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

[philw]

"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.

Nicely put !!!

[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.

.

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.

You've answered my questions already? Where?

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

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

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

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

[animatic]

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.

No, I said I would check to see if I could state more,

not unilaterally out witnesses in free forum, without their permission.

That was not granted and with valid reason that 'they' felt 'they' would be subjected to reprisals if when, where and who this was, was made known.

They make no pretense of being professional journalists, and the attendant risks of that job.

And Nick, to be honest they did NOT trust your pledge.

They felt you were too biased. So not my call.

Big difference between honoring a trust and simply going silent.

Edited July 24, 2011 by animatic

[nicknostitz]

And Nick, to be honest they did NOT trust your pledge.

They felt you were too biased. So not my call.

Big difference between honoring a trust and simply going silent.

Sorry, but that is just a crop out, and cowardice on the side of your friends, or you just trying to wriggle yourself out of an unsubstantiated claim you made to while trying to score a point during the heat of a debate on a web forum. So far - you are just an anonymous poster on a web forum that opines on the crisis here, and your friends are not existing other than in your anonymous claims.

When i assure anonymity and assure absolute protection of a source, that means that on more than a few levels i put my own professional reputation on the line. I do post under my real name here, by the way, and backtracking on a promise would be more than just embarrassing - but professional death. Not honoring such a pledge would mean that i will never get any source whatsoever to speak to me anymore again (which also includes well known people, and people in very sensitive positions). I would be a pariah under my colleagues and potential employers that trust me enough to hire me. I would not have a livelihood anymore if i break one of the most important rules of my profession. I have never broken a such promise given. My track record is very clear there.

These people feel that i am "too biased"... well, if they are not interested to convince me of what they feel is the right picture i cannot help them, and what they claim to have seen will be nothing but one of the many forgotten rumors of this period. But maybe your friends are now, when it comes to showing their colors, are a bit wary over the sustainability of their claims. Which is not exactly unusual - i have many people made a lot of claims, but they did then turn out to be simple rumors which could not sustain even superficial scrutiny. I wasted a lot of time, money and effort on such, but that is quite normal in my job.

Lets get back to the claims you made. As far as i remember you stated that your friends saw armed Red Shirt militants shooting at the soldiers in the incident of May 15 i described in my story of the "killing zone" (correct me of i am wrong there). Now, there are several videos in existence of that incident. I was a few meters away from the people that got shot. The Spiegel correspondent was next to me, and so were several other journalists. Chaiwat, the Nation photographer, who was shot in his leg, was on the other side of the road, and so was a cameraman from Thai PBS, and several other Thai journalists. Colleagues of mine were on several places further along the road away from where i was. Some were at the entry of the Complete Apartment complex - they saw no armed militants anywhere, or heard shots fired from anywhere other than the military lines. Other colleagues of mine were further down at Samliem Dindaeng, and report exactly the same - no militants, no shots fired against the military.

None of my colleagues on the scene - both from Thai and the international Media - have seen what you claim that your claimed friends have seen. My account is in the public domain, it has been brought in Khao Sot newspaper (i think in full), has been mentioned in Thai Rath, and one of the Nation affiliated Thai newpapers, and also in the Nation at least twice. I was interviewed for more than one hour in the Khom Chat Luek Show on the nation Channel about that incident. Nobody ever has so far made any claim in pubic countering my story.

So, excuse me, if i am more than doubtful over the existence of your friends, or their supposed claims.

That does not mean that i deny the existence of Red Shirt militants, on the opposite, here and in many other places i have confirmed that i have seen them. But not during that particular incident.

Again - my offer still stands - i promise anonymity, and protection of sources.

Furthermore - I would, if your friends want to, connect them them to the relevant authorities that investigate this particular case (I am a witness, and have been questioned several times by police and DSI, including leading the investigating DSI officers to the scene of the incident), and/or to the fact finding committee of the National Reconciliation Commission (with whom i have collaborated as well). This committee, by the way, questioned many witnesses under condition of absolute anonymity. But, i have to add, giving false or misleading testimony would get your friends into an ocean of legal trouble.

I

How comes that i have the slight suspicion that i will not get a positive answer on my offers here...?

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

[jayboy]

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

If this was the case no enquiry would ever get anywhere.In this particular instance I'm sure most people will draw their own conclusions based on who has a reputation for truthfulness (and it must be said who hasn't)

[animatic]

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

JD. Far too true these days.

Sorry Nick, like I said they don't have your job, nor aspire to it,

You can call them names all you like, I won't out someone who wishes to be left alone. The last thing they want to do is go on record at DSI,

they feel luck to be alive now, and feel doing THAT would be a death sentence. They are much more interested in long term survival than reconciliation.

You can call it a cop out if you like,

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

The end, vent on.

Edited July 24, 2011 by animatic

[nicknostitz]

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

It also is not exactly unusual that people from the safety of anonymity - especially on web forums - can claim a lot that will not sustain scrutiny and come up with all sort of lame excuses when called out.

And so far, none of what has been claimed by this poster convinces me that this is nothing else than that, and I just continue to just ignore it as i have done since the claim was voiced first and not substantiated.

Or do you expect me to acknowledge a claim of an anonymous poster on a web forum who posts second hand claims by even more anonymous friends?

This is really funny - you guys call me biased, my reports one sided and not trustworthy, some even try to discredit my credentials, and when i offer to interview the counter-sources you claim as trustworthy - they suddenly disappear into a void, and you won't come up with the goods.

How do you expect me to take any of your claims as anything but white noise? Come up with real evidence that supports your opinions, and we can talk - continue nitpicking, and i am just bored.

[nicknostitz]

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

As expected.

[gymboy33]

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

As expected.

i remember the red shirt sword picture as an example of the resident red shirt haters example of evidence

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3999598

[nicknostitz]

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

As expected.

i remember the red shirt sword picture as an example of the resident red shirt haters example of evidence

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3999598

Yes, i remember this night very well. It was horrible and led to the first recorded death in the Red/Yellow conflict - Narongsak, a middle aged UDD protester.

This particular picture, by the way, was most definitely posed, and taken after the clashes between UDD and PAD have already ended. A few UDD protesters walked up and pointed that sword towards the PAD while a group of remaining photographers snapped away at the posing UDD protesters.

I have written quite detailed about that night in my first book on the mess, what happened and who organized it. Also included are photos of that incident (also showing violent UDD protesters, for the ones that like to accuse me of bias ).

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm

That people may not be willing to trust a writer, or even a government agency etc shouldn't be that much of a stretch, should it?

It also is not exactly unusual that people from the safety of anonymity - especially on web forums - can claim a lot that will not sustain scrutiny and come up with all sort of lame excuses when called out.

And so far, none of what has been claimed by this poster convinces me that this is nothing else than that, and I just continue to just ignore it as i have done since the claim was voiced first and not substantiated.

Or do you expect me to acknowledge a claim of an anonymous poster on a web forum who posts second hand claims by even more anonymous friends?

This is really funny - you guys call me biased, my reports one sided and not trustworthy, some even try to discredit my credentials, and when i offer to interview the counter-sources you claim as trustworthy - they suddenly disappear into a void, and you won't come up with the goods.

How do you expect me to take any of your claims as anything but white noise? Come up with real evidence that supports your opinions, and we can talk - continue nitpicking, and i am just bored.

I have not challenged you on anything other than what I perceive as bias. I do not consider your claims in many instances to be any better or worse than other posters on the board. I don't think I have made any claims. I know people that witnessed things in Thailand that would NEVER talk to a reporter or a policeman or a government agency --(not things involving the reds)

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

[473geo]

I tend to give a little more credibility to the account recalled by a witness who was at the scene........rather than people posting second hand information on a forum........

[nicknostitz]

[

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

Really, is that so indeed?

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

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

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

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

[hanuman1]

The testimony of people like Nick is invaluable in forming as clear an outlook as is possible on the events which he describes. He offers facts and welcomes all verifiable testimony which may or may not chime with what he observed.

With this in mind, one can only conclude that the effort of some posters to focus on his own personal opinions and the suggestion that these opinions somehow alter the value and veracity of the facts he - as a direct witness - has made available to be corroborated or disproved, is just a disengeneous fudge.

Deal with the facts that are on the table. I understand that's what journalists, if not TV posters, are supposed to do.

Edited July 24, 2011 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

Quoting a bit out of context there aren't you Nick?

That's the post with the reply to all of the other posts ... I looked through the next pages -- stopped at page 13 of that thread. I didn't see you in it "debating" with me unless you were using another screenname? You may even want to look at post 300 on that thread.

I did see in the thread threats of libel suits etc ... but not (apparently) aimed at me, I think If you would like an apology for my statement taken out of context that you quoted above .... here it is. Nick, I am sorry if my opinion offended you. It is simply my opinion of NewMandela and my opinion of your writing.

Hanuman1 -- I read what NewMandala prints and have read much of Nick's writing. I see it as biased. I do not see it (Nick's writing) as entirely one-sided (unlike most of what I read on NewMandala).

Edited July 24, 2011 by jdinasia

[lungmi]

I read in Le Monde Diplomatique the analysis of Nick, good points, but controversial answers.

The point of view of the observer determines his view. (in the red camp)

I wouldn't go to say it's the Stockholm syndrom, but there is the link for information.

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

[nicknostitz]

apology accepted

Edited July 24, 2011 by nicknostitz

[jdinasia]

apology accepted

Thank you.

I went through to the end of that thread (I didn't go backwards from your link) and imho you are quoting me out of context but readers are free to go back and look at the post that you quoted from (I linked it above,)

I would say that all-in-all you took a bit too much heat in that thread but at least Rubl tried to show that you are not totally one-sided by posting links where you wrote that bullet holes suggested shots coming from the red side. My take on what was being discussed is the same as it is now. They were firefights with shots coming from multiple directions and in most cases determining exactly who shot whom is impossible. It would have been damned near impossible on that day and after bodies/the injured were moved it becomes totally impossible. I think it is worth noting that other than my own arrogance, I have no real dog in this fight (other than a genuine concern for Thailand). People in that thread that had strong opinions were targeted as having suffered a loss at the hands of the reds, which in a few cases is probably true.

[Emptyset]

The testimony of people like Nick is invaluable in forming as clear an outlook as is possible on the events which he describes. He offers facts and welcomes all verifiable testimony which may or may not chime with what he observed.

With this in mind, one can only conclude that the effort of some posters to focus on his own personal opinions and the suggestion that these opinions somehow alter the value and veracity of the facts he - as a direct witness - has made available to be corroborated or disproved, is just a disengeneous fudge.

Deal with the facts that are on the table. I understand that's what journalists, if not TV posters, are supposed to do.

Just want to second this. Indeed, Nick admits his sympathies and I believe having an accurate picture of where your own sympathies lie (rather than pretending to yourself that you're viewing things objectively as some posters here seem to think they are - which is quite clearly absurd to anyone that reads their posts with any neutrality whatever) allows you to correct for your own bias in your reporting. I think Nick perhaps even tries harder than most to present a strictly factual objective account of events he witnesses simply because he recognizes he could - more than any journalist with no avowed sympathies - be dismissed as biased.

And I hope Nick doesn't mind if I say this, but I've actually spoken to someone that knows Nick quite well, but whose sympathies lie on the other side of the colour divide (well totally anti-Thaksin and anti-red anyway), and he says whilst Nick's political analysis may be coloured, he'd never lie in reporting what he's seen on the streets, even if it were unfavourable to the reds.

[nicknostitz]

apology accepted

Thank you.

I went through to the end of that thread (I didn't go backwards from your link) and imho you are quoting me out of context but readers are free to go back and look at the post that you quoted from (I linked it above,)

I would say that all-in-all you took a bit too much heat in that thread but at least Rubl tried to show that you are not totally one-sided by posting links where you wrote that bullet holes suggested shots coming from the red side. My take on what was being discussed is the same as it is now. They were firefights with shots coming from multiple directions and in most cases determining exactly who shot whom is impossible. It would have been damned near impossible on that day and after bodies/the injured were moved it becomes totally impossible. I think it is worth noting that other than my own arrogance, I have no real dog in this fight (other than a genuine concern for Thailand). People in that thread that had strong opinions were targeted as having suffered a loss at the hands of the reds, which in a few cases is probably true.

Thanks.

On that level we can talk.

There were without any doubt many incidents in which there were firefights, and i will write about some of that in my next book (you can crucify me if i don't ). One of the reasons why it takes me so long to come out with it is that it takes enormous amount of time to research such a complex scenario. Every little piece of information i have to check, corroborate, verify or dismiss if wrong. At times i get waylaid by wrong information, which means i have to go back almost to square one again.

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

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

[nicknostitz]

And I hope Nick doesn't mind if I say this, but I've actually spoken to someone that knows Nick quite well, but whose sympathies lie on the other side of the colour divide (well totally anti-Thaksin and anti-red anyway), and he says whilst Nick's political analysis may be coloured, he'd never lie in reporting what he's seen on the streets, even if it were unfavourable to the reds.

Anything that makes me look good i won't mind.

[TAWP]

It also is not exactly unusual that people from the safety of anonymity - especially on web forums - can claim a lot that will not sustain scrutiny and come up with all sort of lame excuses when called out.

True -- and there journalists that 'spice' up their reports to further push sales or to push an agenda.

Just saying.

[TAWP]

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

As expected.

i remember the red shirt sword picture as an example of the resident red shirt haters example of evidence

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3999598

Yes, i remember this night very well. It was horrible and led to the first recorded death in the Red/Yellow conflict - Narongsak, a middle aged UDD protester.

This particular picture, by the way, was most definitely posed, and taken after the clashes between UDD and PAD have already ended. A few UDD protesters walked up and pointed that sword towards the PAD while a group of remaining photographers snapped away at the posing UDD protesters.

I have written quite detailed about that night in my first book on the mess, what happened and who organized it. Also included are photos of that incident (also showing violent UDD protesters, for the ones that like to accuse me of bias ).

So you are saying that since they guys 'posed' by showing how 'big' there were with their swords, clearly showing that several Red was armed, it is some kind of proof that Reds didn't use weapons or violence during their raid on the PAD camp or that it is no way reasonable to assume that those that where armed infact ended up using their weapons?

[nicknostitz]

So you are saying that since they guys 'posed' by showing how 'big' there were with their swords, clearly showing that several Red was armed, it is some kind of proof that Reds didn't use weapons or violence during their raid on the PAD camp or that it is no way reasonable to assume that those that where armed infact ended up using their weapons?

No i don't say that at all.

Read my book instead of speculating what i may have said.

[TAWP]

So you are saying that since they guys 'posed' by showing how 'big' there were with their swords, clearly showing that several Red was armed, it is some kind of proof that Reds didn't use weapons or violence during their raid on the PAD camp or that it is no way reasonable to assume that those that where armed infact ended up using their weapons?

No i don't say that at all.

Read my book instead of speculating what i may have said.

Writing an incomplete explanation of your views on the forum and then asking for people to get your book to find out what you really mean, couldn't that be seen as improper advertisement?

[nicknostitz]

So you are saying that since they guys 'posed' by showing how 'big' there were with their swords, clearly showing that several Red was armed, it is some kind of proof that Reds didn't use weapons or violence during their raid on the PAD camp or that it is no way reasonable to assume that those that where armed infact ended up using their weapons?

No i don't say that at all.

Read my book instead of speculating what i may have said.

Writing an incomplete explanation of your views on the forum and then asking for people to get your book to find out what you really mean, couldn't that be seen as improper advertisement?

As i said before to another poster - go to a library, shoplifted the book, or whatever. I don't care.

[TAWP]

As i said before to another poster - go to a library, shoplifted the book, or whatever. I don't care.

My hope was that you, as a writer, would be able to summat your views on the photo in a few sentences.

[gymboy33]

the red shirt sword pic i think was altered photoshopped

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

as i said

an example of resident forum red shirt evidence

[nicknostitz]

As i said before to another poster - go to a library, shoplifted the book, or whatever. I don't care.

My hope was that you, as a writer, would be able to summat your views on the photo in a few sentences.

I - as a writer and photographer - have already done so. The photo was taken after the violence has ebbed down already and a few UDD guys posed with the sword for a group of remaining photographers. As a photo it is good, shows action and good angles. But it has to be pointed out that it was taken after the clashes and was posed (i think i even cut and pasted at the time from a Thaivisa post (if i am not mistaken) a series of images of the same scene taken from different angles by other photographers and show how these UDD guys walked up, and even pointed the slingshot and/or sword at each other in one of the images).

The situation that night was that not many photographers were at the actual scene of the main clash, especially not on the Red Shirt side, as the clash came as a surprise to many, and most photographers arrived after the main clash. I think apart from me there were only one or two more professional photographers who walked with the UDD protesters from Sanam Luang to the PAD encampment, and a few more arrived just as the clash began, most of them from the PAD camp at Government House.

I have written quite extensively of that night in my book. There is also a very good blog article of Nirmal Ghosh of that night as well.

I - as a writer and photographer - want to have a rest and watch a video now, and point you to where you can read more extensively over what happened that night than i could possibly do here.