Recalling October 7, 2008 Police Crackdown On Yellow-Shirt Protest

[tlansford]

I for one appreciate the effort that Nick Nostitz takes to contribute to the forum. A first-hand perspective from someone who not only was there on this day, but everyday for years before as well as years after, is so very rare for any place in the world, much less Bangkok. Thanks Nick.

Nick is very capable of defending himself which he ably does here. Some have labeled him a "red shirt reporter / apologist". For the multitude people browsing but not posting in the news forum, please take the time to find and read the first two volumes of Nick's writing on the events of the last 5 years. I think that you will find his reporting and photography to represent that which journalism should be - being present (in Nick's case, essentially everyday over a period of years) as events happen and then reporting on the events. In his books, he does offer his analysis, in addition to the reporting - to not do so would be a disservice to his readers. And in keeping with the expected standards of journalism, he differentiates clearly between reporting on events and his analysis.

It is just speculation on my part, but I am guessing that the posters labeling Mr. Nostitz a red-shirt journalist / apologist have not been bothered to read the 2 volumes of work that he has published. In my opinion, after reading his 2 works, a reasonable person would have difficulty applying a biased color-label to his writing and photography.

[AleG]

Nick, as usual, thanks for your witness evidence. I hope you're only posting for fun in debating with the posters you're debating with. You may by now have realised that, on this forum, establishing the truth of political events is at best not important. What is really, really important is to blame everything that goes wrong in Thailand on Thaksin Shinawatra/anybody associated with him. It's completely unnaceptable to ever, ever, ever blame anybody, anywhere for any wrong-doing if they happen to oppose Thaksin or anybody associated with him. Failure to comply will always result in the poster being hounded into a state of complete boredom by the 'team' .

Striving to find the truth is a noble and worthy goal, but things like claiming as a fact that they Yellow Shirts were as heavily armed as the Red Shirts is the opposite of that.

[nicknostitz]

I for one appreciate the effort that Nick Nostitz takes to contribute to the forum. A first-hand perspective from someone who not only was there on this day, but everyday for years before as well as years after, is so very rare for any place in the world, much less Bangkok. Thanks Nick.

Thank you.

I also went yesterday to the the concert of the PAD in the ASTV building. I may have been the only non-ASTV/Manager Group journalist who has been there. I spend more time with the PAD in their protest during the first 6 months of the year at government house than any other journalist as well, apart form one TNN cameraman. The problem in reporting of the political crisis all these years is that there has been very insufficient information flow by the media, both Thai and Western.

I also wonder about the constant accusations of being a "Red Shirt apologist". There are so many cases where my reporting, and my posts here clearly divert from, and oppose Red Shirt media or propaganda that these accusations simply do not hold up. For example, I have always stated that there were/are armed/very violent elements under the Red Shirts, i have been the first photographer who has photographed a Red Shirt with a gun (back in 2008), and also published the image. I have also always stated that the reason for the injuries of PAD protesters on Oct 7 were the teargas grenades.

Many of the accusations stem from my article on Oct 7, 2008, where i have written a very different account of what occurred, based on my experience being present on the streets beginning from more than an hour before the early morning police assault until the end of the fighting at night (expect a break during the early afternoon). As a result of this article i was accused on the PAD stage of having accepted a huge bribe from Thaksin, and several of my colleagues with PAD sympathies who have not been present on the ground that day began to start rumors of me being in the pay of Thaksin, a supporter of the Red Shirts, and whatever else, because my reporting went against their line - which basically always was that Thaksin was the worst that happened to Thailand, and that everthing to stop Thaksin was legitimate. Fortunately though there are many colleagues who have always defended me - most of them were reporters that do try to be as much on the ground as the can.

The problem i still have is, that as a result of these accusations i am more or less shut out of the money trail. Many people and institutions are scared of any open association with me, and will not hire me fearing to be drawn into the same. I make less money than any journalist here who works this subject, but spend more time on the topic than anybody else. The few medias that appreciate my knowledge and will hire me, will only bring stories on the subject matter when there is a worldwide interest, such as when things are extremely violent, or, such as recently - when there are elections. Since the elections have been over, my only income came from the recent conference in Singapore on the 2006 coup in which i was invited to speak, and for which i have to write a paper. As i am so obsessed with this Red/Yellow conflict i have also no time to look for other sources of income as this would mean that i can't spend the necessary attention to this conflict.

If i would be biased towards either side, my financial situation would be quite different - as there are then suddenly funds and "employment opportunities" suddenly made available. As it is right now - financially i am more fuc_ked than i have ever been in my life. But regardless of all the accusations - i know that i am on the right side: the side of as objective reporting.

Edited October 8, 2011 by sbk
blind link to forbidden page removed-do NOT repost

[rubl]

I know I'm a stickler for details, sorry.

If one of the weapons was recovered in a sting the picture in your book can hardly show 'the weapons caught'. It's either one weapon, or more, not both

The stolen and recovered Uzi, and a handgun.

Weapons.

The discussion was on UZI/M16 with you saying "I am talking here about stolen Uzi's and M16's which are registered.". 'One recovered' and 'weapons shown' is a bit confusing, my dear chap.

Edited October 8, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

I know I'm a stickler for details, sorry.

If one of the weapons was recovered in a sting the picture in your book can hardly show 'the weapons caught'. It's either one weapon, or more, not both

The stolen and recovered Uzi, and a handgun.

Weapons.

The discussion was on UZI/M16 with you saying "I am talking here about stolen Uzi's and M16's which are registered.". 'One recovered' and 'weapons shown' is a bit confusing, my dear chap.

My dear chap, please realize that i am posting not in my native language, and that i hardly will pay as much attention to grammar, syntax and other semantic issues as i would in a story to be published when i make a post here.

Yet again, i see that your post here lacks any contribution to the subject matter other than trying to draw me into an argument.

Do you have anything to say that is even remotely relevant to the discussion on the Oct 7 incident?

[rubl]

The discussion was on UZI/M16 with you saying "I am talking here about stolen Uzi's and M16's which are registered.". 'One recovered' and 'weapons shown' is a bit confusing, my dear chap.

My dear chap, please realize that i am posting not in my native language, and that i hardly will pay as much attention to grammar, syntax and other semantic issues as i would in a story to be published when i make a post here.

Yet again, i see that your post here lacks any contribution to the subject matter other than trying to draw me into an argument.

Do you have anything to say that is even remotely relevant to the discussion on the Oct 7 incident?

Like you I'm not posting in my native language. Still even when describing a situation in a post where you tend to stress 'facts' it is good practice to be a bit precise.

As for any thing 'remotely relevant' to Oct. 7th, I have nothing to add, IMHO that is.

From your local Dutch uncle

[rubl]

""Page last updated at 22:35 GMT, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 23:35 UK

Tense stand-off in Thai capital

...

The violence prompted the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, the government's chief negotiator with the PAD, who said police had failed to exercise the restraint he had requested.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7656073.stm

Edited October 8, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

""Page last updated at 22:35 GMT, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 23:35 UK

Tense stand-off in Thai capital

...

The violence prompted the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, the government's chief negotiator with the PAD, who said police had failed to exercise the restraint he had requested.""

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/7656073.stm

Good, so you googled a BBC report. Very astute, indeed.

Yes, Chavalit has a tendency to resign whenever the going gets tough and he might get into danger to get into trouble. But i would hardly cite Chavalit as a figure of authority when it comes to objectively assess any given situation. I think even my strongest opponents would agree with me here that Chavalit is one of the maybe most eel like politicians in the Thai political sphere, even beating Banharn by leagues when it comes to looking out for himself and his vast vested interests.

Chavalit's powers of obfuscation, and of the delivery of meaningless and convoluted blather are stunningly impressive, as anyone can attest to who has ever taken part in one of his press conferences.

Anything more you can add to the discussion?

Edited October 8, 2011 by nicknostitz

[TAWP]

Adding facts, about both sides actions, is a good thing.

Trying to spin everything and selling books with biased assertions is not.

But questioning this makes *me* a bad guy.

[nicknostitz]

Adding facts, about both sides actions, is a good thing.

Trying to spin everything and selling books with biased assertions is not.

But questioning this makes *me* a bad guy.

No, unless you have read my books it just makes you just another cyber warrior with the urge to vent his feelings.

If you have read my books though, than i would expect to substantiate your accusation of spin and bias against me by citing particular quotes and contexts of what i wrote in my books, and factually refute them by either your own accounts of what you witnessed, or by reliable source material. As we are here discussing the Oct. 7 incident, lets start here with my chapter on the incident in volume 1 of my series, and the follow up passages in volume 2.

I am always open to factually based criticism, and will, when proven wrong, add corrections in my following books. Any more i cannot possibly offer.

[rubl]

Yahooing around I stumbled over this:

"PAD Demonstration. Sukhumvit Road. Bangkok. 20th October 2008.

...

PAD core leader Pibhob Dhongchai earlier reasserted that his group distrusted the government-appointed committee now probing on the causes of the October 7 incidents due to reports that the government tried to intervene and remove some of the 'straightforward' committee members.

Mr. Pibhob said the PAD trusted the findings of the National Human Rights Commission, a respected neutral body, which announced Friday that the government was responsible for having given the order to disperse, while the police were responsible for carrying out the action.

He said the group would rather entrust an independent investigative committee which could be set up by parliament and be comprised of members of the House of Representatives and senators, including the Opposition."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11401580@N03/2957193985

[nicknostitz]

Yahooing around I stumbled over this:

"PAD Demonstration. Sukhumvit Road. Bangkok. 20th October 2008.

...

PAD core leader Pibhob Dhongchai earlier reasserted that his group distrusted the government-appointed committee now probing on the causes of the October 7 incidents due to reports that the government tried to intervene and remove some of the 'straightforward' committee members.

Mr. Pibhob said the PAD trusted the findings of the National Human Rights Commission, a respected neutral body, which announced Friday that the government was responsible for having given the order to disperse, while the police were responsible for carrying out the action.

He said the group would rather entrust an independent investigative committee which could be set up by parliament and be comprised of members of the House of Representatives and senators, including the Opposition."

http://www.flickr.co...@N03/2957193985

Before putting to much weight on Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, i would suggest to google a bit about the many controversies surrounding Thailand's National Human Rights Commission and their so-called neutrality.

Edited October 8, 2011 by sbk

[nicknostitz]

If the facts will set you free, then use that to your advantage. Instead of always, seemingly, trying to justify or minimize another sides action when talking about PAD and so on.

And here we go again...

Any comment on the original article, and that it was published by a network owned by the PAD's main leader, or does your contributions to the subject matter yet again just limit themselves in personal attacks against me?

[rubl]

Before putting to much weight on Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, i would suggest to google a bit about the many controversies surrounding Thailand's National Human Rights Commission and their so-called neutrality.

Maybe the HRW report over 2008 has more value in your eyes? It has some good and some bad for all

"On October 7, thousands of PAD protesters surrounded the parliament in an attempt to block Prime Minister Somchai from delivering a policy statement. To clear the area, police riot units and BPP units used tear gas and rubber bullets, in some cases firing tear gas from close range directly at the protesters. PAD protesters responded by firing guns, shooting slingshots, throwing bricks and metal pipes, trying to run over police officers with pickup trucks, and stabbing police with flagpoles. According to the Public Health Ministry, two PAD supporters died and 443 were injured, including four cases of amputation. About 20 police were injured.

On October 13, Thailand's National Human Rights Commission concluded that Chinese-made tear gas canisters and grenades used by police on October 7 may have caused many of the deaths and severe injuries.

To date, there has been no independent and impartial investigation into politically motivated violence and human rights abuses committed by the PAD."

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79243

[473geo]

The attempt to make out the yellows were not armed is to serve a simple purpose

Tear gas was used on this occasion.....and if the yellows were armed, then those that condoned live fire against the red shirt protest have no grounds for complaint.....

It is not about the comments Nick has made.....more about posters on this forum begining to look like hypocrites

[TAWP]

The attempt to make out the yellows were not armed is to serve a simple purpose

Tear gas was used on this occasion.....and if the yellows were armed, then those that condoned live fire against the red shirt protest have no grounds for complaint.....

It is not about the comments Nick has made.....more about posters on this forum begining to look like hypocrites

Since no-one has said the Yellows were not armed at all, you are serving us another Strawman argument.

And to your second point, ofcourse anyone that thinks it was right firing upon the yellow shirts then thinks it was right to fire upon the red shirts. No?

Hypocrites, you are indeed correct. I can think of a few...

Edited October 8, 2011 by TAWP

[473geo]

The attempt to make out the yellows were not armed is to serve a simple purpose

Tear gas was used on this occasion.....and if the yellows were armed, then those that condoned live fire against the red shirt protest have no grounds for complaint.....

It is not about the comments Nick has made.....more about posters on this forum begining to look like hypocrites

Since no-one has said the Yellows were not armed at all, you are serving us another Strawman argument.

And to your second point, ofcourse anyone that thinks it was right firing upon the yellow shirts then thinks it was right to fire upon the red shirts. No?

Hypocrites, you are indeed correct. I can think of a few...

No wrong again.....because in my own opinion tear gas was the right option for the yellowshirts, the following deaths were accidental and regretable

Introducing live ammunition even though some protestors were armed would in my opinion have been heavy handed. Perhaps had the same tear gas approach been used earlier in the red shirt protest there may have been a different outcome in the death tally......no strawman anything......just my thoughts.......

My second point is simple, if a poster condones live fire on protestors, then I think it shows flawed judgement to complain about accidental death and injury from the use of tear gas

again just my opinion.....no bias in case you were about to throw that one at me.....no books to sell.....no strawman argument

My observation.....

[nicknostitz]

Before putting to much weight on Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, i would suggest to google a bit about the many controversies surrounding Thailand's National Human Rights Commission and their so-called neutrality.

Maybe the HRW report over 2008 has more value in your eyes? It has some good and some bad for all

"On October 7, thousands of PAD protesters surrounded the parliament in an attempt to block Prime Minister Somchai from delivering a policy statement. To clear the area, police riot units and BPP units used tear gas and rubber bullets, in some cases firing tear gas from close range directly at the protesters. PAD protesters responded by firing guns, shooting slingshots, throwing bricks and metal pipes, trying to run over police officers with pickup trucks, and stabbing police with flagpoles. According to the Public Health Ministry, two PAD supporters died and 443 were injured, including four cases of amputation. About 20 police were injured.

On October 13, Thailand's National Human Rights Commission concluded that Chinese-made tear gas canisters and grenades used by police on October 7 may have caused many of the deaths and severe injuries.

To date, there has been no independent and impartial investigation into politically motivated violence and human rights abuses committed by the PAD."

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79243

Yes, Human Rights Watch does try to remain on neutral ground, and that particular statement - albeit brief - is quite correct.

[cdnvic]

I've deleted much of an off topic argument. If any of the involved members restart it they will lose their posting rights.

Discuss the news story, and stop attacking each other.

[TAWP]

The attempt to make out the yellows were not armed is to serve a simple purpose

Tear gas was used on this occasion.....and if the yellows were armed, then those that condoned live fire against the red shirt protest have no grounds for complaint.....

It is not about the comments Nick has made.....more about posters on this forum begining to look like hypocrites

Since no-one has said the Yellows were not armed at all, you are serving us another Strawman argument.

And to your second point, ofcourse anyone that thinks it was right firing upon the yellow shirts then thinks it was right to fire upon the red shirts. No?

Hypocrites, you are indeed correct. I can think of a few...

No wrong again.....because in my own opinion tear gas was the right option for the yellowshirts, the following deaths were accidental and regretable

Introducing live ammunition even though some protestors were armed would in my opinion have been heavy handed. Perhaps had the same tear gas approach been used earlier in the red shirt protest there may have been a different outcome in the death tally......no strawman anything......just my thoughts.......

My second point is simple, if a poster condones live fire on protestors, then I think it shows flawed judgement to complain about accidental death and injury from the use of tear gas

again just my opinion.....no bias in case you were about to throw that one at me.....no books to sell.....no strawman argument

My observation.....

Referencing a statement that no-one has made and then taking time to attack it, thereby alluding to some sort of win in the argument, is to serve up a Strawman attack.

First injuries and deaths might have been accidental - if the police truly never cared to train or check their gear. When the effect was seen all the following deaths and injuries was elected by the police.

[473geo]

The attempt to make out the yellows were not armed is to serve a simple purpose

Tear gas was used on this occasion.....and if the yellows were armed, then those that condoned live fire against the red shirt protest have no grounds for complaint.....

It is not about the comments Nick has made.....more about posters on this forum begining to look like hypocrites

Since no-one has said the Yellows were not armed at all, you are serving us another Strawman argument.

And to your second point, ofcourse anyone that thinks it was right firing upon the yellow shirts then thinks it was right to fire upon the red shirts. No?

Hypocrites, you are indeed correct. I can think of a few...

No wrong again.....because in my own opinion tear gas was the right option for the yellowshirts, the following deaths were accidental and regretable

Introducing live ammunition even though some protestors were armed would in my opinion have been heavy handed. Perhaps had the same tear gas approach been used earlier in the red shirt protest there may have been a different outcome in the death tally......no strawman anything......just my thoughts.......

My second point is simple, if a poster condones live fire on protestors, then I think it shows flawed judgement to complain about accidental death and injury from the use of tear gas

again just my opinion.....no bias in case you were about to throw that one at me.....no books to sell.....no strawman argument

My observation.....

Referencing a statement that no-one has made and then taking time to attack it, thereby alluding to some sort of win in the argument, is to serve up a Strawman attack.

First injuries and deaths might have been accidental - if the police truly never cared to train or check their gear. When the effect was seen all the following deaths and injuries was elected by the police.

The only straw here is the ones you are trying to clutch at............you are wasting my time......keep chasing the straws....

[TAWP]

My lord...

Again, no-one here has said PAD was completely unarmed.

[473geo]

My lord...

Again, no-one here has said PAD was completely unarmed.

Unbelievable..........right over to the other side of the fence and you cannot even see it.........

If PAD was not completely unarmed.......they were armed......... and this is the justification used for declaring a live fire zone on the red protest, but on this protest they used tear gas.......

And people on this thread are making comments such as 'what have the reds to complain about'.........is it sinking in yet?

You are making exactly the same defence as the red supporters, who were widely criticised on this forum for supporting armed terrorists.......and you do not appear to see how ridiculous that looks.......in fact if it was not for the loss of life, this thread would be quite hilarious

However this has only surfaced due to the compensation demands for the red protest, and in my opinion government was at fault on both occasions and should pay up....then perhaps we can move on

[rubl]

Unbelievable..........right over to the other side of the fence and you cannot even see it.........

If PAD was not completely unarmed.......they were armed......... and this is the justification used for declaring a live fire zone on the red protest, but on this protest they used tear gas.......

And people on this thread are making comments such as 'what have the reds to complain about'.........is it sinking in yet?

You are making exactly the same defence as the red supporters, who were widely criticised on this forum for supporting armed terrorists.......and you do not appear to see how ridiculous that looks.......in fact if it was not for the loss of life, this thread would be quite hilarious

However this has only surfaced due to the compensation demands for the red protest, and in my opinion government was at fault on both occasions and should pay up....then perhaps we can move on

To quote my friend Nick:

"Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?"

[473geo]

Unbelievable..........right over to the other side of the fence and you cannot even see it.........

If PAD was not completely unarmed.......they were armed......... and this is the justification used for declaring a live fire zone on the red protest, but on this protest they used tear gas.......

And people on this thread are making comments such as 'what have the reds to complain about'.........is it sinking in yet?

You are making exactly the same defence as the red supporters, who were widely criticised on this forum for supporting armed terrorists.......and you do not appear to see how ridiculous that looks.......in fact if it was not for the loss of life, this thread would be quite hilarious

However this has only surfaced due to the compensation demands for the red protest, and in my opinion government was at fault on both occasions and should pay up....then perhaps we can move on

To quote my friend Nick:

"Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4749753

Oh dear Rubl; so desperate to get that one in any way you could; a clumsy effort.......read the last sentence of my post, might give you a little insight..............it actually tells you why this topic regarding Oct 2007 may be on the agenda......

[rubl]

To quote my friend Nick:

"Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4749753

Oh dear Rubl; so desperate to get that one in any way you could; a clumsy effort.......read the last sentence of my post, might give you a little insight..............it actually tells you why this topic regarding Oct 2007 may be on the agenda......

Maybe the main reason for this post on 'Recalling October, 7th ..." was the fact that the OP was written & posted on October, 7th. Keep in mind that various groups and colorful shirts like to commemorate, some even once a month

Edited October 8, 2011 by rubl

[sbk]

Flame post removed- next flame earns a 7 day suspension, no exceptions

[gl555]

When you're jobless and have nothing better to do with your lives, it's always good to be able to have 'commemorate' at once a month. There's always free food.

To quote my friend Nick:

"Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?"

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4749753

Oh dear Rubl; so desperate to get that one in any way you could; a clumsy effort.......read the last sentence of my post, might give you a little insight..............it actually tells you why this topic regarding Oct 2007 may be on the agenda......

Maybe the main reason for this post on 'Recalling October, 7th ..." was the fact that the OP was written & posted on October, 7th. Keep in mind that various groups and colorful shirts like to commemorate, some even once a month

[LomSak27]

Well if the Reds want to remember past events looks like the Yellow shirts are saying we can too. What courage!

Somebody should give these guys some tisssue.

[Buchholz]

Well if the Reds want to remember past events looks like the Yellow shirts are saying we can too. What courage!

Somebody should give these guys some tisssue.

As many "remembrances" as the Red Shirts have had, they should have a few pallet loads of tissues still on hand they could lend.

.