'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[nicknostitz]

Both you and hammered may be surprised to learn this Nick, but even people who do not condone what the Thaksin sponsored Red Shirts have done, read an awful lot about what goes on and has gone on in this country and within its various institutions. I read it all and have opinions on most of it. I can't share all those opinions because to do so would violate Thai law. If I could, you might find that you and me share more in common than you may presently believe. That aside, naming a website is not against any law and for one to prattle on citing "foreign reports" but refusing to name them, only undermines the poster's credibility, which in this particular case is pretty shaky to begin with.

I named several websites with unflattering things to say about the status quo here in Thailand, why can't the other poster I wonder?

I am sure of that.

The issue though is less the law than Thaivisa policy. I was recently warned when i posted a link to something that was deemed not suitable to Thaivisa, therefore i am more than reluctant to put up any link that could offend the moderators or Thaivisa policy. We are to discuss things within the confines the owners of this place here decide over.

Edited December 3, 2011 by nicknostitz

[TAWP]

Then send links in PM to some of us.

[ozzieman05]

I think most people here have read all the Prachatai, New Mandela, Thai Political Prisoners, Bankok Pundit, The Reuters defector whose name escapes me at the moment, Wilileaks, etc. Is it something from other than those mentioned? If so please give a hint.

No it is not one of those but one whose most outspoken poltical forum commentator is more of an extreme yellow colour who precedes any mention of anyone even vaguely connected to Thaksin with "ai" or "ee", but they do have a thoughtful and cross divide news section and some of the best if rare imho poltical analysis.

So it's bullshit, thanks.

Each to their own. I dpont think virtually anyone who has worked out what site I am talking about (and that should be obvious to anyone has read it) would agree with you, as it has a very good reputation. Still I notice a worrying tendency among many on this site to attack the messeenger at all time and to ignore the message or even to try and distract from the message, and even though that may be a little fun for all of us to indulge in, it is really the message that is important and not the messenger

This guy is playing games

Do Not argue with an idiot

He will beat you with experience every time

[scorecard]

Both you and hammered may be surprised to learn this Nick, but even people who do not condone what the Thaksin sponsored Red Shirts have done, read an awful lot about what goes on and has gone on in this country and within its various institutions. I read it all and have opinions on most of it. I can't share all those opinions because to do so would violate Thai law. If I could, you might find that you and me share more in common than you may presently believe. That aside, naming a website is not against any law and for one to prattle on citing "foreign reports" but refusing to name them, only undermines the poster's credibility, which in this particular case is pretty shaky to begin with.

I named several websites with unflattering things to say about the status quo here in Thailand, why can't the other poster I wonder?

I am sure of that.

The issue though is less the law than Thaivisa policy. I was recently warned when i posted a link to something that was deemed not suitable to Thaivisa, therefore i am more than reluctant to put up any link that could offend the moderators or Thaivisa policy. We are to discuss things within the confines the owners of this place here decide over.

'Offend the moderators' - what does that mean? Just more of your games.

[scorecard]

As these bodies were stolen from hospital morgues and paraded around various Red Shirt venues. How strong do you think the "chain of evidence" is? I'll answer that for you. It is non-existant. No one could be found guilty based on the report after a usurption of the custodial chain of evidence, as was done in this case, has taken place. The theft of the bodies in more than a little bit suspicious.

Not every body was taken as you seem to intimate. In fact most of those killed were not. It really only undermines your arguement to make sweeping statements that can be so easily be countered by fact.

And forensic evidence also is only ever part of a plethora of evidence that helps build a picture often by confirming or contradicting witness statement. And in this case there is clearly going to be forensic evidence

And according to some foreign reports there are witness statements from within the army that could be interesting too.

Instead of constantly alluding to these reports, why don't you post them?

Agree, post some sources otherwise IMHO you are just wind.

[scorecard]

As these bodies were stolen from hospital morgues and paraded around various Red Shirt venues. How strong do you think the "chain of evidence" is? I'll answer that for you. It is non-existant. No one could be found guilty based on the report after a usurption of the custodial chain of evidence, as was done in this case, has taken place. The theft of the bodies in more than a little bit suspicious.

Not every body was taken as you seem to intimate. In fact most of those killed were not. It really only undermines your arguement to make sweeping statements that can be so easily be countered by fact.

And forensic evidence also is only ever part of a plethora of evidence that helps build a picture often by confirming or contradicting witness statement. And in this case there is clearly going to be forensic evidence

And according to some foreign reports there are witness statements from within the army that could be interesting too.

Instead of constantly alluding to these reports, why don't you post them?

Agree, post some sources otherwise IMHO you are just on-going wind.

[Siam Simon]

As these bodies were stolen from hospital morgues and paraded around various Red Shirt venues. How strong do you think the "chain of evidence" is? I'll answer that for you. It is non-existant. No one could be found guilty based on the report after a usurption of the custodial chain of evidence, as was done in this case, has taken place. The theft of the bodies in more than a little bit suspicious.

Not every body was taken as you seem to intimate. In fact most of those killed were not. It really only undermines your arguement to make sweeping statements that can be so easily be countered by fact.

And forensic evidence also is only ever part of a plethora of evidence that helps build a picture often by confirming or contradicting witness statement. And in this case there is clearly going to be forensic evidence

And according to some foreign reports there are witness statements from within the army that could be interesting too.

Instead of constantly alluding to these reports, why don't you post them?

Agree, post some sources otherwise IMHO you are just wind.

trolling alert! trolling alert!

Edited December 3, 2011 by Siam Simon

[Insight]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

[nicknostitz]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

First of all, this little argument has nothing to do with my photos.

Secondly, yes, it is offensive to ask a complete stranger to provide something for free he makes a living with. Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much.

What is offensive as well is that your idea about me that i would be so stupid to lie in a public forum while posting under my real name, and that you have the chutzpa to ask me to back this up with my images (for free), and when i refuse you insult my professional integrity by accusing me of acting in "typical UDD/Puah Thai style".

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

[Insight]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

First of all, this little argument has nothing to do with my photos.

Secondly, yes, it is offensive to ask a complete stranger to provide something for free he makes a living with. Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much.

What is offensive as well is that your idea about me that i would be so stupid to lie in a public forum while posting under my real name, and that you have the chutzpa to ask me to back this up with my images (for free), and when i refuse you insult my professional integrity by accusing me of acting in "typical UDD/Puah Thai style".

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

[nicknostitz]

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

You get the wrong idea if you think that arguing here on Thaivisa would either "further my cause" or "boost my reputation" - on the opposite, it quite likely does damage to my reputation, given that the quality of the discussion is about as close to gutter level as one can possibly get.

[Insight]

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

You get the wrong idea if you think that arguing here on Thaivisa would either "further my cause" or "boost my reputation" - on the opposite, it quite likely does damage to my reputation, given that the quality of the discussion is about as close to gutter level as one can possibly get.

I do not get why this is "as close to gutter level as one can possibly get."

You made a claim that the army were using tactics beyond their flawed water cannon/tear gas approach during the daytime of April 10th 2010 - an accusation which could very well shift public support towards the actions taken by the red shirts and their militia that evening if it could be proven. Either from a supportive point of view, or a publicity/promotional point of view, the public release of such evidence has very real value.

And yet you refuse to. Most puzzling.

[rubl]

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

You get the wrong idea if you think that arguing here on Thaivisa would either "further my cause" or "boost my reputation" - on the opposite, it quite likely does damage to my reputation, given that the quality of the discussion is about as close to gutter level as one can possibly get.

If you really think arguing here on ThaiVisa does damage to your reputation, you should consider not to argue on this forum. It's a 'free-for-all', but no-one is forced to participate. Especially when in your opinion the quality is as close to gutter level as it can get, I'm really wondering why you still participate

Anyway, we're still waiting for the 'clear, new evidence' promised in the OP

[nicknostitz]

I do not get why this is "as close to gutter level as one can possibly get."

You made a claim that the army were using tactics beyond their flawed water cannon/tear gas approach during the daytime of April 10th 2010 - an accusation which could very well shift public support towards the actions taken by the red shirts and their militia that evening if it could be proven. Either from a supportive point of view, or a publicity/promotional point of view, the public release of such evidence has very real value.

And yet you refuse to. Most puzzling.

I am not surprised that you don't get it.

From a historical point of view publication of the context of last year's events are of enormous importance. But Thaivisa and its peer review by a bunch of anonymous posters is hardly the venue for such a release.

I am not here to release any "new evidence", but only to correct a few misconception over already publicly available evidence. As to the images you requested, i would suggest to go on a youtube search as there are tons of videos available of the clashes i mentioned.

Now, can we please lay that to rest.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Scott
Discussion of moderation edited out

[Insight]

I do not get why this is "as close to gutter level as one can possibly get."

You made a claim that the army were using tactics beyond their flawed water cannon/tear gas approach during the daytime of April 10th 2010 - an accusation which could very well shift public support towards the actions taken by the red shirts and their militia that evening if it could be proven. Either from a supportive point of view, or a publicity/promotional point of view, the public release of such evidence has very real value.

And yet you refuse to. Most puzzling.

I am not surprised that you don't get it.

From a historical point of view publication of the context of last year's events are of enormous importance. But Thaivisa and its peer review by a bunch of anonymous posters is hardly the venue for such a release.

I am not here to release any "new evidence", but only to correct a few misconception over already publicly available evidence. As to the images you requested, i would suggest to go on a youtube search as there are tons of videos available of the clashes i mentioned.

Now, can we please lay that to rest, as this tit for tat quite possibly bores the shit out of everyone as much as it bores me to death, and most likely will soon be deleted by the moderators anyhow.

So you don't actually have anything new to offer after all, for now at least. Fine. And I don't think this issue "bores the shit out of everyone", especially when there's the potential to learn more about what exactly occurred that day.

Also note, I never once mentioned the word "liar" (except now, obviously, in reference to your previous post). Make what you will.

[Buchholz]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Is it ok now to flame another member, as long as transliterated Thai is used?

.

[Insight]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Is it ok now to flame another member, as long as transliterated Thai is used?

.

Thank you for identifying the offending "gutter level" content I was questioning before.

[Buchholz]

Both you and hammered may be surprised to learn this Nick, but even people who do not condone what the Thaksin sponsored Red Shirts have done, read an awful lot about what goes on and has gone on in this country and within its various institutions. I read it all and have opinions on most of it. I can't share all those opinions because to do so would violate Thai law. If I could, you might find that you and me share more in common than you may presently believe. That aside, naming a website is not against any law and for one to prattle on citing "foreign reports" but refusing to name them, only undermines the poster's credibility, which in this particular case is pretty shaky to begin with.

I named several websites with unflattering things to say about the status quo here in Thailand, why can't the other poster I wonder?

I am sure of that.

The issue though is less the law than Thaivisa policy. I was recently warned when i posted a link to something that was deemed not suitable to Thaivisa, therefore i am more than reluctant to put up any link that could offend the moderators or Thaivisa policy. We are to discuss things within the confines the owners of this place here decide over.

Then send links in PM to some of us.

A simple PM to any moderator on duty for permission to post will end all the feigned cloak and dagger silliness.

.

[TAWP]

I didn't ask anyone to post any of their work online for free, and other excuses now used.

Some people said that there were websites that had articles on them - claiming the sites was 'very pro yellow' - and would prove their case.

I like to read most I can come over and would appreciate the info on how to find these articles.

I don't understand why this is so controversial or hard.

[tlansford]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Is it ok now to flame another member, as long as transliterated Thai is used?

.

หน้าด้าน / unverschämt / cheeky is a flame, ... ?

I stated one time, but I believe that it was part of the deleted posts, having someone willing to give a first hand report from years of events, protests, & riots is really valuable. For my part, it's very much appreciated.

[Buchholz]

At least the faux outrage has died down.

Who would of thought asking a photojournalist to provide photos would ever be considered so offensive?

For such ill-mannered behavior Thai language has a perfectly suitable expression: Na Daan

Is it ok now to flame another member, as long as transliterated Thai is used?

.

หน้าด้าน

So then, it is ok to flame in transliterated Thai.

.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[rubl]

หน้าด้าน / unverschämt / cheeky is a flame, ... ?

IMHO unverschämt is closer to 'insolent, impudent' (or even uncivilized, uneducated). Anyway just tongue-in-cheek

[kennkate]

Ok I know this thread is about the Japanese Cameraman.

What about the people who sought refuge in the Temple who shot them including a nurse who was helping a wounded peson at the entrance ?

And who shot Sae Dang or whatever he was called. He was taken out ( Murdered ) By Who ? Mr Nobody Red Shirts Black Shirts Pink Shirts or the Army.

No doubt some on here will have the answers. I will look forward to your replys.

[AleG]

Besides arguing about details, the bottom line is that if there wouldn't had been an armed militia that attacked the army noone should have died.

The year before, 2009, Red Shirts run riot in Bangkok, clashes with the army, death toll during the whole affair: 0.

The 10th of April, the army had been pushing the Red Shirts away from their protest site, some clashes, death toll: 0.

Out come the men in black and engage the army and all hell breaks loose, how many people would have died that night if there wasn't an armed militia within the Red Shirt crowd shooting at the army? I believe the number would have been somewhere around 0 again.

How many people would have died on the days after without that armed militia engaging the army from within Red Shirt controlled areas? Probably 0 again.

The army didn't act in the most professional way, I'm sure soldiers committed crimes and innocent people died because of that, but the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of 2010 rests with those militias and the people that commanded and financed them, that they haven't been properly identified and prosecuted is the reason that reconciliation won't happen; you can't have reconciliation while the most guilty party completely avoids any sort of responsibility.

[GentlemanJim]

Laughable.

"Or will you provide me with whatever you doing for a living for free in case i may be interested? I doubt that very much."

If it boosts my own reputation and/or furthers my own cause, or the cause I stand behind, then why wouldn't I?

You get the wrong idea if you think that arguing here on Thaivisa would either "further my cause" or "boost my reputation" - on the opposite, it quite likely does damage to my reputation, given that the quality of the discussion is about as close to gutter level as one can possibly get.

Yes it does damage your reputation, particularly when you have amazing revelations to make yet are unable to cite any source or provide evidence. Why bother in the first place. You are just giving it the way you see it and you should know in your profession that is a waste of time. As for you and Hammered making any excuse to avoid posting a link well it's just pathetic. If the Mods don't like it your post would soon read "Link deleted", that would be the extent of the offence you fear you will cause. As for Hammered insinuating that people on this thread are less well read than he simply because they have failed to stumble across some obscure website that is just plain silly.

AleG

Spot on!

Edited December 3, 2011 by GentlemanJim

[nicknostitz]

Besides arguing about details, the bottom line is that if there wouldn't had been an armed militia that attacked the army noone should have died.

The year before, 2009, Red Shirts run riot in Bangkok, clashes with the army, death toll during the whole affair: 0.

The 10th of April, the army had been pushing the Red Shirts away from their protest site, some clashes, death toll: 0.

Out come the men in black and engage the army and all hell breaks loose, how many people would have died that night if there wasn't an armed militia within the Red Shirt crowd shooting at the army? I believe the number would have been somewhere around 0 again.

How many people would have died on the days after without that armed militia engaging the army from within Red Shirt controlled areas? Probably 0 again.

The army didn't act in the most professional way, I'm sure soldiers committed crimes and innocent people died because of that, but the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of 2010 rests with those militias and the people that commanded and financed them, that they haven't been properly identified and prosecuted is the reason that reconciliation won't happen; you can't have reconciliation while the most guilty party completely avoids any sort of responsibility.

I would not draw bottom lines when you are not in full knowledge of facts, and before making such wide sweeping judgements i would suggest to wait what additional information will come out in court trials, for example, or when and if the different still ongoing investigations publish their results.

Observing relevant court trials is often very enlightening. If you, or some other serial posters here on Thaivisa would spend only a small fraction of the time you argue here on court trials instead, i am sure that it would raise the quality of the discussion. There were already several trials (and public hearings of the National Reconciliation Commission) which brought some very interesting facts to light which are still disputed here.

Court trials are open to the public including to foreigners, by the way, and i often wonder why so few people actually take advantage of sitting in and listening.

But then, the facts that come out may counter opinions. And we can't let that happen, can we?

[MikeOboe57]

[...] I have stated that that a major reason for the mess was the incompetence of the army, and i have questioned the entire operation, including the politics behind it.

So I suppose you have a solid military background and in-depth knowledge on urban warfare?

[nicknostitz]

Yes it does damage your reputation, particularly when you have amazing revelations to make yet are unable to cite any source or provide evidence. Why bother in the first place. You are just giving it the way you see it and you should know in your profession that is a waste of time. As for you and Hammered making any excuse to avoid posting a link well it's just pathetic. If the Mods don't like it your post would soon read "Link deleted", that would be the extent of the offence you fear you will cause. As for Hammered insinuating that people on this thread are less well read than he simply because they have failed to stumble across some obscure website that is just plain silly.

AleG

Spot on!

Given that during most of the disputed events i have been present, or close by, while you and most others here have not, i believe that i am not just entitled to "give it the way how i saw it", but am also a primary source.

[nicknostitz]

[...] I have stated that that a major reason for the mess was the incompetence of the army, and i have questioned the entire operation, including the politics behind it.

So I suppose you have a solid military background and in-depth knowledge on urban warfare?

After 6 years of this Red/Yellow conflict having been in the middle of almost every single violent event here in Bangkok as a photographer and writer, i have gathered quite a bit of experience. In addition to that - for what i lack in military background, i have more than a few close friends in the military and the police, who also have been in the middle of these events, who i can ask for advice, details and information. Which i do all the time when we discuss the situation. You learn as you go, every event is a learning curve.

If you doubt me, i would suggest to google my name.

Edited December 3, 2011 by nicknostitz

[Siam Simon]

cut/// If the Mods don't like it your post would soon read "Link deleted", that would be the extent of the offence you fear you will cause. ///cut

Why don't you try posting a link to a website that contains subject matter considered highly unsuitable for TVF, and see if you get away with just a post deletion?