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

[thaihome]

First off Nick, let me say I greatly appreciate your work and accounts you give, often getting them at your personal risks. What I don’t like is your selective reporting of them.

Your accounts of the shooting of what unarmed protestors is another example. You readily admit that mixed in among these unarmed protestors were armed militants that were making deadly assaults on the army at seemingly random times and place.

But then you say, shoot the militants but not the unarmed protestors.

The unfortunate fact of life is most people, and particularly combat trained troops, will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are anywhere near somebody that is shooting at me, even if that person is now gone, and I see you make any move, I’m sorry, I’m going to shoot at you. The best thing you can do for your own self preservation is go home. Which is what the government said all day and all night on the TV and radio during those days after May 13th.

Do you think those unarmed people, feeding the tire fires, throwing Molotov cocktails, and firing homemade rockets at army positions were actually making some political statement using peaceful means? Or were they just cannon fodder stirred by their leaders trying to make the body count as high as they knew exactly how the army would react?

Key question. Why was Veera sidelined after turning down Abbhisit final offer? Could it be because Thaksin knew he would give up like he did in 2009 without a body count? Why don’t report about that?

Yes, Nick, biased and it is of the worst sort, because you deny it, but again and again you selective reporting, ignoring the really bad stuff about the UDD and camouflaging that your are doing so with by disclosing tidbits of incriminating stuff.

There must be some evidence that is causing these people to be tried for arson though it could be flimsy or even fake, but since I cannot believe you tell the whole story, your objections mean little.

TH

[pedro01]

Well, you could also ask a similar question: has anybody in authority of the military been held account for the killings of so many unarmed protesters (which are the bulk of killed Red Shirt protesters)?

The bulk of the protesters, not the bulk of those that stayed when things started going violent nor was killed in confrontations.

Nick-Nick-Nick...claiming you are non-biased again are we?

The bulk of the killed protesters were unarmed protesters. The majority of protesters that stayed when things were going violent were unarmed, and a minority were armed militants.

These militants to the most part only operated in cover of darkness. I was one of the view journalists who have seen them operating, briefly. They arrived after Red Shirt guards were shot and injured by the military at a barricade late at night, and launched a series of grenades into the lines of the military from a forward position, after which the military fired indiscriminately into the barricade, wounding several guards (i retreated to a safe position about 50 meters behind after the grenades were launched).

I was present on several occasions where the military have shot at, injured and killed next to me clearly identifiable unarmed protesters, without any militant in sight. On May 13, in the early night near Rama IV/Wireless intersection (one dead, at least one injured), on May 14 at Wireless Rd opposite Lumpini Police Station (where Nelson Rand, a Matichon photographer and several protesters were shot), on May 15 in the afternoon in Rajaparop Road - as described in my story "the killing zone", May 16 i took a day off to get my head back into shape, and until May 19 i went to the frontlines only when things were relatively calm. On May 19 i was behind the military, and was about 60 meters away from Chandler when he was injured by a M79 grenade fired by militants against soldiers (Chandler was in a group of soldiers, which was a bad mistake, most of us journos ran into cover after the first grenades exploded)

I do not underestimate the threat militants posed to the soldiers. That does not mean though that the military is excused from killing and injuring unarmed protesters. Kill and injure militants, no problem, as they are legitimate targets.

OK - so the bulk of protesters killed were unarmed. I presume you are extrapolating based on what you saw? Or did you see the bulk of the killings?

It seems also that in your version the militants only came in to retaliate after 'red shirt guards' were shot. At that point the militants launched a grenade attack and the military fired indiscriminately. How could you know what was happening behind the barricade and on the military side. If you were behind the barricade from which you saw a grenade attack - how do you judge that the response was indiscriminate? You couldn't be on both sides at once. Were the grenade attackers perhaps clearly marked and so the military could have spotted them and only fired in that direction?

Also - how is it you saw so many people killed in so many different places where the military were firing indiscriminately yet you are her to tell the tale? Are you perhaps bullet proof?

The problem is - you were on one side. You saw soldiers being attacked. They responded but you think you are in a position to say that the response was OTT.

You are biased, it's quite clear. The only thing in question is if the bias is intentional or not. I can certainly see how it wouldn't be - it is a stressful situation and you would no doubt feel a bond with whichever side you were on if you were also under fire.

[pedro01]

I fail to understand why you bother to attempt to potray yourself as nuetral "journalist" when again and again you show your bias. Just own up to it Nick.

TH

Yes, indeed - that is Bhet on this picture. He was accused of having wrestled a handgun from a police officer at the SC-Park incident. The is irrefutable proof that it was another Red Shirt guard (photos and videos of that incident). I don't understand why that makes me "biased".

If the origin of the fire were the petrol bombs and explosives then, according to several experts i have spoken with, then without the only way such a bog fire could have been caused would have either been massive amounts of accelerants or shoddy building standards. As to the accelerants - how could they have been brought in and placed properly when all along the Rajaprasong occupation Central World had armed guards?

My question to you - can you think of reasons why there was no proper investigation performed into the exact causes of the fire?

The real issue of this thread is that there are several people accused of arson right now at court. So far, no witness had identified one of them as arsonists. No photo evidence has been presented. No forensic evidence presented yet that connects the accused to the fire. These accused have been held in prison without bail for more than one year. If the prosecution has not more against the accused, then this opens more than a few questions regarding Thailand's justice system.

Why would accelerants be needed for a fire to spread?

There were no countermeasures to the fire. It was free to spread. Have you witnessed many unattended fires just stopping because of a lack of accelerants? Have you ever seen just the bottom floor of a building burn and the fire just not bother to spread further? Of course not, fires spread.

Could you perhaps name these experts that think an unattended fire cannot burn through a bunch of flammable material (like most of the merchandise in Zen) when left unattended?

[nicknostitz]

First off Nick, let me say I greatly appreciate your work and accounts you give, often getting them at your personal risks. What I don't like is your selective reporting of them.

Your accounts of the shooting of what unarmed protestors is another example. You readily admit that mixed in among these unarmed protestors were armed militants that were making deadly assaults on the army at seemingly random times and place.

But then you say, shoot the militants but not the unarmed protestors.

The unfortunate fact of life is most people, and particularly combat trained troops, will shoot first and ask questions later. If you are anywhere near somebody that is shooting at me, even if that person is now gone, and I see you make any move, I'm sorry, I'm going to shoot at you. The best thing you can do for your own self preservation is go home. Which is what the government said all day and all night on the TV and radio during those days after May 13th.

Do you think those unarmed people, feeding the tire fires, throwing Molotov cocktails, and firing homemade rockets at army positions were actually making some political statement using peaceful means? Or were they just cannon fodder stirred by their leaders trying to make the body count as high as they knew exactly how the army would react?

Key question. Why was Veera sidelined after turning down Abbhisit final offer? Could it be because Thaksin knew he would give up like he did in 2009 without a body count? Why don't report about that?

Yes, Nick, biased and it is of the worst sort, because you deny it, but again and again you selective reporting, ignoring the really bad stuff about the UDD and camouflaging that your are doing so with by disclosing tidbits of incriminating stuff.

There must be some evidence that is causing these people to be tried for arson though it could be flimsy or even fake, but since I cannot believe you tell the whole story, your objections mean little.

TH

There are many things i will not write in articles, but i will write them in my books. One of things that you mentioned is the issue of Veera Musikapong. I have already briefly spoken with him about it, and will have more talks with him (first he was in prison, and then he was gagged for months - not allowed to speak with the media as part of his bail conditions, and then i had no time). I have already spoken with other leaders about that issue as well. So, yes - i will write about this, but only in my book.

There are other issues i will only write about in my next book, such as the things concerning the militants. I will only write about this in context. These things take time to research, and are very complex. I do not want to screw these things up. I have spoken with many people regarding those issues - including soldiers, both frontline soldiers, and soldiers in command positions.

But, i was present at many incidents where the military fired at unarmed protesters, and there were no militants mixed up with the protesters. None. Not a single armed protester. There was one incident i have personally seen where militants fired at soldiers, and two other incidents, at the Silom bombings, and on May 19, where i was at the receiving end of M79 grenades fired by Red Shirt militants. I have never denied that there were militant Red Shirt factions.

To answer your question about people at the barricades. Basically, no, they were not "peaceful" protesters - i have never claimed that the Red Shirts as a whole are "peaceful protesters", (i was possibly the first journalist who has photographed and published an image of a Red Shirt protesters with a gun back in 2008). But that does not mean that these protesters that burned tires - as a protection against the snipers - and who fired slingshots deserved to be shot with life ammunition. Use teargas, or even rubber bullets (i have though huge problems with rubber bullets - they are "less lethal" - but you can still die from these bullets, especially when shot above waist height, which has regularly happened).

But, please understand one thing - my articles at new mandala i do for free. I don't make one cent of it. I work alone, and often just do not have the time to write. The incident of May 15 i wrote throughout the night when i came back home and could not sleep, and i felt that the severity of the incident demanded to be published as soon as possible. There were many incidents at the time i would loved to have written about, but when you are out 16 to 20 hours, and then still have to download your images, select and photoshop them, then send them off to your agency, and try to catch 2 or three hours of sleep before heading out again, there just is no time to write articles for free. I make very little money, often less than the average English teacher here does, and have to operate with almost impossible budgets. But - i have been at more incidents than any other journalist - Thai or farang - has been, i go to all sides, even the recent PAD protest at Government House, which was mostly ignored by the media, i have regularly visited (but i haven't written any article on it).

If you want to understand my work, you will have to read my books, and then judge if i am "biased" or not (have you read them?). There is a huge difference, by the way, to be somewhat sympathetic many of the aspirations of common Red Shirt protesters, and being biased. I have proven many times that i am objective - i have photographed, and published photos, of Red Shirts using violence, i have also described such incidents in my texts. And i have done the same with the PAD, and the military as well.

[nicknostitz]

OK - so the bulk of protesters killed were unarmed. I presume you are extrapolating based on what you saw? Or did you see the bulk of the killings?

It seems also that in your version the militants only came in to retaliate after 'red shirt guards' were shot. At that point the militants launched a grenade attack and the military fired indiscriminately. How could you know what was happening behind the barricade and on the military side. If you were behind the barricade from which you saw a grenade attack - how do you judge that the response was indiscriminate? You couldn't be on both sides at once. Were the grenade attackers perhaps clearly marked and so the military could have spotted them and only fired in that direction?

Also - how is it you saw so many people killed in so many different places where the military were firing indiscriminately yet you are her to tell the tale? Are you perhaps bullet proof?

The problem is - you were on one side. You saw soldiers being attacked. They responded but you think you are in a position to say that the response was OTT.

You are biased, it's quite clear. The only thing in question is if the bias is intentional or not. I can certainly see how it wouldn't be - it is a stressful situation and you would no doubt feel a bond with whichever side you were on if you were also under fire.

I write based on what i saw, what long trusted sources of mine saw, and what trusted colleagues of mine have seen.

The incident in which i saw the militants they came after Red Shirt protesters were shot and injured (which i have seen). The militants then went out of the barricade to a forward position in the no man's land, and launched grenades into the military. The military then responded by firing into the barricade, and beyond it. I was crouching 50 meters behind the barricade in a safe position. I judge it indiscriminate because bullets fired by the military were passing all over the place.

I am a working journalist, and was at many of the hotspots and frontlines all over the place when things happened. That is my job. I am here to tell the tales because i was at times lucky, and at times because i made the right calls. No - i am not bullet proof, several of my colleagues were shot, as you may recall. Some of them not far away from where i was (such as Nelson Rand, Chandler Vaandergrift, and a Matichon photographer).

I was not just on the sides of the protesters, i was also at the side of the military. Such as during the battle at the National Memorial on April 28, where one soldier died of friendly fire in front of me (yes, i have taken his photo - this was a photo i did not enjoy taking). I was behind the military on May 19, and yes, i, and all of my colleagues there have seen how the military shot indiscriminately at everything that moved before and after they crossed the barricade (several protesters were killed there, and one journalist - Fabio Polengi, who was at the side of the protesters).

On April 10 i was working on both sides - first on the side of the military, and then on the side of the protesters.

[TAWP]

However i did not say that the blackshirts were part of the redshirt movement.

It is also clear the soldiers did fire randomly into people, as can be seen from the death of certain press members, and the death of a soldier shot on viphawadde road by his own side (not disputed).

So it seems some people are prepared to see the bad from both sides(me), while others are happy to ignore the failings and cold blooded killings pepetrated by the military (you), or can you agree that some red shirts were killed whilst unarmed and whilst posing no immediate threat to the soldiers (such as the people in the temple)

Please random, is that the best you can produce?

It is NOT clear that 'soldiers did fire randomly into people'. Only because you where not on location or close by (I was) and didn't see the events doesn't mean any deaths or wounded was hit by anything random. If a soldier takes a shot at an armed militant at one location and a person standing next to him is hit, was the firing random? No, it was not.

And while one shooting on Vibhavadee can be friendly fire (don't drive at high speed against your own troops that is afraid to get killed by armed and insane red shorts) another incident at the same location was also proven to be a soldier fired upon at a 90 degree angle, i.e. from the side, of the road - ergo not a blue on blue incident. Mistakes happen and that is regretful. This is not a perfect world. Planned attacks are not accidents however, so no such excuse for the armed red shirts.

[TAWP]

The bulk of the killed protesters were unarmed protesters.

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

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

But I am not expecting you to acknowledge that.

[TAWP]

Well, you could also ask a similar question: has anybody in authority of the military been held account for the killings of so many unarmed protesters (which are the bulk of killed Red Shirt protesters)?

The bulk of the protesters, not the bulk of those that stayed when things started going violent nor was killed in confrontations.

Nick-Nick-Nick...claiming you are non-biased again are we?

The bulk of the killed protesters were unarmed protesters. The majority of protesters that stayed when things were going violent were unarmed, and a minority were armed militants.

These militants to the most part only operated in cover of darkness. I was one of the view journalists who have seen them operating, briefly. They arrived after Red Shirt guards were shot and injured by the military at a barricade late at night, and launched a series of grenades into the lines of the military from a forward position, after which the military fired indiscriminately into the barricade, wounding several guards (i retreated to a safe position about 50 meters behind after the grenades were launched).

I was present on several occasions where the military have shot at, injured and killed next to me clearly identifiable unarmed protesters, without any militant in sight. On May 13, in the early night near Rama IV/Wireless intersection (one dead, at least one injured), on May 14 at Wireless Rd opposite Lumpini Police Station (where Nelson Rand, a Matichon photographer and several protesters were shot), on May 15 in the afternoon in Rajaparop Road - as described in my story "the killing zone", May 16 i took a day off to get my head back into shape, and until May 19 i went to the frontlines only when things were relatively calm. On May 19 i was behind the military, and was about 60 meters away from Chandler when he was injured by a M79 grenade fired by militants against soldiers (Chandler was in a group of soldiers, which was a bad mistake, most of us journos ran into cover after the first grenades exploded)

I do not underestimate the threat militants posed to the soldiers. That does not mean though that the military is excused from killing and injuring unarmed protesters. Kill and injure militants, no problem, as they are legitimate targets.

fantastic, an actual eye witness, people will still dispute it though, they know better as they were in the comfort of their condo watching a movie on television or moaning on TVF, well done for putting some truths out there :jap:

Actual eye-witness, right...I was here when it happened, my work is located close to it AND my x-wife was a liaison for several news-teams and reporters on location and was on location when the army stormed the red barricades etc and yes, saw many of those found dead that was later reported in articles...

random, where were you?

[nicknostitz]

Why would accelerants be needed for a fire to spread?

There were no countermeasures to the fire. It was free to spread. Have you witnessed many unattended fires just stopping because of a lack of accelerants? Have you ever seen just the bottom floor of a building burn and the fire just not bother to spread further? Of course not, fires spread.

Could you perhaps name these experts that think an unattended fire cannot burn through a bunch of flammable material (like most of the merchandise in Zen) when left unattended?

Every such building has (or better - should have) safety measures. These include sprinkler systems (which at least party worked in Central World), special jackets for cables to prevent cable burns, special air tight and fire proof doors in aircon shafts to prevent to spreading of gasses throughout the building which, and fire proof material. All these measures are there to prevent fires from spreading. Again, experts i spoke with (who asked not to be named) said that the amount of petrol bombs and explosives that were thrown should not have caused such a huge fire if all these security measures would have been in place, unless there were accellerants placed.

Most importantly here - accellerants, or shoddy building could have been proved in a proper investigation. Which was never performed, or never made public. Without such an investigation all that is left is pure speculation.

[nicknostitz]

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

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

But I am not expecting you to acknowledge that.

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

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

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

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

[pedro01]

Why would accelerants be needed for a fire to spread?

There were no countermeasures to the fire. It was free to spread. Have you witnessed many unattended fires just stopping because of a lack of accelerants? Have you ever seen just the bottom floor of a building burn and the fire just not bother to spread further? Of course not, fires spread.

Could you perhaps name these experts that think an unattended fire cannot burn through a bunch of flammable material (like most of the merchandise in Zen) when left unattended?

Every such building has (or better - should have) safety measures. These include sprinkler systems (which at least party worked in Central World), special jackets for cables to prevent cable burns, special air tight and fire proof doors in aircon shafts to prevent to spreading of gasses throughout the building which, and fire proof material. All these measures are there to prevent fires from spreading. Again, experts i spoke with (who asked not to be named) said that the amount of petrol bombs and explosives that were thrown should not have caused such a huge fire if all these security measures would have been in place, unless there were accellerants placed.

Most importantly here - accellerants, or shoddy building could have been proved in a proper investigation. Which was never performed, or never made public. Without such an investigation all that is left is pure speculation.

Your last sentence is correct. What you are doing is pure speculation.

You are trying to point to a smoking gun that isn't there. This need for accelerants is speculation. Did you never got to CW before they burnt it? Zen was full of flammable materials. Of course the building without all the clothes, shoes, perfumes, stationnery etc. etc may not burn as well. Still - I have never heard that there are now buildings that can be set on fire & that this fire will not spread even when left unattended (as firefighters couldn't reach the scene).

These buildings do not exist. Fill a brand new shopping mall anywhere full of merchandise, throw in a few petrol bombs & gas canisters and you will have the same fire.

Can you point to published works or name the experts that tell you shopping malls shouldn't burn?

[hyperdimension]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pedro01]

OK - so the bulk of protesters killed were unarmed. I presume you are extrapolating based on what you saw? Or did you see the bulk of the killings?

It seems also that in your version the militants only came in to retaliate after 'red shirt guards' were shot. At that point the militants launched a grenade attack and the military fired indiscriminately. How could you know what was happening behind the barricade and on the military side. If you were behind the barricade from which you saw a grenade attack - how do you judge that the response was indiscriminate? You couldn't be on both sides at once. Were the grenade attackers perhaps clearly marked and so the military could have spotted them and only fired in that direction?

Also - how is it you saw so many people killed in so many different places where the military were firing indiscriminately yet you are her to tell the tale? Are you perhaps bullet proof?

The problem is - you were on one side. You saw soldiers being attacked. They responded but you think you are in a position to say that the response was OTT.

You are biased, it's quite clear. The only thing in question is if the bias is intentional or not. I can certainly see how it wouldn't be - it is a stressful situation and you would no doubt feel a bond with whichever side you were on if you were also under fire.

I write based on what i saw, what long trusted sources of mine saw, and what trusted colleagues of mine have seen.

The incident in which i saw the militants they came after Red Shirt protesters were shot and injured (which i have seen). The militants then went out of the barricade to a forward position in the no man's land, and launched grenades into the military. The military then responded by firing into the barricade, and beyond it. I was crouching 50 meters behind the barricade in a safe position. I judge it indiscriminate because bullets fired by the military were passing all over the place.

I am a working journalist, and was at many of the hotspots and frontlines all over the place when things happened. That is my job. I am here to tell the tales because i was at times lucky, and at times because i made the right calls. No - i am not bullet proof, several of my colleagues were shot, as you may recall. Some of them not far away from where i was (such as Nelson Rand, Chandler Vaandergrift, and a Matichon photographer).

I was not just on the sides of the protesters, i was also at the side of the military. Such as during the battle at the National Memorial on April 28, where one soldier died of friendly fire in front of me (yes, i have taken his photo - this was a photo i did not enjoy taking). I was behind the military on May 19, and yes, i, and all of my colleagues there have seen how the military shot indiscriminately at everything that moved before and after they crossed the barricade (several protesters were killed there, and one journalist - Fabio Polengi, who was at the side of the protesters).

On April 10 i was working on both sides - first on the side of the military, and then on the side of the protesters.

This is the problem Nick - you say militants fired on soldiers but that their response was indiscriminate. Bullets were passing all over the place.

Still - you were on the opposite line of the battle. You can't see bullets going past but if you are on the front line of a battle, your side is throwing grenades and the other side is firing back, then people will get shot. One would presume that the soldiers WERE pointing their guns in your direction and not 90 degrees left or right. As such - OF COURSE there will be bullets everywhere. The opposition wasn't a team of snipers. The further away from the firing line, the wider the spread of bullets.

Here's what happened - your side threw grenades at soldiers. SOLDIERS. These soldiers, whose life was in imminent danger fired back. You were daft enough to put yourself in the firing line. It must have been harrowing. I was fired upon myself at this time but I was just walking to work. Still - you are in no position to judge the soldiers response as you were not actually anywhere near them. Now - if the soldiers started shooting behind them, to the left and the right when the threat was in front - then I would agree with your view.

Your bias is clear, I just don't think you are seasoned enough to understand why you feel the way you do.

[nicknostitz]

Your last sentence is correct. What you are doing is pure speculation.

I am getting bored.

Yes, i speculate. And as long as we do not see a proper investigation everybody does. Which is generally not base of a court case, especially when we have neither witnesses nor photographic evidence that places the accused as arsonists.

We know that Central World partially burned down. We know that Red Shirt protesters have thrown petrol bombs and explosives.

We have no proof based on an investigation report that these petrol bombs and explosives were the cause of the larger fire that burned down Central World, or if there could have been other causes as well. Causes such as the claims of the Red Shirts that the military burned it down (highly unlikely, in my opinion), or contributing factors such as not keeping required security measures (which would be a huge issue concenring insurances, and would/could also mean mitigating factors in sentencing of accused (who would also need to be proven to having been the guys that threw the petrol bombs and explosives).

In court the prosecution has to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - and not the accused his innocence. Is that concept understandable?

[andrewdrummond]

I fail to understand why you bother to attempt to potray yourself as nuetral "journalist" when again and again you show your bias. Just own up to it Nick.

TH

Yes, indeed - that is Bhet on this picture. He was accused of having wrestled a handgun from a police officer at the SC-Park incident. The is irrefutable proof that it was another Red Shirt guard (photos and videos of that incident). I don't understand why that makes me "biased".

If the origin of the fire were the petrol bombs and explosives then, according to several experts i have spoken with, then without the only way such a bog fire could have been caused would have either been massive amounts of accelerants or shoddy building standards. As to the accelerants - how could they have been brought in and placed properly when all along the Rajaprasong occupation Central World had armed guards?

My question to you - can you think of reasons why there was no proper investigation performed into the exact causes of the fire?

The real issue of this thread is that there are several people accused of arson right now at court. So far, no witness had identified one of them as arsonists. No photo evidence has been presented. No forensic evidence presented yet that connects the accused to the fire. These accused have been held in prison without bail for more than one year. If the prosecution has not more against the accused, then this opens more than a few questions regarding Thailand's justice system.

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

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

Traditionally in Thailand somebody has to be nicked, or take the fall. That person is not necessarily the guilty party. Whether this vdo would help the defence or prosecution I have no idea.

[nicknostitz]

Here's what happened -

No, here's what happened (i was there, and you were not, so please, don't tell me what i saw):

Soldiers fired at protesters, some were injured.

After 20 to 30 minutes militants walked up.

They proceeded to a forward position and fired grenades at soldiers.

I retreated 50 meters to a safe place, and so did most guards.

Soldiers fired indiscriminately into the barricade and beyond (you could see bullets hitting tarmac and structures, and hear the relentless noise of the rifles from the military).

Some protesters/guards were injured and transported to the medics tent.

And no, this was not particularly harrowing as i was in a well covered place when the bullets came, as i have anticipated. And no, i wasn't "daft" i did my job, got good photos, and put myself not into too much danger. When the firing stopped after a few minutes, i picked up my motorcycle, drove out of the Red Shirt area and to the military road block closest to the position from which they fired, asked if i could get in and interview the soldiers there. But the soldiers did not let me in and refused to be interviewed, even though i have shown them my Thai press card. Then i went home.

[nicknostitz]

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

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

Traditionally in Thailand somebody has to be nicked, or take the fall. That person is not necessarily the guilty party. Whether this vdo would help the defence or prosecution I have no idea.

There are many unanswered questions regarding the Central World fire. Many of them could have been answered with an investigation.

There is no doubt, and in my view has never been any, that there were Red Shirt protesters trying to set fire to Central World. But were these amateurish attempts the cause of the large fire? Only a proper investigation (including forensics, etc) could have given us answers.

I have seen in 2009 Red Shirts trying to set of a gas canister by opening the valve. The only thing that happened was that the gas burned until somebody walked up and closed the valve.

Yes, traditionally somebody has to take a fall here. But in this case, i fear that this is not enough, especially also as last year's event's have been internationalized, partly also because of the deaths of two foreign journalists. The Thai justice system is now under intense scrutiny of very relevant international organizations who are watching closely, and if it does not correspond to international standards, Thailand will be risking to be downgraded again.

[A_Traveller]

@ Nicknostitz: What is unfortunate is that lack of appetite [by editors?] for context and analysis. "... got my photos... etc.". Nowhere is there time given, to pick a simple example from the many background currents, the impact of the then legislation against illegal moneylenders, often run out of the back of the store in the agricultural communities, and the point that many were 'trucked down' in company registered vehicles with deals on interest [never principal] being offered. The reality was, and by and large is, that the Red Shirt movement is, to borrow the American politico phrase, an Astroturf movement [as opposed to grass roots] which doesn't make it ineffective but does raise real questions about its strategic motivation.

But again that might be too difficult, or unpopular, perhaps even playing badly compared to the, often internal anti-establishment bias, that some journalists and media organisations, of my acquaintance show. No I don't know anyone who works for Fox

Now the question as to the abilities of the Thai Army [or for that matter the Police earlier outside Government during the previous administration] in crowd control situations highlights the risks of a conscript army which doesn't seem to suffer from a surfeit of training. That doesn't decrease the tragedy, but it does try to add a framework around the actions.

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

Regards

[nicknostitz]

@ Nicknostitz: What is unfortunate is that lack of appetite [by editors?] for context and analysis. "... got my photos... etc.". Nowhere is there time given, to pick a simple example from the many background currents, the impact of the then legislation against illegal moneylenders, often run out of the back of the store in the agricultural communities, and the point that many were 'trucked down' in company registered vehicles with deals on interest [never principal] being offered. The reality was, and by and large is, that the Red Shirt movement is, to borrow the American politico phrase, an Astroturf movement [as opposed to grass roots] which doesn't make it ineffective but does raise real questions about its strategic motivation.

But again that might be too difficult, or unpopular, perhaps even playing badly compared to the, often internal anti-establishment bias, that some journalists and media organisations, of my acquaintance show. No I don't know anyone who works for Fox

Now the question as to the abilities of the Thai Army [or for that matter the Police earlier outside Government during the previous administration] in crowd control situations highlights the risks of a conscript army which doesn't seem to suffer from a surfeit of training. That doesn't decrease the tragedy, but it does try to add a framework around the actions.

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

Regards

Well, when i publish my book i will give time date, place, context, etc. That is why i decided to write books on the mess.

And yes, i have my own problems with the media business and its limitations, and decisions of editors.

I slightly disagree with the term "astroturf movement", if it means that the Red Shirts are somewhat synthetic. Traveling around villages, you can see some very strong grassroots elements in this movement. But the Red Shirts are not a "grass roots movement" per se, as you have many Red Shirts in the various middle classes as well, and in the upper classes there is some support evident as well (funding etc.)

It has been convenient to blame the lack of crowd control abilities of the army on inexperienced conscripts (of which there were many). I have seen though some of the worst disciplinary infractions done by the army by seasoned and "professional" soldiers during last year's mess. The Thai military (with the exception of a few units) has alltogether a miserable human rights record, and is very undisciplined.

I honestly don't know where leaders have suggested that Central World may be burned (any link to a video on Youtube?). What i know is that everybody - journalists, protesters, soldiers, police officers - knew that in case of a violent dispersal one or the other building will be burned. It was not much of a surprise (though it was shocking seeing the fire). What surprised me though the small amount of buildings burned - i have expected many more such fires.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I honestly don't know where leaders have suggested that Central World may be burned (any link to a video on Youtube?). What i know is that everybody - journalists, protesters, soldiers, police officers - knew that in case of a violent dispersal one or the other building will be burned. It was not much of a surprise (though it was shocking seeing the fire). What surprised me though the small amount of buildings burned - i have expected many more such fires.

Have to check the video clips again, but I think it was k. Arisman who gave a list of buildings to torch. Interestingly the RobertAmsterdam site had this in August 2010 "thus far, all the government has been able to offer are two speeches given back in January by UDD leaders Nattawut Saikua and Arisman Pongruangrong, in which the speakers warned of retaliation in the event of a military coup (in Nattawut’s case) or use of force against the Red Shirts (in Arisman’s case)." One could hardly expect a translation into "we'll burn things down if you dare disperse us", not with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. As you said before 'militants running around', 'grenades falling', 'don't stay with the army you might get one'.

About 37 buildings in Bangkok torched, numerous ATMs, telephone booths, CCTV cameras vandalised. Although much less important than those 91 dead, a more visible aspect of the UDD protest for the outside world (as far as they really care that is).

[rubl]

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

Maybe this clip

Discussed previously (2010-08-13) in

[nicknostitz]

Maybe this clip

No, definitely not.

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

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

Now, we can agree upon that the threat may not have been the most intelligent thing to say there. We can argue endlessly if this was just a misplaced ironic reaction to Suthep's accusation (who is known to come out with at least as inane theories as Jatuporn does on occasion), or a real threat, or just the usual - when people climb on stages at times their mouths just run wild (Arisaman has been know to occasionally engage in that sort of behavior ).

But it is a bit of a stretch to jump to the conclusion that such a speech on the stage (one of many hundreds or thousands on different Red Shirt stages) is automatically proof or evidence that the UDD planned to burn Central World and the other buildings (of which a few quite possibly were not even burned by Red Shirts but by opportunistic looters). And at the time the speech was made the idea of moving to Rajaprasong was not even born anyhow. I am getting a bit tired of the constant repetition of that speech (and the other heavily edited speech of Nattawut, leaving out some very important parts), as if it would be some sort of proof, or even represent policies of the Red Shirt central committee.

What we would desperately need here is the results of an independent investigation into the fire of Central World and the other buildings, but it beats me why such an investigation has not been performed (or even if it has been done, why the results have not been made public).

[hughben]

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

[nicknostitz]

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

I am aware of this conspiracy theory.

No evidence though came out to support this idea.

[Buchholz]

We've heard that before about the Red Shirts...

What we were also able to read in the same article:

some were told to pay more than Bt1 million in bail.

Yes, it's a shame that the Red Shirt Leaders focused the resources of this so-called movement on themselves and let the rank and file wallow in prison without assistance, financially and otherwise, that is, until the government that they sought to overthrow devoted the necessary resources to free many of them.

The Red Shirts depended upon these "homeless" and "mentally ill" followers to do their violent bidding and then abandoned these unfortunate souls once they were apprehended and incarcerated.

.

[Buchholz]

Well, you could also ask a similar question: has anybody in authority of the military been held account for the killings of so many unarmed protesters (which are the bulk of killed Red Shirt protesters)?

The bulk of the protesters, not the bulk of those that stayed when things started going violent nor was killed in confrontations.

Nick-Nick-Nick...claiming you are non-biased again are we?

[Buchholz]

Nick, you are still at it I see. Minimizing the radical UDD elements role in event of May 14 to the 19th and in this case on the 19th itself.

First you use a straw man that apparently attempts to say, if CW was built correctly it would not have burned so badly as if it now the owners of CW are at fault becasue thier building couldn’t withstand an arson attempt.

Nick says: Did the builders fulfill the safety requirements in terms of building material, or have, as so often here, safety regulations not been kept? Did Central World regularly check the safety measurements, or, as so often here, nobody checked those?

Then you say

There is more than enough evidence that Red Shirt protesters have thrown petrol bombs in Central World, and also a few explosives.

But follow it with:

But we don't even know yet anything of the origin of the fire. Why don't we know that?

But you just told what the orgin of the fire was. Here, let me let you say it again

There is more than enough evidence that Red Shirt protesters have thrown petrol bombs in Central World, and also a few explosives.

Classic fallacy agruments, just trying to take the focus away from the real issue, one that you try to avoid but when confronted on it, you do everything to minimize and make the disccusion go elsewhere.

Nick says:

Another case i have direct knowledge about is Manop "Bhet" Charnchangthong - the Red Shirt guard who became famous for carrying weapons to the stage after the April 10 disaster. He was later accused and arrested by the DSI of having wrestled a handgun of a police officer during the SC Park Hotel incident (where Arisaman and Rambo escaped arrest), even though there is clear proof that another Red Shirt guard (now in the underground) has done this.

Now, now Nick, isn't Bhet more well known for this picture?

But you didn't mention that did you?

I fail to understand why you bother to attempt to potray yourself as nuetral "journalist" when again and again you show your bias. Just own up to it Nick.

TH

[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."

[nicknostitz]

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...

[Siam Simon]

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

Isn't that a bit like?:

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

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

Nick.

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