidden behind tents behind the Rama VI statue and started shooting at security forces positioned at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings, who returned fire.

That report certainly seems like what I heard going on that night.

Was this person standing around the statue at that time or in the aftermath of the fire fight the HRW report describes? Was the Army still exchanging fire with persons inside the park? Why was that person standing there (wherever that actually was)? Were he and the others peacefully standing there with a placard demanding and immediate election?

Perhaps your victim was standing near this person at the park fence? Is the Army justified in shooting back when somebody is firing arrows at them from behind the park fence?

Nick, you refuse to comment on Nattawat’s and Arisman’s riot inciting speeches on the grounds that what you have seen has been taken out of “context”, but yet you are more then happy to report a person being shot on the night of the 13th in the Rama IV area and the subsequent shooting at an ambulance completely out of context.

By doing so and not reporting what was really happening all around, not just at the one spot you were a witness, you are being intentionally disingenuous.

Here are the articles from both the 1997 constitution and the 2007 one. Please let me know how these apply to actions of the people that were in the Rama IV area from the 13th to the 19th.

1997:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to peacefully resist any act committed to obtain powers to rule the country by means not in accordance with the modus operandi as provided in the Constitution.

2007:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully any act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

As far as the firing live rounds into the air as part of the non-lethal crowd control methods, it is indeed controversial, but shooting into the air behind the line of personnel firing rubber bullets into the crowd is highly effective, though admittedly a rather ruthless method that should be used only when it is paramount to keep the crowd away from your formation in order to prevent them from throwing lethal objects and Molotov cocktails into your formation.

As an ex military police ( a long, long time ago) I think under the circumstances and since by that time the potential for somebody to be shooting at them was pretty high, I think the Army would have been foolish not to have had live rounds. It would not have been easy to get the troops to march straight at a crowd without the assurance that somebody behind them had live rounds to use if they started getting shot at, such has had happened already. By the way, do you have any knowledge of people being hit by falling rounds?

Nick, your reports are very valuable, but you continually selective report events, intentionally leaving out the context of what you are reporting. Stop doing that, even when it goes against your own sympathies. and you would be a fine journalist.

TH

[lungmi]

I believe you are confusing events here.

There were two confrontations - the first one, of which i was not a witness off, in which the army indeed only used rubber bullets. The second confrontation, not long after, at maybe 10.30pm or so., the army shot directly at the protesters with life ammunition, and no marching soldiers.

There is nothing in the rules of engagement that allows soldiers to fire life rounds against a small crowd of unarmed protesters when they refuse to disperse. It also is not in the rule book to fire at ambulances - what happened there.

Additionally, the idea of firing life bullets into the air as being a valid tactic, especially in urban areas, defies any logic. Bullets shot in the air have a tendency, due the the laws of gravity, to fall back down, and can easily kill or injure people.

It is, by the way, quite easy to see if blanks are fired from automatic rifles. Either they have an attachment on the muzzle, quite visible, which helps to throw out the spent cartridge from the chamber, or they have to manually reload. During the events of April and May last year i have seen neither.

I see now you are talking about the night of the 13th and the events that took place in front of Lumpini Park in the aftermath of Seh Deng being shot. I was indeed referring to the events on the day after that, the 14th.

I certainly was not witnessed to the evening of the 13th, but heard the shooting and explosion through most of the night. I did see TV reports pleading with people to stay away from the area as it was extremely dangerous to be out in that area.

That seemed to all take place on Rama IV in the park area. Was this person shot in the park or right in front of it? You have been a bit imprecise in saying exactly where this happened. As I only heard what was happening I have to depend on other reports of what happened and who attacked who.

Here is the HRW report on events that night.

Later that night, incensed armed Black Shirts began confronting security forces near the King Rama IV statue in Lumphini Park, firing assault weapons. A photographer described the scene:

They [black Shirts] started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn't fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes

.

He said Black Shirts took garbage bags containing AK-47 assault rifles hidden behind tents behind the Rama VI statue and started shooting at security forces positioned at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings, who returned fire.

That report certainly seems like what I heard going on that night.

Was this person standing around the statue at that time or in the aftermath of the fire fight the HRW report describes? Was the Army still exchanging fire with persons inside the park? Why was that person standing there (wherever that actually was)? Were he and the others peacefully standing there with a placard demanding and immediate election?

Perhaps your victim was standing near this person at the park fence? Is the Army justified in shooting back when somebody is firing arrows at them from behind the park fence?

Nick, you refuse to comment on Nattawat's and Arisman's riot inciting speeches on the grounds that what you have seen has been taken out of "context", but yet you are more then happy to report a person being shot on the night of the 13th in the Rama IV area and the subsequent shooting at an ambulance completely out of context.

By doing so and not reporting what was really happening all around, not just at the one spot you were a witness, you are being intentionally disingenuous.

Here are the articles from both the 1997 constitution and the 2007 one. Please let me know how these apply to actions of the people that were in the Rama IV area from the 13th to the 19th.

1997:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to peacefully resist any act committed to obtain powers to rule the country by means not in accordance with the modus operandi as provided in the Constitution.

2007:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully any act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

As far as the firing live rounds into the air as part of the non-lethal crowd control methods, it is indeed controversial, but shooting into the air behind the line of personnel firing rubber bullets into the crowd is highly effective, though admittedly a rather ruthless method that should be used only when it is paramount to keep the crowd away from your formation in order to prevent them from throwing lethal objects and Molotov cocktails into your formation.

As an ex military police ( a long, long time ago) I think under the circumstances and since by that time the potential for somebody to be shooting at them was pretty high, I think the Army would have been foolish not to have had live rounds. It would not have been easy to get the troops to march straight at a crowd without the assurance that somebody behind them had live rounds to use if they started getting shot at, such has had happened already. By the way, do you have any knowledge of people being hit by falling rounds?

Nick, your reports are very valuable, but you continually selective report events, intentionally leaving out the context of what you are reporting. Stop doing that, even when it goes against your own sympathies. and you would be a fine journalist.

TH

Nick, you forget one thing (Ockham"s razor, in the modern world, specially in medecine "Differential Diagnosis"

1. (Differential Diagnosis) The Red mouvement breach the peace by inciting their "people" to assemble at an area where they violated the civil rights of other, non-violent Thais and the law.

2..They incited to violence (burn down, etc.)

3. They storm of the Hospital (a crime against humanity, Convention of Geneva)

If you consider this, your postings are "selective perception" of reality.

You can write many books, but if you don't reflect point 1-3, your books are worthless.

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

[nicknostitz]

Nick, your reports are very valuable, but you continually selective report events, intentionally leaving out the context of what you are reporting. Stop doing that, even when it goes against your own sympathies. and you would be a fine journalist.

TH

To make it short - no the man killed at the 13th was nowhere near the statue, the incident took place about 4 hours after Sae Daeng was shot. This man was not shot during an ongoing firefight between Red Shirt militants and the military.

He was part of a small crowd of Red Shirts that have gathered at the Wireless/Rama IV intersection. When i arrived the first clash in which only rubber bullets were used by the military was over already. Soon after arrived the small crowd of maybe 100 people moved along Rama IV Rd. towards Silom intersection, on the lanes at the houses, not on the side of the park. After maybe 100 meters or a bit more, the military suddenly fired on them directly with live ammo from their position at a pedestrian bridge crossing Rama IV Rd. At first i thought that it was only rubber bullets as i just could not imagine that in such a situation they would use live ammo. But when the first injured said that it was live ammo, and when i saw the small pieces of brain on the road when i photographed the man i first thought unconscious, i realized that it was life ammo. There were no warning shots, no tear gas, no rubber bullets.

The crowd stopped, we photographers took photos of the dead man and his friends crying over him. When an ambulance (white color, insignia, and sirens on) arrived and parked next to the man, the military commenced firing, shot at the ambulance, briefly.

I can't say more about the aftermath of the Sae Daeng shooting than is written at the Human Rights Watch report as i have only arrived there a few minutes after it has stopped, and have to rely on more or less the same here as you. But i want to remind you as well that Sae Daeng was shot without any legal basis, and as evidence points, clearly from a building that was under full control of the military at the time. So far the military and the outgoing government have not been exactly forthcoming in details regarding the shooting of Sae Daeng, as Somchai Hamlaor has pointed out in the relevant public hearing of the fact finding committee of the National Truth for Reconciliation Commission he chairs.

Again - i have no doubts about the existence of militants, and i have already confirmed that i have seen them operating at another place another time. If i, or anyone of my colleagues, would have seen them at the aforementioned incident, i would not have said that this was a group of unarmed protesters, and would view the incident in a different light.

An no, i don't see the protests especially during the final days as what is constitutionally permitted (and i have already stated that i do not agree with the indefinite occupation of Rajaprasong). But i also don't see the the dispersal - beginning with the assassination of Sae Daeng, and the incident i just described here as anything the constitution permits. To write the full context here is just not possible, for this i am working on a whole book (part of a series of books that give the wider context of the past years), for which i have researched details for more than a year now after the incidents took place. I am just pointing out here certain selected incidents that took place, but are not acknowledged by some posters. I in turn have clearly acknowledged countless times that there were Red Shirt militants existing - and i really wonder why i am still accused of bias. If i would be what i am accused of here, would i not stay silent over the existence of these militants, and just follow the stage propaganda?

Selective incidents? I have been at so many incidents over the past years, which all to some degree have influenced the situation. If you want full context from me, you will have to read my already published books, and also have to wait until i finish my book on last year's events.

By the way, i was quite happy to see that the Nation now mentioned my books today again in this article, in the company of several other recommended books (on the risk of being accused again of making a sales pitch...):

http://www.nationmul...s-30160988.html

I don't see them throwing around with the accusations i am subjected to here by some, on the opposite. Here one quote:

"There is excellent background information here about developments before and after the coup. Nostitz seems to have attended every rally in the capital, and his photos - some too gruesome - are stark reminders."

And yes, in the description of my second book they made a bit of a mistake - i have not written there yet about Rajaprasong, but only about the 2009 events.

[animatic]

A great writer / researcher / historian will take all the information, present it evenly and as fully as known at the time, add some explanation of events in context, and let the conclusions be mostly drawn by the readers without leading them down the garden path like children. Walter Isaacson, D.H. Donald, Barbara Tuchman and David McCullough come to mind. Any less is tweaking truth to fit ideology. Not to say winners haven't done this for centuries, and hagiographies don't sell briskly in certain circles.

What most all of the last few pages has to do with what happened in court over Central World / Zen, I have no clue. totally tangented.

Edited July 25, 2011 by animatic

[nicknostitz]

You can write many books, but if you don't reflect point 1-3, your books are worthless.

Are you a clairvoyant that you know what i will write or not in a yet unwritten book?

Have you read my already published books?

[nicknostitz]

A great writer / researcher / historian will take all the information,

Yes, and there are some who claim to have information but refuse to give that information to writers/historians/researchers, continue to moan that these writers are biased/untrustworthy/have an agenda, and continue to flood the inboxes of those writers with insulting and rather confuse messages.

[thaihome]

...He was part of a small crowd of Red Shirts that have gathered at the Wireless/Rama IV intersection. When i arrived the first clash in which only rubber bullets were used by the military was over already. Soon after arrived the small crowd of maybe 100 people moved along Rama IV Rd. towards Silom intersection, on the lanes at the houses, not on the side of the park. After maybe 100 meters or a bit more, the military suddenly fired on them directly with live ammo from their position at a pedestrian bridge crossing Rama IV Rd. ....

Nick, at 10:30 if a group of unarmed protestors were walking up Rama IV toward Silom, they were walking into a fire fight that had been going on for several hours by then and went on until past midnight. From where they were they should have know that. I certainly did when I drove home along Wireless to Sathorn about 8:30 that night.

The Army had Rama IV blocked of in both directions and was only allowing traffice to go through to Sathorn. The troops on the pedestrian bridge which crosses Rama IV just before Silom would have been right in the thick of it. I could hear the shots and explosions from my condo.

Here is further detail on what the HRW report says about the timing of the fighting.

After [the shooting of Maj. Gen. Khattiya], the Black Shirts became extremely angry. They started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn’t fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes, it was very heavy.

I tried to hide [from the gunfire] behind the Rama VI statue [in Lumphini Park]. The Black Shirts came into the tents located behind the Rama VI statue. There were five or six black garbage bags hidden behind the tents, and the Black Shirts took those garbage bags. I saw them open one of the garbage bags and it had three or four AK-47 assault rifles in it. They took them out and started shooting immediately towards the security forces at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings. They were extremely angry. The security forces started shooting back. There were many Black Shirts around, they started to move towards the barricades and in other directions.… I stayed around until midnight and there was gunfire until then. After Seh Daeng’s [Khattiya’s] shooting, the area around Rama VI statue became only for the Black Shirts, no more protesters.

For a group of people to be walking towards that at 10:30 PM and coming up behind the troops they would have had to gone through the Police and Army barricades at Wireless/Sathorn (you missed mentioning that part of this innocent walk didn’t you?) and there is little doubt they would have been considered hostile and been fired on without warning.

It is unfortunate that the person was shot. But what was he hoping to accomplish at that time of night and walking up on a firefight? To my mind and certainly if I was sitting on that bridge getting shot at from within the Park, the only thing that would occur to me is they were intending to attack the troops that were on Rama IV opposite the park and either setting up barricades or defending them. Those people had no business there and were not innocent unarmed protestors. If the Army was indiscriminately shooting people there would have been a bunch of people down, not just one.

Now tell us what the people said they were trying to accomplish by walking up Rama IV at that point?

TH

[nicknostitz]

Now tell us what the people said they were trying to accomplish by walking up Rama IV at that point?

TH

I have just checked my photos about the timing - from ca. 19.30 to 20.30 i was at the statue at Lumpini. People were there were terrified of snipers still shooting in, but there was no gunfight anymore. I got stuck there, because one or the other round came still in, there were explosions to hear, but i had no idea where from (just looked it up in my notes from that day), and i hid in the darkness in the tents. not much more happened, and a few people shot home made rockets towards Silom and the military.

As nothing happened i drove off to Hua Cheow hospital, where Sae Daeng was. Not much happened there either, and when i got a call that there was a small clash between military and Red Shirts at Wireless/Rama IV, i went there with my motorcycle. I drove along Rama IV Rd. There were no road blocks, and all was quiet. I stopped at a pedestrian bridge across Lumpini Park where a few BPP officers sat at the footpath under the bridge, and asked them about the clash. They said it was not much. Soldiers were stationed on the bridge, but they refused to speak with me.

I drove off to the group of protesters. They were hanging out there, one was showing the marks of a rubber bullet that hit him in the clash before. the protesters then walked towards the military lines. A few protesters, while walking set off the usual crackers and one small homemade rocket. Very stupid, i know, but the noise by crackers and gunshots are very different, this is no excuse for the soldiers to open fire, those crackers may have been the explosions you heard. And yes, it was also not very intelligent to walk towards the soldiers. But that is what people do during protests. Security forces though usually do not shot at these protesters with life ammo - they shoot teargas, they may in some countries shoot rubber bullets, repeatedly if necessary. But not life ammo against unarmed protesters.

Then the shooting began, including against the ambulance. There was no gunfight, the bullets came from one direction only - from the military.

At Wireless/Sathorn were no military barricades yet. Military was there early on (i have photos how protesters argued with soldiers, but no violence at all yet), just before i went to the scene of the Sae Daeng shooting (i checked my images), but the time i returned there at about 22.00 the soldiers have already retreated from the intersection. There were only a group of maybe 200 protesters, and lots of journalists.

And by the way, one comment i make on the statement in the Human Rights watch report. It is wrong to say that the area at the statue was only for "Black Shirts". That is exactly the reason why i do not like the label "Black Shirts". Most of the guards wore black uniforms. They were not armed militants though - they were guards. You can also see from a harrowing video taken at the 14th by Roger Arnold that there were indeed normal protesters as well still there. One of them was shot in the head, several others wounded:

http://www.youtube.c...u/3/LhJiR-PYdcg

Anyhow, that is more or less what i will and can say about this incident right now. I have more things to do in my life than being bogged down in a debate on Thaivisa for days. I would prefer if we can wind down this discussion now, if possible. I have spend about as much time and effort on this as i am willing to. I really do not want to be forced to recall all these things just right now, just to score some points here. Watching this video from Roger brought back much - this is all still quite painful for me, and at the same mentally very exhausting having to nitpick with some posters what they perceive as bias, having to defend myself against all sorts of accusations.

I hope we can leave it at that now, please.

[phiphidon]

I was also a witness to the confrontation on Rama IV on the 13th. The Army did use rubber bullets and firing into the air in an attempt to clear that crowd (tear gas would not have worked due to the wind direction). I won't say they were firing blanks, because I suspect they were not. But they did attempt to use non-lethal methods to clear that crowd. There are many photos of that scene and it clearly shows the Army marching in loose formation towards the crowd, firing rubber bullets into the crowd and firing into the air with rifles. This is the same tactic they have used successfully several times without fatal injuries.

Now, again, why are you failing to mention that fact.

TH

I believe you are confusing events here.

There were two confrontations - the first one, of which i was not a witness off, in which the army indeed only used rubber bullets. The second confrontation, not long after, at maybe 10.30pm or so., the army shot directly at the protesters with life ammunition, and no marching soldiers.

There is nothing in the rules of engagement that allows soldiers to fire life rounds against a small crowd of unarmed protesters when they refuse to disperse. It also is not in the rule book to fire at ambulances - what happened there.

Additionally, the idea of firing life bullets into the air as being a valid tactic, especially in urban areas, defies any logic. Bullets shot in the air have a tendency, due the the laws of gravity, to fall back down, and can easily kill or injure people.

It is, by the way, quite easy to see if blanks are fired from automatic rifles. Either they have an attachment on the muzzle, quite visible, which helps to throw out the spent cartridge from the chamber, or they have to manually reload. During the events of April and May last year i have seen neither.

I see now you are talking about the night of the 13th and the events that took place in front of Lumpini Park in the aftermath of Seh Deng being shot. I was indeed referring to the events on the day after that, the 14th.

I certainly was not witnessed to the evening of the 13th, but heard the shooting and explosion through most of the night. I did see TV reports pleading with people to stay away from the area as it was extremely dangerous to be out in that area.

That seemed to all take place on Rama IV in the park area. Was this person shot in the park or right in front of it? You have been a bit imprecise in saying exactly where this happened. As I only heard what was happening I have to depend on other reports of what happened and who attacked who.

Here is the HRW report on events that night.

Later that night, incensed armed Black Shirts began confronting security forces near the King Rama IV statue in Lumphini Park, firing assault weapons. A photographer described the scene:

They [black Shirts] started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn't fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes

.

He said Black Shirts took garbage bags containing AK-47 assault rifles hidden behind tents behind the Rama VI statue and started shooting at security forces positioned at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings, who returned fire.

That report certainly seems like what I heard going on that night.

Was this person standing around the statue at that time or in the aftermath of the fire fight the HRW report describes? Was the Army still exchanging fire with persons inside the park? Why was that person standing there (wherever that actually was)? Were he and the others peacefully standing there with a placard demanding and immediate election?

Perhaps your victim was standing near this person at the park fence? Is the Army justified in shooting back when somebody is firing arrows at them from behind the park fence?

Nick, you refuse to comment on Nattawat's and Arisman's riot inciting speeches on the grounds that what you have seen has been taken out of "context", but yet you are more then happy to report a person being shot on the night of the 13th in the Rama IV area and the subsequent shooting at an ambulance completely out of context.

By doing so and not reporting what was really happening all around, not just at the one spot you were a witness, you are being intentionally disingenuous.

Here are the articles from both the 1997 constitution and the 2007 one. Please let me know how these apply to actions of the people that were in the Rama IV area from the 13th to the 19th.

1997:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to peacefully resist any act committed to obtain powers to rule the country by means not in accordance with the modus operandi as provided in the Constitution.

2007:

Section 69. A person shall have the right to resist peacefully any act committed for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by a means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.

As far as the firing live rounds into the air as part of the non-lethal crowd control methods, it is indeed controversial, but shooting into the air behind the line of personnel firing rubber bullets into the crowd is highly effective, though admittedly a rather ruthless method that should be used only when it is paramount to keep the crowd away from your formation in order to prevent them from throwing lethal objects and Molotov cocktails into your formation.

As an ex military police ( a long, long time ago) I think under the circumstances and since by that time the potential for somebody to be shooting at them was pretty high, I think the Army would have been foolish not to have had live rounds. It would not have been easy to get the troops to march straight at a crowd without the assurance that somebody behind them had live rounds to use if they started getting shot at, such has had happened already. By the way, do you have any knowledge of people being hit by falling rounds?

Nick, your reports are very valuable, but you continually selective report events, intentionally leaving out the context of what you are reporting. Stop doing that, even when it goes against your own sympathies. and you would be a fine journalist.

TH

Firing Arrows - Are you serious? Did you even look at the photograph you posted?

Edited July 25, 2011 by phiphidon

[lungmi]

but you can also expect me to crop out further comments beyond this.

As expected.

You didn't answer me about Ockham's razor. You said I had to read your books first. You stay in your own reality

if you cannot accept the facts I quoted.

[Siam Simon]

but you can also expect me to crop out further comments beyond this.

As expected.

You didn't answer me about Ockham's razor. You said I had to read your books first. You stay in your own reality

if you cannot accept the facts I quoted.

Nick has,on a few occasions, come onto the forum to give his witness and corroborated accounts of events during the troubles over the last few years. He deals with facts and corroborated evidence. If you have any useful new evidence about the events you want him to answer, I bet you a thousand baht (joking, don't want to break the law) that he will be delighted to discuss this with you. Do you have anything? To me, you just appear to be trying to put words into his mouth, which is a lame debating tactic employed by the usual fantasist suspects on this forum. Anyway, maybe Nick's had a bellyfull of that nonsense for now. Forum fantasists' gain, Forum's loss.

[thaihome]

... the protesters then walked towards the military lines. A few protesters, while walking set off the usual crackers and one small homemade rocket. Very stupid, i know, but the noise by crackers and gunshots are very different, this is no excuse for the soldiers to open fire, those crackers may have been the explosions you heard. And yes, it was also not very intelligent to walk towards the soldiers. But that is what people do during protests. Security forces though usually do not shot at these protesters with life ammo - they shoot teargas, they may in some countries shoot rubber bullets, repeatedly if necessary. But not life ammo against unarmed protesters.

Then the shooting began, including against the ambulance. There was no gunfight, the bullets came from one direction only - from the military.

I hope we can leave it at that now, please.

NickNick, those people were not protestors, they were rioters.

The protestors were inside the UDD built barricades at the main site.

Those people outside the barricades were by violent means attempting to prevent the Army from setting up blockades in order to cut off access to the main site.

Protestors do walk up a main avenue at 10:30 at night throwing firecrackers and shooting homemade rockets at Army personnel. Army personnel, by the way, that were being shot and having grenades launched at them.

Were these “protestors” carry any signs demanding an immediate election while they were innocently walking up Rama IV at 10:30PM? Did you ask them what they were intending to accomplish by the innocent walk up Rama IV?

Yes, we can leave it now, because as others have pointed out, you will not change your opinion and go to great lengths to set a scene that supports your agenda and then you deny that is what you are doing.

I actually had no problem with demonstration inside the barricades, but what went on in Rama IV and Deng Deang went way beyond any peaceful protest and to portray that as the Army shooting into groups of innocent protestors is nothing but misinformation intended to hide what was really going on and you continue to actively participate in that.

TH

[philw]

but you can also expect me to crop out further comments beyond this.

As expected.

You didn't answer me about Ockham's razor. You said I had to read your books first. You stay in your own reality

if you cannot accept the facts I quoted.

Nick has,on a few occasions, come onto the forum to give his witness and corroborated accounts of events during the troubles over the last few years. He deals with facts and corroborated evidence. If you have any useful new evidence about the events you want him to answer, I bet you a thousand baht (joking, don't want to break the law) that he will be delighted to discuss this with you. Do you have anything? To me, you just appear to be trying to put words into his mouth, which is a lame debating tactic employed by the usual fantasist suspects on this forum. Anyway, maybe Nick's had a bellyfull of that nonsense for now. Forum fantasists' gain, Forum's loss.

Sadly SS is correct and I would add my 1,000 baht to his..........

Astonishing how reliable eyewitness accounts are discredited and attacked on here.

It's all very ugly.

[hammered]

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

[thaihome]

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

Actually I have seen very little hatred in the debate. What I have seen people with differing opinions on to what constitutes a peaceful protest.

What is lost on the UDD apologist is the fact that no peaceful protestor sitting within the barricades the UDD erected to define the borders of their camp was ever shot by the Army. People were shot in the streets of Rama IV and Ding Deang not while they were peacefully protesting, but while they were either actively attacking the Army positions, or standing around encouraging others that were.

The events of April 10 are in a different category, but again, all evidence points to the Army being attacked by some armed hostile force first.

The casualty on the Rama IV at 10:30PM on the 13th that Nick describes as an innocent protestor is the classic case. That person was a active participant, either by his actions or simple presences at that place, in a planned assault on Army positions who were doing their legally ordered job to setup blockades around the protest site.

If some posters here think that participating in that assault is a legitimate protest activity that is their problem. But no matter what, it was not in any way furthering the stated goal of the protest which was to peacefully force the government dissolve parliament and call an early election.

TH

[jayboy]

What is lost on the UDD apologist...

This very phrase indicates intolerance and lack of respect for contrary views.

[jdinasia]

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

I agree. Just like I agree that Nick contributes to the debate/discussion. even though I see him as biased. I hope he sticks around. He draws conclusions I do not agree with but he knows where I stand (with, as I have always admitted, my own bias) and I know where I think he stands We clearly differ on some unproven/unverified/unsubstantiated claims about some events (particularly around time periods of extreme violence such as April 2010, May 2010, Songkran 2009 etc ... He's a good photographer and his pictures are absolutely worthy of respect (and the risks he took personally in taking them.)

[jayboy]

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

I agree. Just like I agree that Nick contributes to the debate/discussion. even though I see him as biased. I hope he sticks around. He draws conclusions I do not agree with but he knows where I stand (with, as I have always admitted, my own bias) and I know where I think he stands We clearly differ on some unproven/unverified/unsubstantiated claims about some events (particularly around time periods of extreme violence such as April 2010, May 2010, Songkran 2009 etc ... He's a good photographer and his pictures are absolutely worthy of respect (and the risks he took personally in taking them.)

Probably best not to attempt establishing parity with an internationally acclaimed journalist,suggesting that you both have "bias" and thus by implication make contributions of equal value.It's not so long ago that you were maintaining the army was guiltless and that the redshirts murdered themselves.In other words in the time honoured British expression, put a sock in it.

[nicknostitz]

What is lost on the UDD apologist

So far, we have had a mostly polite exchange.

But this label is not an acceptable base for me to continue the conversation with you.

[animatic]

What is lost on the UDD apologist...

This very phrase indicates intolerance and lack of respect for contrary views.

Or accuracy without rancor.

[TAWP]

The hatred in these debates doesnt add anything

/../ put a sock in it.

Just saying.

[TAWP]

What is lost on the UDD apologist

So far, we have had a mostly polite exchange.

But this label is not an acceptable base for me to continue the conversation with you.

Why did you take it as meaning you? I think he explicitly meant anyone that is an apologist -- whom we have seen many of here and on Twitter etc. (See: Andrew Spooner, Tony Hodges etc). While you are clearly biased I really don't think you have reached the apologist level - i.e. excusing UDD for any actions done.

So...chill out.