'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[GentlemanJim]

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.

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

[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.

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?

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

[nicknostitz]

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

Well, if you have been close enough to have seen these events, then i would be more than interested to read what you saw and how you saw it, and discuss it from that vantage.

And if indeed you have been that close, then i would suggest to become a witness. I can get you in contact with the investigators in these cases who are always looking for additional witnesses.

I do not care about your political sympathies. When you can contribute something to the truth your sympathies are irrelevant.

Well, then...are you just hot air fishing for an argument, or are are you real?

Edited December 3, 2011 by nicknostitz

[Siam Simon]

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?

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

Problem is, you're having trouble with your counting (like so many others on here) and are creating the wrong picture from the dots .

[nicknostitz]

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

The previous year, 2009, were four recorded deaths - two anti- red fighters, and two Red Shirt guards who were fished out of the river with bound hands a day or two after the crackdown.

In the early morning attack on April 13 were several protesters with gunshot injuries documented, two of them permanently disabled.

On April 10 in Pattaya at least one protester was shot in the leg by the "Blue Shirts" - a state organized militia, which until today has not been officially investigated.

I don't appreciate it when people assume they can connect dots based on insufficient evidence.

[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.

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?

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

Problem is, you're having trouble with your counting (like so many others on here) and are creating the wrong picture from the dots .

Why don't you tell us your interpretation of the events?

[AleG]

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

The previous year, 2009, were four recorded deaths - two anti- red fighters, and two Red Shirt guards who were fished out of the river with bound hands a day or two after the crackdown.

In the early morning attack on April 13 were several protesters with gunshot injuries documented, two of them permanently disabled.

On April 10 in Pattaya at least one protester was shot in the leg by the "Blue Shirts" - a state organized militia, which until today has not been officially investigated.

I don't appreciate it when people assume they can connect dots based on insufficient evidence.

I can live without your appreciation.

[Siam Simon]

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

Well, if you have been close enough to have seen these events, then i would be more than interested to read what you saw and how you saw it, and discuss it from that vantage.

And if indeed you have been that close, then i would suggest to become a witness. I can get you in contact with the investigators in these cases who are always looking for additional witnesses.

I do not care about your political sympathies. When you can contribute something to the truth your sympathies are irrelevant.

Well, then...are you just hot air fishing for an argument, are are you real?

They're all hot air, Nick. And, as you have already found out, none of them will step forward. They will just come out with lame excuses as to why they can't. They're scared to death of you. You destroy their fantasies. You're like the guy who told his kid that Father Christmas doesn't really exist .

[Siam Simon]

Why don't you tell us your interpretation of the events?

I have, already, extensively, in previous threads. Do a forum search. And, AleG, I'm still learning, still prepared to change my opinions as more evidence appears. Unlike posters like you.

[nicknostitz]

They're all hot air, Nick. And, as you have already found out, none of them will step forward. They will just come out with lame excuses as to why they can't. They're scared to death of you. You destroy their fantasies. You're like the guy who told his kid that Father Christmas doesn't really exist .

Discussing on Thaivisa is a learning curve as well.

[GentlemanJim]

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

Well, if you have been close enough to have seen these events, then i would be more than interested to read what you saw and how you saw it, and discuss it from that vantage.

And if indeed you have been that close, then i would suggest to become a witness. I can get you in contact with the investigators in these cases who are always looking for additional witnesses.

I do not care about your political sympathies. When you can contribute something to the truth your sympathies are irrelevant.

Well, then...are you just hot air fishing for an argument, are are you real?

They're all hot air, Nick. And, as you have already found out, none of them will step forward. They will just come out with lame excuses as to why they can't. They're scared to death of you. You destroy their fantasies. You're like the guy who told his kid that Father Christmas doesn't really exist .

Scared to death of him!! I think you really need to get over yourself.

[Siam Simon]

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

And yet again the 'biased towards reds' insult is thrown without one iota of evidence provided in support .

[Siam Simon]

Scared to death of him!! I think you really need to get over yourself.

So, do you have any witness evidence to provide to the Authorities (nicknostitz has rather a lot, which currently gives him infinitely more credibility than you), or are you just going to continue trolling nicknostitz like a Yorkshire Terrier yapping around someone's heels ?

[GentlemanJim]

And how would you know that I wasn't there? Is that how you base your 'facts'...on assumptions? Being present or close by does not qualify you as a witness to anything crucial does it. If you have anything to say then say it and give evidence. There were a lot of people present or close by during those events, and they all have very different stories to tell. Without evidence it is all just that...stories. It is clear in everything that you post that you have an agenda. You are plainly biased towards 'Reds', which makes any objective journalism from you quite impossible. Now what were those links?

And yet again the 'biased towards reds' insult is thrown without one iota of evidence provided in support .

The evidence is in the posts.

Can you write without using emoticons?

[Siam Simon]

And yet again the 'biased towards reds' insult is thrown without one iota of evidence provided in support .

The evidence is in the posts.

No it's not. It's purely in your politically slanted imagination.

Can you write without using emoticons?

No, I'm addicted to them right now. The forum's right wing loonies are on top form at the moment. It's hilarious .

[Buchholz]

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?

*bump*

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

[Buchholz]

[...] 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.

To answer your question more succinctly, Mike... apparently none on the solid military background.

.

[tlansford]

And yet again the 'biased towards reds' insult is thrown without one iota of evidence provided in support .

The evidence is in the posts.

No it's not. It's purely in your politically slanted imagination.

Can you write without using emoticons?

No, I'm addicted to them right now. The forum's right wing loonies are on top form at the moment. It's hilarious .

[tlansford]

[...] 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.

To answer your question more succinctly, Mike... apparently none on the solid military background.

.

edit : nevermind Edited December 3, 2011 by tlansford

[Siam Simon]

Here's the thing. You delivered a message you said was from another source and then refused to name the source. Might you be imprisoned by naming the source? If so I'd have let the whole thing slide.

I believe you have been given more than enough hints. If you google anything regarding the subject matter of this ongoing 6 year conflict you will inevitably come across the site hammered mentioned. Even though one of the main moderators of that site is quite radically opposed to the Red Shirts, much of the subject matter discussed on that forum is not suitable for Thaivisa.

Therefore i would suggest to learn to read between the lines.

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?

If you are so well-informed, why are you so disingenuous on this forum? Do you think that posters who don't take the trouble to be as informed about the realities of the Thai political arena as people such as you need to be protected from the truth? I know we have to necessarily dance around some hugely important factors, but that doesn't explain your behaviour. Look at that discussion you and I had about Newin's active involvement with Suthep and the Blue Shirt thugs. You did your level best to deflect the truth on the open forum, eventually taking the discussion to pm. Why the dishonesty?

[Buchholz]

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.

To answer your question more succinctly, Mike... apparently none on the solid military background.

.

edit : nevermind

Good decision as none of what you had written was true.

Kudos for recognizing that.

.

[monkfish]

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.

Nick don't be dragged down by the Trolls to much!!

They just want to wind you up and try and get you banned man!! has happened to so many in the past with members who don't agree with their point of view.

I've been personally insulted soo many times on this forum it's just becomes monotonous and don't care any more.

I don't even complain to the mods cos it doesn't do much.

The only time I ever got posting leave from TV was for 7 days on the 10th of April after seeing images posted on pantip forum of civilians with half there heads removed by snipers being celebrated by TV members, so I told them to and I remember my words exactly to "F OFF" but not sure that he, she or it celebrating the deaths got posting leave but. Anyway at the time events were almost being broadcast live on the Pantip but unfortunately suddenly they decided to (or persuaded) to close their forum which was a great pity.

It was a very emotional evening even on the Internet and I am sure being there was 100 times more.

I really appreciate the information you provide and hope you do continue to inform none fanatic members like my self with your eye witness accounts of the events. As a journalist you risked your life to be in the centre of this traumatic event and I respect that a lot! I don't believe you ever promised to provide anyone exclusive photos you made and don't expect it after all this is just a forum. Keep up the good work man you really do have wings of Steal!

Anyway I hope the truth is one day revealed about what happened on the 10th whether it be in favour of the last administration or against Reds as without the truth I don't think we can move forward unless of course we all simply forget about what happened. Which I really hope is not the case but this is Thailand and really a lot of Bigwigs are involved.

One thing I really really hope is it's revealed who the snipers were again one way or the other it's the key to Thailand moving forward.

And god forbid if it was the Army!! may be better we don't know!

Edited December 3, 2011 by monkfish

[mca]

Discussing on Thaivisa is a learning curve as well.

Initially it's a learning curve but by the 4th page or so a political topic usually resembles a car with no brakes being driven off a cliff.

[Siam Simon]

Sending a PM to a moderator to request permission to post something will not get any member in trouble, despite the erroneous rhetoric implying it will.

.

He's still at it! Where did anybody coming from any pov suggest that pm'ing a mod to request permission to post something will get them into trouble?......>>>>>>expecting another creative edit from him to 'prove' his point .

You erroneously suggested it by posting,

Never mind, boys, your attempts to get a couple of posters into trouble with TVF management failed miserably.

in reply to my post suggesting that members send a PM to a moderator.

.

But you are trying to create a non-existent link between the goading of hammered and nicknostitz into getting themselves into trouble on TVF by posting a direct link to a website which contains material considered highly inapprpriate for TVF (hopefully, TVF management will have a look at this behaviour) and your bizarre proposal that permission to break TVF's rules be requested of a duty mod by hammered and nicknostitz. Like I stated, that type of forum behaviour is highly toxic, and, no doubt, will be dealt with appropriately.

[Scott]

Post deleted for 'creative editing.' Please don't modify quotes.

[AleG]

(Deleted Post edited out)

Then just post a name or a searchable query so each person can find the site by themselves without posting a direct link in this forum. It's not that difficult, is it?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Scott
deleted quote edited out

[Siam Simon]

Then send links in PM to some of us.

We're currently teaching our 3 yo to say please and thankyou at the appropriate moments. It's a bit hit-and-miss though.

[lannarebirth]

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.

Spot on, AleG.

[lannarebirth]

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

The previous year, 2009, were four recorded deaths - two anti- red fighters, and two Red Shirt guards who were fished out of the river with bound hands a day or two after the crackdown.

In the early morning attack on April 13 were several protesters with gunshot injuries documented, two of them permanently disabled.

On April 10 in Pattaya at least one protester was shot in the leg by the "Blue Shirts" - a state organized militia, which until today has not been officially investigated.

I don't appreciate it when people assume they can connect dots based on insufficient evidence.

My recollection is that two? Red Shirts died when they harassed the wrong group of market vendors.

[whybother]

No armed Red Shirt militia, no street battles, no deaths during the protests; like the previous year.

Someone wanted bodies on the street, it wasn't the Abhisit government and it wasn't the army, you don't seem to like it when people connect the dots and see who benefited from the turmoil.

The previous year, 2009, were four recorded deaths - two anti- red fighters, and two Red Shirt guards who were fished out of the river with bound hands a day or two after the crackdown.

In the early morning attack on April 13 were several protesters with gunshot injuries documented, two of them permanently disabled.

On April 10 in Pattaya at least one protester was shot in the leg by the "Blue Shirts" - a state organized militia, which until today has not been officially investigated.

I don't appreciate it when people assume they can connect dots based on insufficient evidence.

My recollection is that two? Red Shirts died when they harassed the wrong group of market vendors.

The other way around I think. One or two market vendors (or as Nick puts it - "anti-red fighters") were killed by red shirts.