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

[jdinasia]

You've damaged your credibility a lot here IMO.

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

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

I'll read it Nick ... I just won't pay you for it. I even read NewMandala and it imho is the Fox News of talking about Thailand ... nothing balanced or fair about it

[nicknostitz]

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

Well, then do what i have always said to people who claim to have evidence: give it to me and i will consider it.

But excuse me if i will not entertain the statements of "i have seen such and such" and i would have to just take your word for it. You are just another anonymous poster on the internet, and as long as you do not back up your statements with facts, you will hardly be considered as a source.

You also should consider another thing here - i will not display all i know, or have researched on this forum here in order to score some or the other point. Read my books, and there you will see what i have to say - and what i have to say on the events on last year has not been published yet. And no, this is not a sales pitch, you can read them in a bookstore, or photocopy them, or shoplift them, for all i care. Just read them before you judge them.

[nicknostitz]

I'll read it Nick ... I just won't pay you for it.

Good.

Go to the library, borrow them, shoplift them, i don't care (my publisher does, but he is a stingy old goat).

Just read them before you accuse me of bias and misreporting. But i am quite sure that you will still accuse me of bias after you read it. Which you are free to.

I accuse you of the same, based on what i read from you here.

[Buchholz]

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...

Next time you wish to advertise your pending books, perhaps you should post in the Classifieds, instead of spamming the News Forum.

Here in News, we all post our individual opinions... for free.

.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[jdinasia]

I'll read it Nick ... I just won't pay you for it.

Good.

Go to the library, borrow them, shoplift them, i don't care (my publisher does, but he is a stingy old goat).

Just read them before you accuse me of bias and misreporting. But i am quite sure that you will still accuse me of bias after you read it. Which you are free to.

I accuse you of the same, based on what i read from you here.

As well you should. I admit my bias. I see the same thing in you. I have read enough of your writing (I can't in good conscience call it reporting) to know I will see bias. It doesn't mean it has no value. I watch Fox news on occasion as well (BTW -- I won't shoplift and I am fairly sure they won't be found in a library in Thailand ... but maybe a used bookstore ...)

[Buchholz]

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.

Name one aspect of an issue in which you have changed from your own previously made-up mind.

[jdinasia]

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

Well, then do what i have always said to people who claim to have evidence: give it to me and i will consider it.

But excuse me if i will not entertain the statements of "i have seen such and such" and i would have to just take your word for it. You are just another anonymous poster on the internet, and as long as you do not back up your statements with facts, you will hardly be considered as a source.

You also should consider another thing here - i will not display all i know, or have researched on this forum here in order to score some or the other point. Read my books, and there you will see what i have to say - and what i have to say on the events on last year has not been published yet. And no, this is not a sales pitch, you can read them in a bookstore, or photocopy them, or shoplift them, for all i care. Just read them before you judge them.

I read the sales pitch on NewMandala ... your insider info on Black Songkran is ... ummm ... not convincing It reads like propaganda. I am not sure how the mods feel about cutting from the inside of an article and "fair usage" but .... the author could certainly release TVF of any copyright infringement issue

[Buchholz]

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 actively supporting 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

Certainly agree with your points.

Additionally there were plenty of well-respected, and quite a number of internationally-acclaimed, real journalists that covered the events of the past number of years.

[rubl]

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.

Name one aspect of an issue in which you have changed from your own previously made-up mind.

Straight question! So, straight answer!

"If I am pressed for a straight answer I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another, in terms of the average of persons or group of persons, then in the last analysis it is probably true to say that, at the end of the day, you would find, in general terms that, not to put too fine a point on it, there really was not very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage."

[Buchholz]

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.

A logical and reasonable opinion, at that.

[Buchholz]

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".

Well said.

It's the outlandish claims that invariably seem to get put out there that lowers the credibility of what my otherwise be considered much more credible news/posts/opinions.

.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

Certainly agree with your points.

Additionally there were plenty of well-respected, and quite a number of internationally-acclaimed, real journalists that covered the events of the past number of years.

Yes. To name a few:

Jonathan Head, Dan Rivers, Nirmal Ghosh, Marvaan Macan-Marcar, etc. - all friends and colleagues of mine.

And if you want to know for whom i have worked, as photographer, research assistant, fixer, and whatever else, to name a few (i believe i have already posted here my press card when you questioned my credentials):

BBC Radio 4, Al-Jazeera, Stern, Spiegel, etc - all internationally respected medias. I have also published in several academic journals, and my books have been reviewed positively in others.

But it seems that lacking coherent arguments attempted character assassination is your game here. I will not rise to the bait, and comment any further on this here.

So long.

[lannarebirth]

Additionally there were plenty of well-respected, and quite a number of internationally-acclaimed, real journalists that covered the events of the past number of years.

Really? Can you provide the names of two or three internationally acclaimed journalists that have provided fair coverage of events in Thailand?

I can't. It was pretty obvious to me, save for Al Jazeera, that most western television journalists got all their talking points from the UDD Media Center. They disgraced themselves IMO and it's a shame that the vast majority of those who viewed their "reports" would not have known they were being fed a pack of lies. I've never looked at news reportage the same way since.

[Crushdepth]

You've damaged your credibility a lot here IMO.

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

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

I'll read it Nick ... I just won't pay you for it. I even read NewMandala and it imho is the Fox News of talking about Thailand ... nothing balanced or fair about it

New Mandala is a joke. Leaving aside the absurd nutter commentry it attracts, the substantive posts just make me cringe. I wish they would drop the academic pretensions and represent it for what it is - a blog for rabid red politicos with ideological axes to grind and a chip on both shoulders and *zero* interest in facts or analysis. The stuff some of the contributors publish as 'research papers' is just incredible.

Nick, your emotive comments "if you'd been on the front line" are patronising and annoying. Some of us live there and took a little bit of interest in what was going on. The idea that use of arms was purely one-sided is absurd.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Crushdepth

[metisdead]

A number of off topic posts (as well as baiting posts) have been removed as well as the replies to those posts.

[jayboy]

I can't. It was pretty obvious to me, save for Al Jazeera, that most western television journalists got all their talking points from the UDD Media Center. They disgraced themselves IMO and it's a shame that the vast majority of those who viewed their "reports" would not have known they were being fed a pack of lies. I've never looked at news reportage the same way since.

I see.Most Western journalists got it wrong because they were brainwashed by the UDD.(Can you name the minority that did get it right?)

It's ironic you mention Al Jazeera since its documentary fronted by Rageh Omah was the most devastating critique of the injustice that led to the crisis in the first place.

[nicknostitz]

Nick, your emotive comments "if you'd been on the front line" are patronising and annoying. Some of us live there and took a little bit of interest in what was going on. The idea that use of arms was purely one-sided is absurd.

Sorry to destroy your strawman here, but never have i claimed that the use of arms was purely one sided. As i said sometime at the beginning of the thread - i am one of the few journalists who have seen Red Shirt militants lobbing grenades at the military.

Have you, while you took a little bit of interest in what was going on here, or did you just watch the videos? If you have personally seen these things, then please, i am very interested in your accounts of what you have observed, and would love to interview you about these things you saw.

It's your chance now, to set the record straight. Well, as long as you have personally witnessed things that alter the perception of what happend last year.

Edited July 22, 2011 by nicknostitz

[lannarebirth]

It's ironic you mention Al Jazeera since its documentary fronted by Rageh Omah was the most devastating critique of the injustice that led to the crisis in the first place.

I'm sorry I didn't see that one jayboy, but i thought this was pretty good for exposing the deceit of the manipulators of the Red Shirts on behalf of their sponsor, Thaksin.

Edited July 22, 2011 by lannarebirth

[nicknostitz]

I'm sorry I didn't see that one jayboy, but i thought this was pretty good for exposing the deceit of the manipulators of the Red Shirts on behalf of their sponsor, Thaksin.

See, it all is a question of perception.

I did not see any "exposing the deceit of the manipulators of the Red Shirts on behalf of their sponsor, Thaksin", but a reporter asking hard and legitimate questions, and Amsterdam answering them quite well to the most part.

Every social movement needs funding, and that means that it needs backers. That may be Thaksin, and other rich business men. But i have photographed many times ordinary Red Shirt protesters donating their own money. Therefore the notion that these are just paid protesters without their own convictions is just not valid.

That also does not mean that the Red Shirt movement is always right, or always uses correct means - which it doesn't. I found it, to name one example, a terrible mistake that the UDD did decide in the end against taking up the 5 point plan, even though the points raised regarding their lack of trust is somewhat valid. Another example i would cite was the decision to occupy Rajaprasong indefinitely instead of remaining at Pan Fa. But having made these mistakes does also not mean that the UDD is to be entirely discredited.

The Abhisit government has made many terrible mistakes as well leading to the mess and the loss of lives. One of many of these mistakes was not putting an impartial truth and reconciliation process in place after the 2009 events, not having properly investigated the events of 2009 - especially the more than questionable behavior of their own security forces were completely ignored. And having delayed for far too long the opposition's legitimate demands for popular elections. Demands which - given the 2011 results - were more than justified as it was made quite clear that the Abhisit government had not the necessary popular backing.

[lannarebirth]

I'm sorry I didn't see that one jayboy, but i thought this was pretty good for exposing the deceit of the manipulators of the Red Shirts on behalf of their sponsor, Thaksin.

See, it all is a question of perception.

I did not see any "exposing the deceit of the manipulators of the Red Shirts on behalf of their sponsor, Thaksin", but a reporter asking hard and legitimate questions, and Amsterdam answering them quite well to the most part.

Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree there Nick. I say a paid mouthpiece trying to evade questions, spin answers to questions that weren't asked and also telling outright lies. I consider him a thouroughly disingenuous uncredible person. No reflection on your observations however.

[whybother]

And having delayed for far too long the opposition's legitimate demands for popular elections. Demands which - given the 2011 results - were more than justified as it was made quite clear that the Abhisit government had not the necessary popular backing.

Do you think all governments should call elections before their term is up just because they are no longer popular?

[TAWP]

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Thankfully a logical poster understood the point I was making.

[nicknostitz]

And having delayed for far too long the opposition's legitimate demands for popular elections. Demands which - given the 2011 results - were more than justified as it was made quite clear that the Abhisit government had not the necessary popular backing.

Do you think all governments should call elections before their term is up just because they are no longer popular?

Well, the ones that started off without any popular mandate at all, but were formed to a large part in the military barracks (read Suthep's comments at the time what he did in order to get the coalition in place, for example), and came to place by resulting parliamentary elections alone definitely should do so before their term is over.

By the way - no longer popular? Was the Abhisit government ever popular? The 2007 elections were quite clear - PPP came out as the strongest party. To gauge his coalition government's popularity we would have needed elections to be able to judge. Now we finally had elections. The result was even more clear than the 2007 elections, which speaks volumes about what the Thai electorate thinks about the events we have such a heavy discussion about right now.

And if you look at the numbers in Bangkok alone, it is even worse for the Democrats. One would have thought that last year's events in Bangkok would have brought the electorate strongly on the side of the Democrat Party. But 44.64% for the Democrats vs 42.26% for Puah Thai (compare 2007 elections: 53.08% for the Democrats vs 40.52% for PPP) are quite clear as well about the trend of confidence the Thai electorate has in the Democrat Party, and how it handled last year's protests (of course besides other issues such as almost unbearable rise of prices, etc).

[TAWP]

By the way - no longer popular? Was the Abhisit government ever popular? The 2007 elections were quite clear - PPP came out as the strongest party.

The coalition (both of them) gathered the majority of MPs and hence would per your definition be the popular choice of the people.

[hanuman1]

By the way - no longer popular? Was the Abhisit government ever popular? The 2007 elections were quite clear - PPP came out as the strongest party.

The coalition (both of them) gathered the majority of MPs and hence would per your definition be the popular choice of the people.

Did Nick's definition of 'popular' include governments that were created without a mandate resulting from a general election? Please highlight the post where he said this.

I guess since it questions your statement, you presume this post is pro-red. Oh well, knock yourself out...

[nicknostitz]

By the way - no longer popular? Was the Abhisit government ever popular? The 2007 elections were quite clear - PPP came out as the strongest party.

The coalition (both of them) gathered the majority of MPs and hence would per your definition be the popular choice of the people.

You forget here that the PPP led coalition was formed by the party that came out as the strongest party of the 2007 had a popular and parliamentary mandate, and the Democrat led coalition was formed after the army chief gave its support, and had no popular mandate, only a parliamentary mandate. This parliamentary mandate was highly questionable because of the defection of a group of ex-PPP parliamentarians led by Nevin Chidchob, and coalition partner Chart Thai (the called Chart Thai Pattana). In this place i would ask you to recall Chumpol Silpa-archa's recent statement about the pressures that forced him to join the Democrat led coalition against his will.

However you want to turn it - the formation of the Democrat government was more than dubious, had no popular mandate, and failed miserably in the recent elections. The numbers cannot be more clear. It is time to accept reality, and maybe think about the mistakes you made in your analyses.

Or at least be honest and say that you are not in favor of a democratic system, but a military dictatorship. You would not be the only one here - there is a very outspoken minority existing in Thailand that is in favor of such a system. But i am not - and that may very well be my only true strong bias.

[rubl]

This parliamentary mandate was highly questionable because of the defection of a group of ex-PPP parliamentarians led by Nevin Chidchob, and coalition partner Chart Thai (the called Chart Thai Pattana).

Sorry, just this sentence.

You more-or-less say that the parliamentary mandate in the UK, Australia and probably a few other countries (only mentioning some in the last year that is) are highly questionable.

I think you should stick to reporting on what happens on the streets. No offence meant, just IMHO.

[jdinasia]

You forget here that the PPP led coalition was formed by the party that came out as the strongest party of the 2007 had a popular and parliamentary mandate

Not at all true. Which is why Nick is seen as biased.

A coalition (which PPP needed for a mandate) was only in effect until PPP was disbanded for 100% proven violation of electoral law. After PPP was disbanded the MP's including the PPP faction referred to as "The Friends of Newin" were allowed to make their own choices. The faction of PPP led by (defacto) leader Newin were never an issue for the PPP but PTP certainly made an issue of it. (They Failed)

A reporter should know the difference between a party and a coalition.

[jdinasia]

By the way - no longer popular? Was the Abhisit government ever popular? The 2007 elections were quite clear - PPP came out as the strongest party.

The coalition (both of them) gathered the majority of MPs and hence would per your definition be the popular choice of the people.

Did Nick's definition of 'popular' include governments that were created without a mandate resulting from a general election? Please highlight the post where he said this.

I guess since it questions your statement, you presume this post is pro-red. Oh well, knock yourself out...

The 2007 elections did not return with a government with a popular mandate. It returned with three consecutive coalition governments.

[nicknostitz]

This parliamentary mandate was highly questionable because of the defection of a group of ex-PPP parliamentarians led by Nevin Chidchob, and coalition partner Chart Thai (the called Chart Thai Pattana).

Sorry, just this sentence.

You more-or-less say that the parliamentary mandate in the UK, Australia and probably a few other countries (only mentioning some in the last year that is) are highly questionable.

I think you should stick to reporting on what happens on the streets. No offence meant, just IMHO.

If in the "UK, Australia and probably a few other countries" respective Army chief's give permission's to form coalitions after meetings in the military barracks, and if leaders of coalition partners state publicly that they would not have joined the coalition if they would not have been "pressured by a powerful force from which we could not evade" (Chumpol Silpa-archa, leader of Chart Thai Pattana, June 8, 2011 in Nakhon Pathom), then yes, they would be questionable.

I don't think that such has happened in the particular countries you mentioned.

Or has it, oh wise one that just paternally chided me from straying off the lowly streets into echelons of the subject matter i am not qualified to comment upon?