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

[jdinasia]

Nick ... since you like to use terms describing fallacious arguments .... your post responding to Rubl would be an :ad hominem attack"

[nicknostitz]

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.

As to the judgement leading to the disbandment of the parties in late 2008 - i was recently at a small but regular academic seminar in which students and academics present papers, studies and researches - one of the ongoing researches presented was about the Politicization of the Thai judiciary in the crises from from 2005 onwards. Very interesting subject matter, and something i believe you should familiarize yourself with.

As to the failure regarding the faction led by Newin - well, the recent election result has shown who and what failed, quite clearly so, as Nevin's Friends (Bhumjai Thai Party) has been given quite a popular electoral arsekicking.

And yes, i come from Germany - a country that had coalition governments since i can remember. I know very well the difference between a party and a coalition. Thank you for trying to educate me.

[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.

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...

You seem confused. Both coalition governments we recently had had several parties with MPs elected in the last (before this) election and all contained minority parties that together formed a majority.

[nicknostitz]

Nick ... since you like to use terms describing fallacious arguments .... your post responding to Rubl would be an :ad hominem attack"

Actually, no.

That is why i have, for the humoristically challenged, ended the post with a smiley icon - , so it is clear that this was nothing but a comment in jest.

Ad hominem attacks are usually comments such as "you are biased", or barely hidden comments discrediting one's professional credentials...

Edited July 22, 2011 by nicknostitz

[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.

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?

Oh, less wise one , you just added some more arguments. It started with 'defection of a group' only. Now we have army pressure thrown in and k. Chumpol. K. Chumpol kissed and made up after two/three day by the way, obviously because of army pressure.

Mind you in Australia some people are wondering about their government and what was promised before the elections and what's happening after. Makes people here really waiting with high anticipation as to what PM Yingluck will do with her government.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic. Back we have: Chaos at Zen in Bangkok. The TV site seems a bit busy, or it doesn't like Opera, but I can't add the photo I'd like to. There's a nice one from 2011-05-20 showing the burned out portal of ZEN and to the left visible the summer bargain slogan 'turn up the heat'

(edit: add: smiley after 'oh, less wise one' to avoid being accused of 'ad hominem attack')

(edit: add: restart Opera, add proper smileys)

Edited July 22, 2011 by rubl

[rubl]

begin removed ...

As to the failure regarding the faction led by Newin - well, the recent election result has shown who and what failed, quite clearly so, as Nevin's Friends (Bhumjai Thai Party) has been given quite a popular electoral arsekicking.

... end removed

I may have missed something here. Before BJT had 32 seats, after the July 3rd elections 34. Doesn't seem like an 'electoral arse kicking' to me. Care to elaborate?

[TAWP]

Nick ... since you like to use terms describing fallacious arguments .... your post responding to Rubl would be an :ad hominem attack"

Actually, no.

That is why i have, for the humoristically challenged, ended the post with a smiley icon - , so it is clear that this was nothing but a comment in jest.

Ad hominem attacks are usually comments such as "you are biased", or barely hidden comments discrediting one's professional credentials...

Just so we are clear over the rules: it is not ad 'ad hominem' attack if there is a smiley at the end?

And you have not yet acknowledged that other posters was in the area during the events.

[nicknostitz]

Mind you in Australia some people are wondering about their government and what was promised before the elections and what's happening after. Makes people here really waiting with high anticipation as to what PM Yingluck will do with her government.

Well, we will wait and see how the Yingluck government will fare - if she fulfills her promises, well done, if not, sooner or later people will have a chance to vote for a different party. I will not engage though in any speculation how she may far, if she can keep her promises, or whatever not.

I just hope that her opposition will not resort anymore to military coups and similar such not exactly democratic means, but fights within the framework of the system. That would also save me from running around taking photos of street politics yet again. 5 1/2 years of that and one bloodbath is more than enough for me.

[TAWP]

If PT decides to continue to screw over the small worker the Reds might be out on the streets again in some year -- if the organization has truly grown beyond Thaksin, as some here like to claim.

[nicknostitz]

begin removed ...

As to the failure regarding the faction led by Newin - well, the recent election result has shown who and what failed, quite clearly so, as Nevin's Friends (Bhumjai Thai Party) has been given quite a popular electoral arsekicking.

... end removed

I may have missed something here. Before BJT had 32 seats, after the July 3rd elections 34. Doesn't seem like an 'electoral arse kicking' to me. Care to elaborate?

Their own predictions of 60 to 70 seats, 2 1/2 years of control over the interior ministry and enormous possibilities of control over local politics that come with it, 'allegedly' most money spent on attempts of vote buying, and could not even hold their entire home province of Buriram. Yes - an arsekickking.

I think both supporters of the Democrats and the Puah Thai can wholeheartedly agree upon that a better result for Bhumjai Thai would have been disastrous for Thailand.

[rubl]

Mind you in Australia some people are wondering about their government and what was promised before the elections and what's happening after. Makes people here really waiting with high anticipation as to what PM Yingluck will do with her government.

Well, we will wait and see how the Yingluck government will fare - if she fulfills her promises, well done, if not, sooner or later people will have a chance to vote for a different party. I will not engage though in any speculation how she may far, if she can keep her promises, or whatever not.

I just hope that her opposition will not resort anymore to military coups and similar such not exactly democratic means, but fights within the framework of the system. That would also save me from running around taking photos of street politics yet again. 5 1/2 years of that and one bloodbath is more than enough for me.

We're getting a bit off topic here, but I would think most foreigners from Western Europe would rather have the (televised) battle in parliament, both verbal and vocal. Keep in mind 'physical violence is a sign of verbal incompetence'. On the other hand , be careful who you say so

[nicknostitz]

And you have not yet acknowledged that other posters was in the area during the events.

I have.

One i asked to tell me what he has seen there, and if he has seen militants operating, than if he would let me interview him. So far he has not replied.

Another poster said that he witnessed an event i witnessed. I replied that he may have got certain events or dates confused. He also hasn't replied yet.

I don't think i can give any more acknowledgement than that here.

[nicknostitz]

[

We're getting a bit off topic here, but I would think most foreigners from Western Europe would rather have the (televised) battle in parliament, both verbal and vocal. Keep in mind 'physical violence is a sign of verbal incompetence'. On the other hand , be careful who you say so

Well, i don't mind watching the occasional televised brawl between MP's in parliament as well. Highly entertaining.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

As to the failure regarding the faction led by Newin - well, the recent election result has shown who and what failed, quite clearly so, as Nevin's Friends (Bhumjai Thai Party) has been given quite a popular electoral arsekicking.... end removed

I may have missed something here. Before BJT had 32 seats, after the July 3rd elections 34. Doesn't seem like an 'electoral arse kicking' to me. Care to elaborate?

Their own predictions of 60 to 70 seats, 2 1/2 years of control over the interior ministry and enormous possibilities of control over local politics that come with it, 'allegedly' most money spent on attempts of vote buying, and could not even hold their entire home province of Buriram. Yes - an arsekickking.

I think both supporters of the Democrats and the Puah Thai can wholeheartedly agree upon that a better result for Bhumjai Thai would have been disastrous for Thailand.

From what I remember ALL parties has giving (preposterous) predictions before the elections. If you take the upper limit in estimations and your definition, I think all parties have had an 'arse kicking'.

I'm not sure what to think of your last sentence without a bit more explanation. It suggest (my interpretation that is) a larger BJT might 'misuse' it's position as minority party able to 'blackmail' others into a coalition and certain favours?

[TAWP]

And you have not yet acknowledged that other posters was in the area during the events.

I have.

One i asked to tell me what he has seen there, and if he has seen militants operating, than if he would let me interview him. So far he has not replied.

Another poster said that he witnessed an event i witnessed. I replied that he may have got certain events or dates confused. He also hasn't replied yet.

I don't think i can give any more acknowledgement than that here.

I am not interested in what you imagine to have acknowledged to other posters, when you write lines as 'if you had been there when it happened' etc to people that infact was in the area or had relatives that was in just as much danger-areas as you aswell and no followup posts acknowledges the objections to this unfair dismissal of a users posts.

[Siam Simon]

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

You were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I'll bite.

There are so many issues where new information has changed my mind, it's difficult to know where to start. But, anyway I will. I used to think that Thaksin was the devil incarnate of Thai politics until I followed the hints and links on this forum, and discovered that he is just one particularly ugly player in a political game that has several other particularly ugly players. Then, later, I used to think that Abhisit was a weak-but-honest fool who was going to be played by some of the aforementioned uglies. He proved me wrong, but I was sadly proven right that his own side (nominally) didn't give him a chance to succeed, never mind the obvious opposition.

I'm happy to admit that I've learned from many posters on this forum from all sides of the debate. Hammered, Hanuman1, Jayboy and Rubl, for example, are all posters that I respect and admire for their honest, intelligent debates. I've even learned from some of the links to news articles that you've posted over the years in your current and former cyber-incarnation on TVF, though I'm wary of your direct quotes because you have a long track record of playing around with them. Which brings me to an issue that baffles me about you: Why do you play about with quoted posts and quoted articles so much?

I just want to exchange infos and opinions in an honest manner. Why do some posters try to use the politics part of the forum as more than this? This very thread is a classic case in point: We have the privilege of an internationally respected photojournalist adding his extensive eyewitness accounts to the discussions, but instead of tapping him up for his info or taking him to task over his reportage of specific incidents (a couple of posters, to their credit, excepted), we have the usual suspects trying desperately to gangbang and discredit him. Absolutely breathtaking for me.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if TVF management had a good, cold, hard look at this section of the forum. Things have gone badly wrong here.

[Siam Simon]

And you have not yet acknowledged that other posters was in the area during the events.

I have.

One i asked to tell me what he has seen there, and if he has seen militants operating, than if he would let me interview him. So far he has not replied.

Another poster said that he witnessed an event i witnessed. I replied that he may have got certain events or dates confused. He also hasn't replied yet.

I don't think i can give any more acknowledgement than that here.

not to mention Animatic claiming, a few months ago, to have a friend's eyewitness account that differed from your's that he went silent on when asked for specifics. Management should have a thorough look at this silliness.

[Buchholz]

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

You were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I'll bite.

There are so many issues where new information has changed my mind, it's difficult to know where to start. But, anyway I will. I used to think that Thaksin was the devil incarnate of Thai politics until I followed the hints and links on this forum, and discovered that he is just one particularly ugly player in a political game that has several other particularly ugly players. Then, later, I used to think that Abhisit was a weak-but-honest fool who was going to be played by some of the aforementioned uglies. He proved me wrong, but I was sadly proven right that his own side (nominally) didn't give him a chance to succeed, never mind the obvious opposition.

I'm happy to admit that I've learned from many posters on this forum from all sides of the debate. Hammered, Hanuman1, Jayboy and Rubl, for example, are all posters that I respect and admire for their honest, intelligent debates. I've even learned from some of the links to news articles that you've posted over the years in your current and former cyber-incarnation on TVF, though I'm wary of your direct quotes because you have a long track record of playing around with them. Which brings me to an issue that baffles me about you: Why do you play about with quoted posts and quoted articles so much?

I just want to exchange infos and opinions in an honest manner. Why do some posters try to use the politics part of the forum as more than this? This very thread is a classic case in point: We have the privilege of an internationally respected photojournalist adding his extensive eyewitness accounts to the discussions, but instead of tapping him up for his info or taking him to task over his reportage of specific incidents (a couple of posters, to their credit, excepted), we have the usual suspects trying desperately to gangbang and discredit him. Absolutely breathtaking for me.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if TVF management had a good, cold, hard look at this section of the forum. Things have gone badly wrong here.

Can you point to any posts you've made over the years that document or reflect any of these change of minds that you allude to?

How many different posters have had these cyber-incarnations that you describe?

What long track record of altering posts that you allege? It would seem very straight forward that if I altered quoted posts, they would not remain. I've seen countless posts deleted specifically for this reason. As for quoted articles, can you document even one case, let alone repeatedly that you infer with your described "so much", where the content of a quoted news article was changed by me? Altered news articles would certainly not be allowed to stay on the forum. It would seem you participate in the same sort of undocumented smears that you accuse others of.

As for the alleged "internationally respected photojournalist" it would seem most are commenting on his obvious one-sided slant (aka bias) to the events he is writing about. His adamant refusal to acknowledge these biases is apparently what disturbs most commentators and lowers the credibility as has been posted by a variety of posters.

.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

I am not interested in what you imagine to have acknowledged to other posters, when you write lines as 'if you had been there when it happened' etc to people that infact was in the area or had relatives that was in just as much danger-areas as you aswell and no followup posts acknowledges the objections to this unfair dismissal of a users posts.

The point is not about having been at "danger zones", but about having seen anything of importance. If you or anybody else have seen anything of importance in relation to last years events that you think i should know, then just send me a message about the general topic matter of what you have seen, and i will meet you when i feel it is important enough, and interview about it. Are you in possession of documents or other evidence that you think i should have, then please, give it to me.

What more acknowledgement do you expect?

But i am sorry that i will not waste my time with believes, speculation, second and third hand information, or simple perceptions. There are so many people who claim this and hand, whose third cousins removed may have heard things through the grapevine, people who claim to have evidence that i am wrong, and when it comes to presenting their evidence, it suddenly is so secret that they can't.

What do you think how much information i was given that turned out to be wrong, when i checked it? And i have to check every piece of information i am given.

Simple - give me what i can work with, and i will acknowledge you. So far you have given me nothing i have not heard countless times before. Come up with something new and/or original - i will listen.

And yes, good, you ex-wife worked as a fixer. I may know her even, i know many local fixers. Most of them have done a very hard and dangerous job last year, not just dealing with the obvious dangers on the streets, but also with the often unreasonable demands by stressful and inexperienced foreign news teams that put them into even more danger. These local fixers have all my respect for the work they did last year. Many of them have in the last days of the protests refused to work, which i fully understand.

I remember when one fixer was attacked in Wat Pratum by paranoid, terrified and angry protesters because a foreign film team has forced her to press them with questions that one should not have asked in that situation. The insane part of that issue was that this particular fixer (who changed profession now, by the way) was actually very sympathetic to the Red Shirts.

Yes, I have seen a lot, but I have naturally not seen "everything". I have spoken with more people than you can possibly imagine about what they have seen in order to get a better and more complete picture of things. I have spoken with residents of so-called free fire zones, i have spoken with protesters of all sides, guards of all sides, combatants of all sides, victims, politicians, military officers, police officers, colleagues of mine, and whoever not.

If you think you have anything of importance to tell me - then bloody tell it to me, and stop pissing around here with me.

[nicknostitz]

not to mention Animatic claiming, a few months ago, to have a friend's eyewitness account that differed from your's that he went silent on when asked for specifics. Management should have a thorough look at this silliness.

Yes, that is exactly one of them who did not come around with what they claimed. I have offered him and his "friend" absolute anonymity and the usual protection of a source - and nothing. Zilch. Nil.

I cannot work with rumors, perceptions, and empty claims. I will not take anybody's word for granted just because they say so. I will check every piece of information, and if it turns out that i am misled by purpose, it will be the last time i have acknowledged anything they said.

[Siam Simon]

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

You were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I'll bite.

There are so many issues where new information has changed my mind, it's difficult to know where to start. But, anyway I will. I used to think that Thaksin was the devil incarnate of Thai politics until I followed the hints and links on this forum, and discovered that he is just one particularly ugly player in a political game that has several other particularly ugly players. Then, later, I used to think that Abhisit was a weak-but-honest fool who was going to be played by some of the aforementioned uglies. He proved me wrong, but I was sadly proven right that his own side (nominally) didn't give him a chance to succeed, never mind the obvious opposition.

I'm happy to admit that I've learned from many posters on this forum from all sides of the debate. Hammered, Hanuman1, Jayboy and Rubl, for example, are all posters that I respect and admire for their honest, intelligent debates. I've even learned from some of the links to news articles that you've posted over the years in your current and former cyber-incarnation on TVF, though I'm wary of your direct quotes because you have a long track record of playing around with them. Which brings me to an issue that baffles me about you: Why do you play about with quoted posts and quoted articles so much?

I just want to exchange infos and opinions in an honest manner. Why do some posters try to use the politics part of the forum as more than this? This very thread is a classic case in point: We have the privilege of an internationally respected photojournalist adding his extensive eyewitness accounts to the discussions, but instead of tapping him up for his info or taking him to task over his reportage of specific incidents (a couple of posters, to their credit, excepted), we have the usual suspects trying desperately to gangbang and discredit him. Absolutely breathtaking for me.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if TVF management had a good, cold, hard look at this section of the forum. Things have gone badly wrong here.

Can you point to any posts you've made over the years that document or reflect any of these change of minds that you allude to?

How many different posters have had these cyber-incarnations that you describe?

What long track record of altering posts that you allege? It would seem very straight forward that if I altered quoted posts, they would not remain. I've seen countless posts deleted specifically for this reason. As for quoted articles, can you document even one case, let alone repeatedly that you infer with your described "so much", where the content of a quoted news article was changed by me? Altered news articles would certainly not be allowed to stay on the forum. It would seem you participate in the same sort of undocumented smears that you accuse others of.

As for the alleged "internationally respected photojournalist" it would seem most are commenting on his obvious one-sided slant (aka bias) to the events he is writing about. His adamant refusal to acknowledge these biases is apparently what disturbs most commentators and lowers the credibility as has been posted by a variety of posters.

.

I've already answered your questions. Please answer mine. I understand that doing so may get you banned yet again, but please have the courage of your convictions.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Siam Simon

[TAWP]

I am not interested in what you imagine to have acknowledged to other posters, when you write lines as 'if you had been there when it happened' etc to people that infact was in the area or had relatives that was in just as much danger-areas as you aswell and no followup posts acknowledges the objections to this unfair dismissal of a users posts.

The point is not about having been at "danger zones", but about having seen anything of importance. If you or anybody else have seen anything of importance in relation to last years events that you think i should know, then just send me a message about the general topic matter of what you have seen, and i will meet you when i feel it is important enough, and interview about it. Are you in possession of documents or other evidence that you think i should have, then please, give it to me.

What more acknowledgement do you expect?

But i am sorry that i will not waste my time with believes, speculation, second and third hand information, or simple perceptions. There are so many people who claim this and hand, whose third cousins removed may have heard things through the grapevine, people who claim to have evidence that i am wrong, and when it comes to presenting their evidence, it suddenly is so secret that they can't.

What do you think how much information i was given that turned out to be wrong, when i checked it? And i have to check every piece of information i am given.

Simple - give me what i can work with, and i will acknowledge you. So far you have given me nothing i have not heard countless times before. Come up with something new and/or original - i will listen.

And yes, good, you ex-wife worked as a fixer. I may know her even, i know many local fixers. Most of them have done a very hard and dangerous job last year, not just dealing with the obvious dangers on the streets, but also with the often unreasonable demands by stressful and inexperienced foreign news teams that put them into even more danger. These local fixers have all my respect for the work they did last year. Many of them have in the last days of the protests refused to work, which i fully understand.

I remember when one fixer was attacked in Wat Pratum by paranoid, terrified and angry protesters because a foreign film team has forced her to press them with questions that one should not have asked in that situation. The insane part of that issue was that this particular fixer (who changed profession now, by the way) was actually very sympathetic to the Red Shirts.

Yes, I have seen a lot, but I have naturally not seen "everything". I have spoken with more people than you can possibly imagine about what they have seen in order to get a better and more complete picture of things. I have spoken with residents of so-called free fire zones, i have spoken with protesters of all sides, guards of all sides, combatants of all sides, victims, politicians, military officers, police officers, colleagues of mine, and whoever not.

If you think you have anything of importance to tell me - then bloody tell it to me, and stop pissing around here with me.

Pissing around? The argument is that you say that people shouldn't try to argue your biased viewpoint since they haven't seen as much as you. It is even implied in the last reply above.

It doesn't matter how many times I would show an urban warfare operation of house clearing to my grandma, she couldn't point out what the individuals in the entry teams are doing wrong.

That is my point -- quantity doesn't mean the opinion or slant is of any quality.

You posts about bullets flying all over and 'clearly' being fired indiscriminately is one of those typical emotional sentences that haven't been led in evidence. All the video-clips of soldiers, up close and personal, that have been published have also showed them to not just do a 'Hollywood wave' about with their guns as some bad guy in an 80ies movie, but soldiers who take aim, at something/someone.

If the soldiers wanted to perform a massacre then they are worse at it than the police are at controlling riots...80 civilians dead is the equal of WHAT ONE PERSON WITH INTENT JUST DID IN MY BROTHER COUNTRY!

God I am sick of Red shirt apologists that say 'massacre' of the Red shirts failed uprising.

[random]

not to mention Animatic claiming, a few months ago, to have a friend's eyewitness account that differed from your's that he went silent on when asked for specifics. Management should have a thorough look at this silliness.

Yes, that is exactly one of them who did not come around with what they claimed. I have offered him and his "friend" absolute anonymity and the usual protection of a source - and nothing. Zilch. Nil.

I cannot work with rumors, perceptions, and empty claims. I will not take anybody's word for granted just because they say so. I will check every piece of information, and if it turns out that i am misled by purpose, it will be the last time i have acknowledged anything they said.

Well it seems that the forum bullies knowledge is starting to be unraveled by an ACTUAL eyewitness, no doubt their egos will refuse to let them back down and they will continue with hyperbole in the hope that someone will believe them. Don't hold your breath expecting ANY of them to come forward with actual evidence, they will just try and continue to bully you from the forum.

As for the comment about why they are allowed to do this, well sadly that is covered by the rule to not allow discussion of moderation so we can not discuss it.

[hammered]

If you want to try and understand what is going on in this country right now, then the work of Nick Nostitz is a valuable source imho. Obviously it isnt going to be the the only source you use but if it isnt one of them, then I think people are missing out on something.

[nicknostitz]

God I am sick of Red shirt apologists that say 'massacre' of the Red shirts failed uprising.

Thanks for another strawman - i don't think that i have used the term massacre here. I am not stupid either - I am well aware of the fact that if the military would have intended to kill as many people as possible, then the death count would have been far higher.

So, you have nothing to tell me other than the published videos you saw?

Fair enough.

For me the matter is closed then.

Thank you.

[Siam Simon]

I am not interested in what you imagine to have acknowledged to other posters, when you write lines as 'if you had been there when it happened' etc to people that infact was in the area or had relatives that was in just as much danger-areas as you aswell and no followup posts acknowledges the objections to this unfair dismissal of a users posts.

The point is not about having been at "danger zones", but about having seen anything of importance. If you or anybody else have seen anything of importance in relation to last years events that you think i should know, then just send me a message about the general topic matter of what you have seen, and i will meet you when i feel it is important enough, and interview about it. Are you in possession of documents or other evidence that you think i should have, then please, give it to me.

What more acknowledgement do you expect?

But i am sorry that i will not waste my time with believes, speculation, second and third hand information, or simple perceptions. There are so many people who claim this and hand, whose third cousins removed may have heard things through the grapevine, people who claim to have evidence that i am wrong, and when it comes to presenting their evidence, it suddenly is so secret that they can't.

What do you think how much information i was given that turned out to be wrong, when i checked it? And i have to check every piece of information i am given.

Simple - give me what i can work with, and i will acknowledge you. So far you have given me nothing i have not heard countless times before. Come up with something new and/or original - i will listen.

And yes, good, you ex-wife worked as a fixer. I may know her even, i know many local fixers. Most of them have done a very hard and dangerous job last year, not just dealing with the obvious dangers on the streets, but also with the often unreasonable demands by stressful and inexperienced foreign news teams that put them into even more danger. These local fixers have all my respect for the work they did last year. Many of them have in the last days of the protests refused to work, which i fully understand.

I remember when one fixer was attacked in Wat Pratum by paranoid, terrified and angry protesters because a foreign film team has forced her to press them with questions that one should not have asked in that situation. The insane part of that issue was that this particular fixer (who changed profession now, by the way) was actually very sympathetic to the Red Shirts.

Yes, I have seen a lot, but I have naturally not seen "everything". I have spoken with more people than you can possibly imagine about what they have seen in order to get a better and more complete picture of things. I have spoken with residents of so-called free fire zones, i have spoken with protesters of all sides, guards of all sides, combatants of all sides, victims, politicians, military officers, police officers, colleagues of mine, and whoever not.

If you think you have anything of importance to tell me - then bloody tell it to me, and stop pissing around here with me.

Pissing around? The argument is that you say that people shouldn't try to argue your biased viewpoint since they haven't seen as much as you. It is even implied in the last reply above.

It doesn't matter how many times I would show an urban warfare operation of house clearing to my grandma, she couldn't point out what the individuals in the entry teams are doing wrong.

That is my point -- quantity doesn't mean the opinion or slant is of any quality.

You posts about bullets flying all over and 'clearly' being fired indiscriminately is one of those typical emotional sentences that haven't been led in evidence. All the video-clips of soldiers, up close and personal, that have been published have also showed them to not just do a 'Hollywood wave' about with their guns as some bad guy in an 80ies movie, but soldiers who take aim, at something/someone.

If the soldiers wanted to perform a massacre then they are worse at it than the police are at controlling riots...80 civilians dead is the equal of WHAT ONE PERSON WITH INTENT JUST DID IN MY BROTHER COUNTRY!

God I am sick of Red shirt apologists that say 'massacre' of the Red shirts failed uprising.

Thankyou you coming up with a classic case-in-point post of what';s being alluded to. Please keep ranting.

[jayboy]

If you want to try and understand what is going on in this country right now, then the work of Nick Nostitz is a valuable source imho. Obviously it isnt going to be the the only source you use but if it isnt one of them, then I think people are missing out on something.

Oddly enough just over two years ago a now banned member was making an identical attack on Nick, using not only same arguments but in some instances the exact same words as we have seen in the last day or so.If anyone is interested pm me for details.The substance of the charge is that Nick isn't a proper journalist, a laughable proposition illustrating not only an ignorance of how news is now gathered but also passing over the independent acclaim Nick's photo journalism has received from respected commentators like Chris Baker.Of course if "proper" journalists like Jonathan Head or Dan Rivers stray from the party line they are also traduced and slandered.

[TAWP]

God I am sick of Red shirt apologists that say 'massacre' of the Red shirts failed uprising.

Thanks for another strawman - i don't think that i have used the term massacre here. I am not stupid either - I am well aware of the fact that if the military would have intended to kill as many people as possible, then the death count would have been far higher.

Where did I ever say that YOU said that? Maybe you should try to read my post again.

And then search this forum for 'massacre' and see that several Red shirt apologists DO call it exactly that.

But thanks for agreeing that those people are loons.

[nicknostitz]

But thanks for agreeing that those people are loons.

All sides of any conflict have what you may describe as "loons". But not all people that use the term massacre as loons.

Some just may have a wrong perception of what this term defines.

And nevertheless - there were several incidents last year, where soldiers indeed did fire indiscriminately at everything that moved, including ambulances, without any appearant reason, such as being fired upon, and where teargas and as an extreme measure rubber bullets would have been more than sufficient. About one of those incidents i have published an account of - the "killing zone" story. What i wrote is supported by video footage from four different angles - one of the best documented incidents of last year.

So far i have not seen you acknowledging these uncomfortable facts at all. Therefore, please, don't throw around with accusation of people that disagree with you as "loons"...

Edited July 23, 2011 by nicknostitz

[rreddin]

"I want to go home," said Saichon, who is often described by those who knew him as not mentally sound.

In other words he is a "nutter", so are most of his red shirt friends, so what. if found guilty lets hope the law comes down on him with no mercy, just as he did to the ones he murdered.

When I read comments such as yours I despair at the intelligence of some of the members of this forum. You equate "not being mentally sound" as being "a nutter". Sadly you are just another prejudiced person who cannot recognize the possibility that the accused might have a mental health problem. The temptation to air your prejudice was too great for you to resist.

BTW, he is only accused of the alleged crimes. He has not been convicted - the trial is not over yet. Whereas you are guilty of ignorance.