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

[hyperdimension]

Nick, could you shed some light on the "People's Centre for Information" please? Who runs it, who funds it? I've Googled it, but there are only two entries, both are quotes from the PCI that don't offer any information on the organization. Right now, it sounds like someone is making claims which may or may not be unsubstantiated, such as "not enough evidence" and "tortured." I'm hoping it's more than just a mouthpiece for the UDD. Thank you,

The People's Information Center mostly consists of young academics and progressive human rights activists who are trying to collect information and map what happened last year. I think that they are doing a very good job.

"Mouthpiece for the UDD" is nowadays such a widely thrown empty accusation if someone does not agree with the state's position. Many people accuse me of being that as well. Yet they have not managed to disprove any of the facts i present, even though i have asked them on numerous occasions. When i am wrong about something, it is only helpful when i am corrected. Many though claiming that they had different information, or facts disproving me, never came up with what they claimed. Or it was the old "uncle-of-an-aunt-of-a-sister's-neighbor-said"... story.

Thanks for the information, though it didn't exactly answer the questions of who runs it and who funds it.

As I said, I'm hoping it's more than just a UDD operation. I really do.

Is the People's Information Center run by VoiceTV?: http://www.peaceandj....org/?page_id=2

VoiceTV is owned by Pantongtae and Pintongta Shinawatra, the son and daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Can we have confirmation of this, especially when nicknostitz has claimed "This is not an UDD operation":

It seems to be a Thaksin or Shinawatra operation.

[hyperdimension]

Nothing about Central World. Wasn't mentioned. Sorry.

Natthawut mentions looting from Central World in particular in this compilation:

[philw]

If you want to understand my work, you will have to read my books

Isn't that a bit like?:

"You have to pay money to understand me, because for free, I'm not."

If you are too poor to buy it, you can sit for a few hours in a bookstore and read them there for free, or borrow it from a friend ... if you have one...

Nick.

You must've already realised that there is a small minority of excessively vociferous posters on this forum who all appear to have made up their minds a long time ago about the issues we discuss in these threads, and said posters think they have it all summed up. I'm impressed with your patience in dealing with those boorish posters. Your occasional attempts to bring the sanity of clearly honest frontline reporting of street politics to these threads is appreciated by me, for one.

Well said SiamS.

Me too.

A few entrenched"loons" have replaced sober debate with their impassioned and relentless tirades and hatreds.

Sad for TV really, but seems to meet the approval of the powers that be here.

[thaihome]

Nick.

You must've already realised that there is a small minority of excessively vociferous posters on this forum who all appear to have made up their minds a long time ago about the issues we discuss in these threads, and said posters think they have it all summed up. I'm impressed with your patience in dealing with those boorish posters. Your occasional attempts to bring the sanity of clearly honest frontline reporting of street politics to these threads is appreciated by me, for one.

Maybe other posters were also witness to some of the events and have a different take of the situation.

Personally I do not believe people that burn tires in the middle of a major road, throw Molotov cocktails and fire rockets at emplaced Army positions as well as activly supporing armed militants that are firing deadly weapons at the army are accomplishing anything other than trying to create mayhem. They should suffer the consequence of their actions, which will include being shot at.

TH

[phiphidon]

Nothing about Central World. Wasn't mentioned. Sorry.

Natthawut mentions looting from Central World in particular in this compilation:

The Nick Nostitz quote "Nothing about Central World.Wasn't mentioned.Sorry" was referring to the clip that Rubl posted and featured Arisman. So to post a clip presumably as proof (and if that is not the case, why post it?) that something was mentioned about Central World, even though it features a speech by a different person, and mentions looting not burning is stretching your "opposing argument" to breaking point.

[noahvail]

Nothing about Central World. Wasn't mentioned. Sorry.

Natthawut mentions looting from Central World in particular in this compilation:

The Nick Nostitz quote "Nothing about Central World.Wasn't mentioned.Sorry" was referring to the clip that Rubl posted and featured Arisman. So to post a clip presumably as proof (and if that is not the case, why post it?) that something was mentioned about Central World, even though it features a speech by a different person, and mentions looting not burning is stretching your "opposing argument" to breaking point.

I find it ironic that your post is below the caption on the picture right above. If they're going to burn the whole country, naming a specific target really doesn't matter much, does it?

[jdinasia]

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.

His tendency to overlook this simple fact coupled with his reporting just doesn't seem to paint a realistic picture. His defense of the calls for violence (statements like Arisaman may have just been shooting his mouth off and not have represented the red shirts' committee just doesn't match when the committee kept inviting Arisaman back onto stage.

[hammered]

If you want to understand my work, you will have to read my books

Isn't that a bit like?:

"You have to pay money to understand me, because for free, I'm not."

If you are too poor to buy it, you can sit for a few hours in a bookstore and read them there for free, or borrow it from a friend ... if you have one...

Nick.

You must've already realised that there is a small minority of excessively vociferous posters on this forum who all appear to have made up their minds a long time ago about the issues we discuss in these threads, and said posters think they have it all summed up. I'm impressed with your patience in dealing with those boorish posters. Your occasional attempts to bring the sanity of clearly honest frontline reporting of street politics to these threads is appreciated by me, for one.

I appreciate Nicks all too rare contributions too. I think he is also clear where his sympathies lie and also stuill tries in his books and NM pieces to present a balanced view, which has actually been attacked by red extremists. Also try naming a journalist anywhere who is not bias to some degree. That would defy human nature. At least Nick is open about it unlike many other journos

[hyperdimension]

Natthawut mentions looting from Central World in particular in this compilation:

The Nick Nostitz quote "Nothing about Central World.Wasn't mentioned.Sorry" was referring to the clip that Rubl posted and featured Arisman. So to post a clip presumably as proof (and if that is not the case, why post it?) that something was mentioned about Central World, even though it features a speech by a different person, and mentions looting not burning is stretching your "opposing argument" to breaking point.

How is the video clip I posted not relevant to this discussion between nicknostitz and A_Traveller?:

Central World was torched, some of the 'leaders' had suggested such action loudly and publicly, but in this hierarchical society who ends up suffering?

I honestly don't know where leaders have suggested that Central World may be burned (any link to a video on Youtube?).

The video clip shows Natthawut stating that Red Shirt people will run into Central World and "Some will run to get brand name bags, Some will run into jewelry stores, Some will drive into department stores, Some will just light up the fire."

Do you feel uncomfortable with the dissemination of clear evidence that the UDD leaders incited criminal behavior, which many protesters then actually engaged in?

Many of these "peaceful" protest leaders will soon be running the country as Members of Parliament in the Pheu Thai Party-led government.

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

Your statement that 'all along the Rajaprasong occupation Central World had armed guards' may be true. But they did not appear to be in evidence in a vdo I saw yesterday. This video shows people bringing in 'accelerant', like cardboard and and gas canisters. It shows red shirts trying to batter down a plate glass door with a gas canister, It shows what appears to be a grenade being thrown at a gas cannister, fire lit against pillars etc, Astonishingy the grenade (or some sort of military projectile) can actually be seen exploding over the cannister, but the cannister does not explode. One of the crowd comments 'It it did nothing!' in Thai. Someone then opens the gas valve.

But what is most telling is that the video shows it was not 'trained' blackshirts or whatever but clearly ordinary people from the mob who made up the attack on Zen. Who goaded them? Or whether it was spontaneous I cannot say.

Can we see this video that you saw a couple of days ago?

[nicknostitz]

Natthawut mentions looting from Central World in particular in this compilation:

Well, it may just only be my computer, but i do not get any volume on this video, just English subtitles. I can only judge a video of a speech, when i hear it in the original, and not edited and compiled, so that one or the other side can confirm the point they want to make. I do not appreciate to be led.

Give me Nattawaut's speech in the original, and not the heavily edited version we have seen countless times, but the speech in context.

[nicknostitz]

Maybe other posters were also witness to some of the events and have a different take of the situation.

Personally I do not believe people that burn tires in the middle of a major road, throw Molotov cocktails and fire rockets at emplaced Army positions as well as activly supporing armed militants that are firing deadly weapons at the army are accomplishing anything other than trying to create mayhem. They should suffer the consequence of their actions, which will include being shot at.

TH

Actually, there are rules of engagement. These rules forbid to shoot protesters that are not armed militants.

The reason for having burned tires in the streets is quite simple - they gave a smoke screen and therefore a cover against the military snipers.

[hyperdimension]

Well, it may just only be my computer, but i do not get any volume on this video, just English subtitles.

See these videos, from which the clip was taken:

Media Conference from Thai Government 23 May 2010 (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRuBWvNJzkY

Media Conference from Thai Government 23 May 2010 (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9nPPxCG6lY

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

Media Conference from Thai Government 23 May 2010 (Part 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWs8_YK6RjQ

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperdimension

[nicknostitz]

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.

[hyperdimension]

Here are some more relevant and informative videos worth watching:

Thailand Crisis May 2010 Subtitles (1/3)

Thailand Crisis May 2010 Subtitles (2/3)

Thailand Crisis May 2010 Subtitles (3/3)

[thaihome]

Actually, there are rules of engagement. These rules forbid to shoot protesters that are not armed militants.

The reason for having burned tires in the streets is quite simple - they gave a smoke screen and therefore a cover against the military snipers.

I won't address your ROE comment as others have pointed out that is not what they were.

But why were they in the streets Nick? The site of the protest is almost a kilometer away. They were not protesting anything. They were provoking, supporting armed militants and attacking the Army themselves.

They had no business there.

Plain and simple and you cannot in truth defend their presence under any pretext of some sort of “protest”.

The UDD leaders incited them to be there in order have a body count.

You know all this Nick, but you choose to overlook it because of your sympathy for the people themselves. But your sympathy is doing nothing more the helping the people whose agenda is not anything you want. You are just as much a pawn as those people that were senselessly killed, inlcuding the rioters, those that choose to be around the area, and the soldiers.

TH

[rixalex]

I appreciate Nicks all too rare contributions too. I think he is also clear where his sympathies lie and also stuill tries in his books and NM pieces to present a balanced view, which has actually been attacked by red extremists. Also try naming a journalist anywhere who is not bias to some degree. That would defy human nature. At least Nick is open about it unlike many other journos

Of course all journalists are biased, but when we are talking about the field of news reporting, not opinion pieces, then it is the journalist's job to rise above any personal feelings they may have, and if they can't manage that, they are failing to do their job.

Perhaps though Nick's work does not constitute news reporting.

[hyperdimension]

I can only judge a video of a speech, when i hear it in the original, and not edited and compiled, so that one or the other side can confirm the point they want to make. I do not appreciate to be led.

Give me Nattawaut's speech in the original, and not the heavily edited version we have seen countless times, but the speech in context.

In what "context" would it have been acceptable for the leaders to have incited violence and destruction? The only context I can think of is if they were acting in a theatrical performance playing a character in a story. I don't think that was the case when they were on stage in front of thousands of people.

[nicknostitz]

See these videos, from which the clip was taken:

[/url]

[

What is so difficult with the words "unedited" and "in context"?

That does not mean videos of press conferences by CRES, or the edited version that we have seen countless times in which Nattawut's speech has been cut down. Just simply the speech by Nattawut as he held it.

[rixalex]

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

Seriously? All 93 people?

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

Seems perfectly plausible to me. Who stood most to gain from a high body count? It wasn't the soldiers. They knew that the more carnage there was, the greater the scrutiny they would be under, as has proved the case. Had nobody been killed, the red movement would have been unable to play the innocent victim card being trampled on by the heavy-handed brutal state, that they have continued to play since it all came to an end.

Why is the idea absurd?

[nicknostitz]

I won't address your ROE comment as others have pointed out that is not what they were.

But why were they in the streets Nick? The site of the protest is almost a kilometer away. They were not protesting anything. They were provoking, supporting armed militants and attacking the Army themselves.

They had no business there.

Plain and simple and you cannot in truth defend their presence under any pretext of some sort of "protest".

The UDD leaders incited them to be there in order have a body count.

You know all this Nick, but you choose to overlook it because of your sympathy for the people themselves. But your sympathy is doing nothing more the helping the people whose agenda is not anything you want. You are just as much a pawn as those people that were senselessly killed, inlcuding the rioters, those that choose to be around the area, and the soldiers.

TH

By that time this indeed was not a protest anymore, but a full blown urban warfare, and very asymmetric.

I do not overlook who started shooting whom then. On May 13 Sae Daeng was assasinated, and all evidence that came out, based on both witness accounts and forensic results - shot from a building that was under complete control by the military, and therefore by the military. A few hours later, on May 13, the military has shot and killed another protester on Rama IV Rd - an unarmed protester who was in a group of less than 100 unarmed protesters who moved from the wireless intersection towards the military. Teargas and the at most rubber bullets would have been more than sufficient to control that group of protesters. When an ambulance arrived there to pick up the victim - the military also fired at the ambulance. I was about 10 meters from the ambulance.

I can also clearly state that the bullets came from the military, because just half an hour before i drove down Rama IV Rd., and stopped at the military position for a few minutes, where i spoke with Border Police officers who were there (the soldiers, stationed at a pedestrian overpass, refused to speak with me).

Now, i do criticize the decision by the UDD to have occupied Rajaprasong, and have done so from the moment they have made this decision. That does not mean though that the military had the right to use the extreme force that we have seen.

[hyperdimension]

What is so difficult with the words "unedited" and "in context"?

That does not mean videos of press conferences by CRES, or the edited version that we have seen countless times in which Nattawut's speech has been cut down. Just simply the speech by Nattawut as he held it.

Natthawut clearly said "Central World" and he clearly said "joot fai" which means fire (verb) (at around 1:20 of Media Conference from Thai Government 23 May 2010 (Part 2)). Does the video look fake?

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperdimension

[jdinasia]

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.

Edited July 22, 2011 by jdinasia

[Siam Simon]

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

Seriously? All 93 people?

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

Seems perfectly plausible to me. Who stood most to gain from a high body count? It wasn't the soldiers. They knew that the more carnage there was, the greater the scrutiny they would be under, as has proved the case. Had nobody been killed, the red movement would have been unable to play the innocent victim card being trampled on by the heavy-handed brutal state, that they have continued to play since it all came to an end.

Why is the idea absurd?

The theory is fine, rix, , as are all conspiracy theories. Second guessing the thinking of the major players helps to give any conspiracy theory flesh.

But Nick was actually there a lot of the time. Is he claiming to be a witness to all 93 deaths? No. But he clearly witnessed, during his time spent on the front lines, a large part of what went on. Enough imo to be able to state which directions the violence was coming from at least.

[hyperdimension]

Also remember the video of Jeff Savage on his way to Ratchaprasong:

This supports the evidence that there had been some planning involved to loot and burn Central World, as what Savage threatened to do actually happened.

[nicknostitz]

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

Seriously? All 93 people?

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

Seems perfectly plausible to me. Who stood most to gain from a high body count? It wasn't the soldiers. They knew that the more carnage there was, the greater the scrutiny they would be under, as has proved the case. Had nobody been killed, the red movement would have been unable to play the innocent victim card being trampled on by the heavy-handed brutal state, that they have continued to play since it all came to an end.

Why is the idea absurd?

The idea is absurd because the picture on the fronlines does not correspond to this sort of armchair analysis. The Red Shirt militants would have had to place themselves in between the military and the protesters, and the military would have let these militants shoot at protesters without doing anything to stop them, often for hours, as the shootings lasted often many hours. And that would have happened in full sight of the protesters, who would have then allowed the Red Shirt militants to shot them.

Now in the case, for example, during the events at Rajaparop Rd, on May 15, as described in my "killing zone" story, the protesters that were shot and the military were in a distance of 80 meters from each other. Can you see the absurdity of this notion of Red Shirt militants somehow having sqeezed themselves in between without the military doing anything against them?

[nicknostitz]

Does the video look fake?

Again: give me the unedited version, including context.

Not cut down, not edited. If you do not understand these terms, look them up in a thesaurus. I have said nothing about "fake".

[rixalex]

Now, i do criticize the decision by the UDD to have occupied Rajaprasong, and have done so from the moment they have made this decision. That does not mean though that the military had the right to use the extreme force that we have seen.

I think the reason why many people think extreme force became acceptable was because the situation had been escalating for weeks and weeks, not days and days, and the protesters were given warning, upon warning, upon more warning, that staying in that area was illegal and that should they choose to do so, authorities could not guarantee anyone's safety.

Thailand does not have a trained group of professional anti-riot police like as in the West, it has the military, and if you take that on, as the reds as a group did, you should expect a military style reaction; which is exactly what they got. Quelle surprise!

[nicknostitz]

Also remember the video of Jeff Savage on his way to Ratchaprasong:

This supports the evidence that there had been some planning involved to loot and burn Central World, as what Savage threatened to do actually happened.

I am sorry, but no. It is just stating the obvious. From day one of the permanent Rajaprasong occupation everybody, including me, and all my colleagues, knew that in case of a dispersal Red Shirt protesters would most definately let their anger out on the department stores in the vicinity. It doesn't need an Einstein to have forseen that.