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

[nicknostitz]

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!

And there you are wrong. The Thai police has anti riot units.

[rixalex]

Is he claiming to be a witness to all 93 deaths? No.

To paraphrase, he said, "If you would have been at the frontlines, you would know exactly who shot whom". As no number is specified or mentioned, i took this to mean all 93 deaths. If he meant it to mean the 4 or five deaths, or whatever the number is that he personally witnessed, he should have stated.

Even amended to state a number, I would still however question the accuracy of the statement. We are not talking about hand to hand combat, or point-blank range shootings. We are talking about long distance shots coming from hidden positions. If Nick truly did know exactly who shot whom, as he claims, well then he would be able to pick out the culprits in a line-up. I don't think for a minute he could. Just my opinion though.

[jdinasia]

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?

Hmmmmm

A 2 man fire-team could be placed just about anywhere and have the resulting increase in body count. Nothing would require that they be 'between' the military and the reds. They would neither need to be "in full sight" nor have had to have expended much ammo. Then again I don't claim to know "exactly who shot whom".

[rixalex]

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!

And there you are wrong. The Thai police has anti riot units.

I'm right. I didn't say that the Thai police does not have anti riot units, i said the Thai police doesn't have professionally trained anti riot police as in the West. It doesn't. Anyone who has been on the streets of Bangkok for the last 3 years or so, as you have (myself too), knows that.

[noahvail]

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?

Hmmmmm

A 2 man fire-team could be placed just about anywhere and have the resulting increase in body count. Nothing would require that they be 'between' the military and the reds. They would neither need to be "in full sight" nor have had to have expended much ammo. Then again I don't claim to know "exactly who shot whom".

Indeed. And in the fear and confusion that would have hit almost all of the protesters, they wouldn't be able to tell who got shot from where.

Lawyers will tell you that the most impeachable witnesses are eyewitnesses.

[nicknostitz]

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.

Yes, indeed, i am not a news reporter (but at times the fields between news and other areas of reporting do overlap). I come from the field of reportage. And by the way - there is a huge difference between bias and sympathy. Nobody is "neutral", and cannot possibly be. The importance here is objectivity and factual reporting, and not letting sympathy get into the way of facts and objectivity. I am very careful not to do that. That is why i can speak with every side of the conflict, and people of all levels, which are not just Red Shirts, but also include Abhist, Panitan and other leading figures in the Democrat Party, and many officers in the military. If i would be what you accuse me of being, i would hardly still be in Thailand, neither would the aforementioned people speak with me.

The tactic of character assassination - eg. :"Nick is biased, etc, therefore not trustworthy" is just obfuscating the fact that some people's ideological convictions may not be supported by facts, and a refusal to accept uncomfortable facts that threaten some people's believes. But i do not deal in believe systems here, i deal in factual reporting. If any side's believes do not correspond to facts, then tough luck.

I have, for example, never described the Red Shirts as entirely peaceful, regardless what is said on stages, or what some Red Shirts believe. Because the facts speak clearly against this notion. Yet that does not mean that i will agree with the armchair analyses that the Red Shirts are a hired violent mob, as propagated by some quarters - because the facts speak against this notion.

[nicknostitz]

Indeed. And in the fear and confusion that would have hit almost all of the protesters, they wouldn't be able to tell who got shot from where.

Lawyers will tell you that the most impeachable witnesses are eyewitnesses.

There are more than a few cases where we have a clear picture supported not just by many corresponding witness accounts, but also by video and photo, crime scene and forensic investigations.

Sorry, but i will stop engaging in this discussion, if it continues on this level. This is getting far too hypothetical now.

[rixalex]

Yes, indeed, i am not a news reporter (but at times the fields between news and other areas of reporting do overlap). I come from the field of reportage. And by the way - there is a huge difference between bias and sympathy. Nobody is "neutral", and cannot possibly be. The importance here is objectivity and factual reporting, and not letting sympathy get into the way of facts and objectivity. I am very careful not to do that. That is why i can speak with every side of the conflict, and people of all levels, which are not just Red Shirts, but also include Abhist, Panitan and other leading figures in the Democrat Party, and many officers in the military. If i would be what you accuse me of being, i would hardly still be in Thailand, neither would the aforementioned people speak with me.

The tactic of character assassination - eg. :"Nick is biased, etc, therefore not trustworthy" is just obfuscating the fact that some people's ideological convictions may not be supported by facts, and a refusal to accept uncomfortable facts that threaten some people's believes. But i do not deal in believe systems here, i deal in factual reporting. If any side's believes do not correspond to facts, then tough luck.

I have, for example, never described the Red Shirts as entirely peaceful, regardless what is said on stages, or what some Red Shirts believe. Because the facts speak clearly against this notion. Yet that does not mean that i will agree with the armchair analyses that the Red Shirts are a hired violent mob, as propagated by some quarters - because the facts speak against this notion.

If i would be what you accuse me of being, i would hardly still be in Thailand, neither would the aforementioned people speak with me.

What have i accused you of being that would prevent you from staying in Thailand or speaking to certain people? The only accusation i can think of with those consequences would be actually taking part or leading illegal red activities, and i certainly do not accuse you of that.

[jdinasia]

Nick, many people, some of whom actually try to be very objective .. such as Hammered, (appear to-- from the post above) see a bias in your writing. Many people who are biased in their reporting get almost unfettered access to opposing viewpoints/camps. That doesn't speak to their bias at all and instead speaks to the people in the opposing camps wanting to be "on the record" or at least not completely unrepresented in reports even from those that are biased against them. You are again making the argument that it has to be only one of two ways. Fallacious argument.

Democrats still talk to people from Fox news in the US. Israelis still speak to Al Jazeera.

I have no problem at all in saying that I see your writing as having a pro-red bias, it is my opinion and it is not character assassination. I see The Nation as having an overall pro-establishment editorial slant and that isn't character assassination. Those are opinions.

I readily accept "factual reporting" for what it is worth ... I look for the bias .... I look for the proof .... and I look for outlandish claims such as "exactly who shot whom".

Edited July 22, 2011 by jdinasia

[philw]

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.

Yes, indeed, i am not a news reporter (but at times the fields between news and other areas of reporting do overlap). I come from the field of reportage. And by the way - there is a huge difference between bias and sympathy. Nobody is "neutral", and cannot possibly be. The importance here is objectivity and factual reporting, and not letting sympathy get into the way of facts and objectivity. I am very careful not to do that. That is why i can speak with every side of the conflict, and people of all levels, which are not just Red Shirts, but also include Abhist, Panitan and other leading figures in the Democrat Party, and many officers in the military. If i would be what you accuse me of being, i would hardly still be in Thailand, neither would the aforementioned people speak with me.

The tactic of character assassination - eg. :"Nick is biased, etc, therefore not trustworthy" is just obfuscating the fact that some people's ideological convictions may not be supported by facts, and a refusal to accept uncomfortable facts that threaten some people's believes. But i do not deal in believe systems here, i deal in factual reporting. If any side's believes do not correspond to facts, then tough luck.

I have, for example, never described the Red Shirts as entirely peaceful, regardless what is said on stages, or what some Red Shirts believe. Because the facts speak clearly against this notion. Yet that does not mean that i will agree with the armchair analyses that the Red Shirts are a hired violent mob, as propagated by some quarters - because the facts speak against this notion.

Nice response Nick.

For some, character assassination is their natural MO and chosen habitat.

It's ugly but real, and probably explains why about 1/2 dozen people dominate this thread at the expense of the potential contributions of the sometimes hundreds who read it.

I am sure many possible posters are deterred from participating by the possibility of over the top responses to their efforts.

Sad.

[jayboy]

Nick, many people, some of whom actually try to be very objective .. such as Hammered, (appear to-- from the post above) see a bias in your writing. Many people who are biased in their reporting get almost unfettered access to opposing viewpoints/camps. That doesn't speak to their bias at all and instead speaks to the people in the opposing camps wanting to be "on the record" or at least not completely unrepresented in reports even from those that are biased against them. You are again making the argument that it has to be only one of two ways. Fallacious argument.

No doubt Hammered will speak for himself (if he wishes to) but I believe this member has completely misrepresented his position on Nick Nostitz.The distinguishing characteristic of Nick, whom I know only from his writings, is a compelling honesty.It's a flattering comparison but he reminds me of Orwell's reporting on the Spanish Civil War.Orwell, to use Hammered's phrase, obviously had his sympathies but that's a long way from suggesting his reporting was biased.He reported the truth as he saw it even if it was sometimes uncomfortable,( and Nick has often pointed out blunders and excesses on the redshirt side).

Frankly the forum is fortunate to have someone's of Nick's calibre contributing.It would be tragedy if he was driven out by shrill military cheerleaders.

[nicknostitz]

What have i accused you of being that would prevent you from staying in Thailand or speaking to certain people? The only accusation i can think of with those consequences would be actually taking part or leading illegal red activities, and i certainly do not accuse you of that.

It is quite simple - if i would be as biased as i am accused of being here by a few posters, it would be a clear and direct violation of the regulations that rule my profession - hence, i would be in violation to the terms and conditions of my work permit here in Thailand. We journalists, and I in particular, are closely watched by the authorities. Which, by the way, i am not complaining about - there are many members of my profession who do not adhere to our principles of ethical conduct. Also we have to be transparent.

As to speaking with certain people - i am not part of an influential news network which politicians cannot afford to deny access. I am just me, and i do not overestimate my importance.It would not raise any eyebrow if i would be denied access, or if politicians would refuse off the record conversations with me. Many journalists do get denied access, all over the world, when their reporting is perceived as biased. This is quite normal.

[jdinasia]

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

What was actually said .... and I agree with it

[rixalex]

Nice response Nick.

For some, character assassination is their natural MO and chosen habitat.

Suggesting that Nick reports with a certain slant is not an attempt at character assassination. Merely an opinion, which he (and you) are free to disagree with.

On the other hand, calling people entrenched loons i would say is much closer to that act.

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

[thaihome]

.... 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.

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

[TAWP]

You claim unarmed as in 'innocent'. I would say that a person that actively help in a rebellion and throw stones, shoot rockets etc isn't innocent nor - at all times - unarmed.

Just because someone wasn't carrying a gun when seen by the medics and press later doesn't mean they where not part of the violent and armed mob.

But I am not expecting you to acknowledge that.

I think you should read what i write, before stating your expectations.

I have already stated a few posts ago that i do not consider protesters that fire slingshots as "peaceful protesters".

Unarmed means exactly that - unarmed. And there are rules of engagement which allowed deadly force only against armed militants, or in an immediate threat against the life of security forces. The stated rules of engagement do not allow deadly force against unarmed protesters that do not pose an immediate threat against the life of security forces.

Again - unarmed protesters were shot and in killed in front of me in situations where teargas would have been more than sufficient to disperse and control these protesters.

Are you a trained anti-riot officer or trained Military Police officer?

[hyperdimension]

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".

I don't have an "unedited version, including context", so this is the best we have to go by and I think is good enough.The picture is acceptably clear to see who is saying what, and the subtitles I believe are an accurate translation of the speech. Does this at all address your statement:

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

or will you completely dismiss and disregard the video evidence that I have pointed out as if it was 100% worthless?

If you want an "unedited version, including context", you may have to ask your red shirt friends who may have collections of speeches on VCD, or your other connections such as those in the People's Information Center (whom I believe is one of Thaksin's propaganda outlets).

Edited July 22, 2011 by hyperdimension

[TAWP]

No, definitely not.

Arisaman talks there about feces to be thrown at the houses of Prem, Abhisit and Suthep, he talks about the Blue Shirts the year before. And he talks about Suthep having mentioned sensitive buildings such as several hospitals, mosques and banks, and warned Suthep that in case the government would use violence against the Red Shirts then nothing of such sensitive places would be "left in Thailand". He also talked about the violence by the Blue Shirts, and by the military during the April 2009 dispersal.

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

So your defense to 'burn everything of importance down' was 'he didn't mention Central World by name'. Impressive. No bias in your reports. Right.

[TAWP]

A few Thais I spoke to about this a while back are of the belief that this was an inside job for insurance purposes.

I am aware of this conspiracy theory.

No evidence though came out to support this idea.

Days after, as I have outlined in other posts here, a Red Shirt organizer said to my neighbors (and my gf) that the fire was performed by the military to cover up hundreds of bodies of innocent reds. It was said with a straight face.

Would you say the organizer was truthful?

[nicknostitz]

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.

[hyperdimension]

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

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.

[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.

[nicknostitz]

A few Thais I spoke to about this a while back are of the belief that this was an inside job for insurance purposes.

I am aware of this conspiracy theory.

No evidence though came out to support this idea.

Days after, as I have outlined in other posts here, a Red Shirt organizer said to my neighbors (and my gf) that the fire was performed by the military to cover up hundreds of bodies of innocent reds. It was said with a straight face.

Would you say the organizer was truthful?

He may have been truthful in that he believed that this may have been so. Which confirms the power of rumors.

I have not seen yet enough evidence that this scenario is valid, so i do naturally disagree with the organizer's version.

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. The same two single speeches on the stages which are taken out of context and edited are not enough evidence. Sorry.

We do not even have a professional investigation into the causes of the fire, such as structural analyzes, chemical analyzes, forensics, etc.

Just because you believe that things may have been so, does not necessarily mean that they indeed were so.

And no - i am not a trained riot police officer, or soldier. But i have close friends who are, both foreign and Thai (some of whom have taken part in most of the violent confrontations of the past years here), and with whom i regularly analyze the different events. And the confrontations here have not been the first violent confrontations i have seen close up, i have therefore a frame of reference and don't talk out of my arse.

[nicknostitz]

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.

[nicknostitz]

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.

It appears so

[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.

[TAWP]

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.

For you to consider anything put forward by anyone else it has to be in full length, unedited and untouched by anyone with a presumed bias (such as CRES).

But you expect us to take everything you say as facts when it is mere hearsay or an biased (your) eyewitness account. Interesting.

And you also completely disregarded the info that some people here was in the area when things went down or had relative/friends that was.

[rixalex]

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?

[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.

Plus 1 +

Good comment.

[nicknostitz]

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.

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.

What people may have seen as a "sign", or not, is purely hypothetical. I can only tell you in this regard, that, having been at Rajaprasong from the moment it was occupied, that people definitely did not need any sign for escalation, as it is a natural progression of any escalation that such things as burnings of buildings and lootings just happen in these situations (not just in Thailand, but all over the world). No surprise there. We all talked and discussed about this scenario there in case a violent dispersal is attempted - journalists, officers of the security forces, protesters, tourists, etc.

Just accept it - there was a process of escalation, and both sides have contributed to it. What now needs to be done is to analyze the different events and to what degree they contributed to the mess. That analyses also needs to take into account the history of the conflict, reaching back several years. I am in quite a good position to do that, because i have been personally present in most of those events - large or small - that formed perception, or were of importance to the development of the conflict, and have naturally excellent contacts on all sides, on all levels, who can help and support me doing that. That is why i write books about this, and don't just air my emotions on the net. And so far, my books have received very good reviews, like it or not, by people such as Chris Baker, Kevin Hewison, etc. Well, one of the Pattaya newpapers wrote a bad review - they thought that i was too left wing in my political views. Oh, well...