'Clear' Evidence Thai Troops Killed Japanese Cameraman

[nicknostitz]

We're still waiting for any solid evidence at all of "the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters." Again, hard to believe there isn't any given the amount of footage there is of all red shirt protests.

If it's being used as the justification for the militant force which fired on the army on April 10th 2010 such evidence would be very valuable indeed. But until any evidence is seen people like myself will remain utterly unconvinced and treat such accusations as red propaganda, used to anger the masses into toppling a democratic government.

Well, if it is not enough for you that i say that i was there on the Red Shirt side, and was shot at from the military lines (and have written about it at the time), there was, not long before the recent election a civil court case in which the military was sentenced to pay damages of a few hundred thousand baht to two (i think) of the injured there. The case at the criminal court is still outstanding, as far as i am aware.

You were there?

As a photojournalist who has been covering the red shirt activities all along you must be kicking yourself to this day for not getting an event of this enormity on camera. Also, given lack of photographic evidence of it elsewhere you would of had yourself an exclusive! What a shame.

Frankly I'm surprised this disappointment isn't expressed in your post.

I tried to.

But then i decided that the best idea was to give in to my fear, and i just ran away like everybody else, including the few Thai colleagues of mine that have been there.

So, no, i am not disappointed at all that i survived this, and that i was not hurt either.

I have images of Red Shirts running, of soldiers with the guns, of bullet holes, etc. from that morning, which describe the scene quite well. And i have written about it. That should be sufficient. Images show only a small perspective anyhow, just what it in the frame and not what is out of the frame. try to get in darkness protesters being shot from soldiers a 200 or so meters away into the same frame and you are a magician. More important than the so called "exclusive" image is the honesty in the report.

Taking images of people being killed on front of your camera is not a nice experience at all, and not just because you yourself are then in a position in which you can get killed as easily as the people you photograph. It is horrible to see humans lying in the streets dying in front of you, regardless of political affiliation.

"An exclusive?" Sorry, but i could not care less about that in such a situation.

But as you can see in the past debates i have had here, there are still more than enough posters who haven't been there and say that i have made this up and that things were not as i say (and photographed) even when i photographed people being shot in front of me, and supported with video evidence by others, as people seemingly tend to reject what does not agree with their *opinions*.

[Insight]

I have images of Red Shirts running, of soldiers with the guns, of bullet holes, etc. from that morning, which describe the scene quite well. And i have written about it. That should be sufficient. Images show only a small perspective anyhow, just what it in the frame and not what is out of the frame. try to get in darkness protesters being shot from soldiers a 200 or so meters away into the same frame and you are a magician. More important than the so called "exclusive" image is the honesty in the report.

Given this alleged incident is being used to justify a militant force carrying out a surprise attack on an unprepared army which resulted in many deaths we unfortunately don't have to go far to find evidence of, personally I do not find it sufficient at all.

[nicknostitz]

Given this alleged incident is being used to justify a militant force carrying out a surprise attack on an unprepared army which resulted in many deaths we unfortunately don't have to go far to find evidence of, personally I do not find it sufficient at all.

This incident is not used to "justify" anything, as i am not a spokesperson for the Red Shirts or armed militants. Anyhow, your use of the term "alleged" does confirm some points i raised regarding rejecting evidence that does not conform to some people's *opinion*. Thank you.

And sorry, the military on April 10 was not unprepared at all - there were snipers, and there were soldiers with assault rifles loaded with live ammo next to the soldiers with shotguns loaded with rubber bullets (which were fired against international rules of engagement, which state that rubber bullets are only to be shot at legs, as their "less than lethal" status quite rapidly changes when fired against upper body and heads, as happened on April 10). Again, i was in the initial Dinso push with the military lines.

The military was just plain incompetent, and then defeated, but not unprepared. The military chose the day and time of the assault, not the Red Shirts. Can you explain me why the military chose the late afternoon against all standard procedure here in Thailand which dictates that dispersal actions are to be started just after sunrise to avoid gunmen appearing under cover of darkness?

Edited December 2, 2011 by nicknostitz

[Insight]

The military was just plain incompetent, and then defeated, but not unprepared. The military chose the day and time of the assault, not the Red Shirts. Can you explain me why the military chose the late afternoon against all standard procedure here in Thailand which dictates that dispersal actions are to be started just after sunrise to avoid gunmen appearing under cover of darkness?

So you have now have absolute solid proof that it was the military that shot first?

Sounds like more hearsay to me.

[nicknostitz]

The military was just plain incompetent, and then defeated, but not unprepared. The military chose the day and time of the assault, not the Red Shirts. Can you explain me why the military chose the late afternoon against all standard procedure here in Thailand which dictates that dispersal actions are to be started just after sunrise to avoid gunmen appearing under cover of darkness?

So you have now have absolute solid proof that it was the military that shot first?

Sounds like more hearsay to me.

I don't think that i stated that i have solid proof that the military "shot" first.

Unless you mean rubber bullets which they have shot at protesters long before the armed militants appeared on the scene when the military initiated the dispersal action against the Red Shirts at Dinso and Kor Hua in the late afternoon (after the early afternoon push at Makhawan was finished).

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

[longway]

That the Thai Army has a horrible track record in human rights and Suthep is not trustworthy is a given, but the bottom line is that the escalation of violence and subsequent death have one instigator, and that´s the UDD/Red Shirts/Thaksin camp, they staged a strategy to yield the outcome we all saw.

What people do is focus on the final stages of the riots, when the army was routing out the protesters and armed militia without taking into account the full context of the situation; to give an exaggerated example, beginning the narrative of WWII with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show how evil the US was.

I don´t have the time or information resources to do it myself, but perhaps you could put together a precise timeline of the situation during 2010, from the marches on the street, the assault in the Si Ayuttaya army barracks, the precise timing of the events on the 10th of May, etc, etc...

I think the order and significance of the events of that year are too tangled in people´s perceptions.

A proper time line of this period and additional information that have never made it into the media are indeed of high importance, and i have been working on this for the past 1 1/2 years. From the religious ceremony at Laksi monument on March 12, 2010 up to the May 19 dispersal i have been at most events - peaceful marches, battles, etc. But this is of course is not enough, as much took place outside of the view of the media.

Looking at the Red Shirts as a sole instigator is in my opinion wrong. Both sides have contributed to the violence, both sides have made mistakes, and both sides have hardline elements that are not under control of the moderates.

But it does not stop there. The period leading up to the coup, the coup era itself, and all subsequent events have led up to last year, as the combination of what happened will lead to future events.

Not going into details here as it would lead too far, but the problem is that clear facts are especially here on Thavisa distorted beyond recognition by certain posters who have quite clear agendas, singling out, for example, the 2007 clashes at Si Sao Thewet, in which posters that have not been present at there are proposing a version that simply is wrong (i was there). Another point of enormous importance are the 2009 Songkran Riots, the use of the Blue Shirts by the state, and the early morning attack in Dindaeng on April 13, 2009, in which the military has fired life bullets at protesters. The events of 2009, and the lack of investigations by the state are the main factor for the appearance of armed Red Shirt militants on April 2010 directly engaging the military, more so than the Government House occupation, the inability of the government to disperse the by parts of the military and the Democrat Party supported PAD protesters and subsequent first appearance of armed pro-Red militants lobbing grenades into the PAD, and armed militants on the PAD side doing their thing.

What happened on April 10 is very complex, and much of the events are still murky as the chaos was tremendous. And some what i found out so far, i cannot yet write about as i still need additional information. But important is that when talking about what occurred last year, we will ave to put this into context of an ongoing struggle whose start i would put at the PAD protests in early 2006, and especially the 2006 military coup. Which again are a result of unsolved problems of previous decades in Thai society (and so is the appearance of Thaksin in Thai politics - just a historical consequence, nothing more, nothing less).

Nothing happens without a reason. The appearance of militants on all sides are a natural consequence of the nature of this conflict, and also rooted in the structure of Thailand itself, and not exactly unprecedented as well.

The conflict will continue to take its course, no matter what, and in the end, i am convinced that Thailand will come out the better, but as a completely changed society. But not without more bloodshed, unfortunately.

Have you looked into who pays and trains these armed militants? What are their origins? Are they democracy lovers?

If they were a response to the army's methods of dispersal, what was their real purpose? How many reds died from military fire in 2009, and how many died in 2010? The response is either an epic miscalculation that deserves leaders of the reds heads to roll or a deliberate ploy to draw an even more heavy handed military response. To say that both sides have escalated the level of violence is a gloss, one side had more to gain than the other by escalating the level of violence, and this is not the government side.

[hammered]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

[metisdead]

Another bickering session has been removed as well as some nonsense posts.

[jayboy]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

I have registered a formal complaint and suggest concerned others do too.We are only talking about a handful who seem determined to ruin the forum.

[Insight]

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

[ballpoint]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

Yes, how dare people have open minds and question the bullsh*t that's force fed them!

[SAffer]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

I have registered a formal complaint and suggest concerned others do too.We are only talking about a handful who seem determined to ruin the forum.

I think I am missing something here.

Anyway, I eagerly await the solid evidence and will judge after that... I deplore violence against civilians, but in my view there isn't 1 guilty party here, rather 2.

Those protesters made life unbearable, and they fired weapons.

This article is about a Japanese journalist caught in the cross-fire, until we have real evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that he was simply caught in the cross-fire and the situation was caused by the Reds, so in my mind I would put the blame on their shoulders.

I can understand allowing mass protest... it is important in a democracy to allow that. But, protest, and go home; don't hold the whole city/country hostage for day after day after day. The police should have dispersed the crowd on day one and kept the army out of it.

[scorecard]

The military was just plain incompetent, and then defeated, but not unprepared. The military chose the day and time of the assault, not the Red Shirts. Can you explain me why the military chose the late afternoon against all standard procedure here in Thailand which dictates that dispersal actions are to be started just after sunrise to avoid gunmen appearing under cover of darkness?

So you have now have absolute solid proof that it was the military that shot first?

Sounds like more hearsay to me.

Pages and pages of discussion but nothing substantive to show / share the 'clear' evidence. Where is it?

[scorecard]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

I have registered a formal complaint and suggest concerned others do too.We are only talking about a handful who seem determined to ruin the forum.

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

[SAffer]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

I have registered a formal complaint and suggest concerned others do too.We are only talking about a handful who seem determined to ruin the forum.

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

"You're free to say anything you like, provided it agrees with my ideas"

[jayboy]

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

It's not a question of freedom of speech which I support wholeheartedly.

It's a matter of approach - bullying, hectoring, obtuse - whenever the yellow narrative is challenged.It's only a few people involved however.

Having said that my comment on re-reading looks somewhat pompous, so apologies for that.It's really born out of frustration that someone of Nick Nostitz's calibre is treated so appallingly on the forum, usually by those manifestly less well informed, less articulate and always with a axe to grind.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

[rubl]

It's not a question of freedom of speech which I support wholeheartedly.

It's a matter of approach - bullying, hectoring, obtuse - whenever the yellow narrative is challenged.It's only a few people involved however.

Having said that my comment on re-reading looks somewhat pompous, so apologies for that.It's really born out of frustration that someone of Nick Nostitz's calibre is treated so appallingly on the forum, usually by those manifestly less well informed, less articulate and always with a axe to grind.

This is a moderated forum. Imagine the things written in somewhat less moderated forums and personal blogs. We may not always agree, but compared with what's out there, we're like childhood buddies

[animatic]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

I have registered a formal complaint and suggest concerned others do too.We are only talking about a handful who seem determined to ruin the forum.

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

He apparently wants to complain about it.

[Insight]

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

It's not a question of freedom of speech which I support wholeheartedly.

It's a matter of approach - bullying, hectoring, obtuse - whenever the yellow narrative is challenged.It's only a few people involved however.

Having said that my comment on re-reading looks somewhat pompous, so apologies for that.It's really born out of frustration that someone of Nick Nostitz's calibre is treated so appallingly on the forum, usually by those manifestly less well informed, less articulate and always with a axe to grind.

The bigger tragedy is the speed in which people cry foul when very reasonable doubt is raised.

[nicknostitz]

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

That theory is quite wrong. The Red Shirts have not relocated by nightfall to Kok Wua, as it was well within the Red Shirt protest area all along. Kok Wua was from the start part of the military's assault plan together with Dinso Rd, and over Pin Klao bridge (they troops there though fled). Troops have amassed at both Kok Wua and Dinso for more than one hour before the assault. Before the militants arrived there were already several rounds of clashes between Red Shirts and soldiers. Sorry, you are far off.

And still, you ignore the fact that the military has acted against standard procedures for crowd dispersal.

[nicknostitz]

begin removed ...

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

The military were called to disperse the protesters as the police couldn't or didn't want to. It may be standard procedure for the police, but military like to surprise their adversaries. Part of their training. To even vaguely suggest the army was wrong not to follow standard procedures regarding timing seems a bit ludicrous.

Anyway the OP suggest " 'clear' evidence Thai Troops killed Japanese cameraman". What is missing is more details on that. I think lots of people will accept as most likely that Hiroyuki Muramoto was killed by the military. What isn't clear and much more controversial is unfounded suggestions that it was 'on purpose'. It's more like unexpected and armed resistance led to panic. Had the police with trained units done their job the use of differently trained military could have been avoided. Mind you, also the police was under orders of the PM Abhisit Government

The only surprise for me that day was the incompetence of the military. Such as throwing repeatedly teargas against the wind, hitting their own troops, such as not retreating when the initial assault plan failed, blocking their own way by having too many vehicles in too small alleys, etc.

There is a reason for standard operating procedures. Nobody is anyhow going to be surprised by any such dispersal action as it takes hours to get the troops in position.

As to the clear evidence, lets just wait and see what comes out in the court case, before judging this here in Thaivisa court.

[Babcock]

Who cares? Unless it was a deliberate act by the government to kill him then this really is a moot point. The poor guy died doing his job in what was basically a war zone at the time with thousands of people holding Bangkok hostage, storming offices of the government and the media while setting up armed fortresses and forcing the government to use force since they refused EVERY lawful command to disperse during their month long siege.

I am sorry anybody had to die or be injured but this reporter either knew or should have known what he was getting into and urban combat is usually has high casualty rates among non-combatants.

It is great to know the facts but when all is said and done, does it really matter what side the bullet came from? If it was the government forces then they should be immune to prosecution unless it was a deliberate kill. If it was the Reds then it still doesn't matter unless you can specifically identify the person who pulled the trigger.

Any finally who can believe anything at this point after so much time has passed. Too much time to fabricate evidence and tamper with witnesses. Not to mention, I though this government was big on putting this all in the past.

It wasn't a declared "urban combat zone", nor did it meet the definition of urban combat zone. It was a random kill shot fired by a supposedly placed sniper shooter at a foreign individual wearing press credentials. Either the sniper fired too early, too late and missed his intended target or was just not qualified to be a sniper and didn't identify the target as a member of the media. In any event, sniper fire into a crowd of civil demonstrators is a troublesome situation. Military command ordering such a kill shot in these circumstances would be subject to a court martial for murder. The sniper would also be subject to court martial as an accomplice to murder.

The Japanese journalist wasn't shot by a sniper, from any side. He was caught in the cross-fire between two sides using normal assault rifles.

And yes, it is easy to miss the intended target in the chaos that was then - this was NOT during the later more static positioning of troops and reds on two front-lines wide apart.

There were eyewitnesses who stated he was shot at close range by a soldier.

[nicknostitz]

This site is starting to read like a propaganda organ of the yellow shirts

No that isnt even right the yellow shirts accept a fair few of the thing sNick mentions but this site is getting beyon belief

It indeed is.

It is actually far less frustrating for me to discuss the events with yellow (now pink) shirt hardliners, as they are well aware of the basic facts on what occurred.

[TAWP]

There were eyewitnesses who stated he was shot at close range by a soldier.

Again, even if that is true, the claim it was a 'sniper' would be completely wrong. As I hope you recognize.

[Insight]

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

That theory is quite wrong. The Red Shirts have not relocated by nightfall to Kok Wua, as it was well within the Red Shirt protest area all along. Kok Wua was from the start part of the military's assault plan together with Dinso Rd, and over Pin Klao bridge (they troops there though fled). Troops have amassed at both Kok Wua and Dinso for more than one hour before the assault. Before the militants arrived there were already several rounds of clashes between Red Shirts and soldiers. Sorry, you are far off.

And still, you ignore the fact that the military has acted against standard procedures for crowd dispersal.

Photographic and video evidence please. Particularly of the "several rounds of earlier clashes" (which I presume happened in broad daylight...?).

I do believe the red shirts themselves were under orders to get as much video evidence as possible of any confrontation which occurred.

So come sundown, the soldiers should of left the rioters and militants to their own devices. Don't worry, I get it.

[TAWP]

So what's your stand on freedom of speech?

It's not a question of freedom of speech which I support wholeheartedly.

It's a matter of approach - bullying, hectoring, obtuse - whenever the yellow narrative is challenged.It's only a few people involved however.

Having said that my comment on re-reading looks somewhat pompous, so apologies for that.It's really born out of frustration that someone of Nick Nostitz's calibre is treated so appallingly on the forum, usually by those manifestly less well informed, less articulate and always with a axe to grind.

So you mean that when Nick claims any protests against Andrew Marshall as an superb journalist is unfounded and he is asked a direct question on how he can justify Andrew Marshall's lates reports on blogs and Twitter - that are outrages allegations based on rumours but repeated as facts - he has no idea what the subject is.

Now, I call that uninformed and unjustified support of a disgraced journalist.

Funny note, Marshall has started his personal war against Reuters now. I wonder if everyone that liked Reuters slanted reporting during the protests agree that Reuters has substandard reporting?

O-well...

[nicknostitz]

Again, do you have any explanation why the military ignored standard procedure regarding the timing of their dispersal action?

I don't have an explanation as I'm not military, or a spokesman for the military, or represent the military in any capacity. I'm just an expat living in Thailand since 2001 watching this whole situation evolve, with the vast bulk of disinformation and propaganda originating from the pro-Thaksin side IMHO.

However I assume the reason they were so successfully ambushed my the red shirt militant wing is owing to the red shirts having a full 10 months to prepare for the actions of the military, based on their observations of the successful red shirt dispersal operation conducted by the military the year before.

By the time nightfall had come the red shirts had relocated to an area the military had absolutely no preparations for, Kok Wua intersection, with no idea how to proceed. It was at this position the red shirt militants were in place and the ambush could begin.

Just a theory, but judging by the speed the red shirt crowd dispersed and regrouped, and the actions by the "red shirt guards" in preventing the protesters from attacking the army until after the initial M79 attacks had took place, I reckon I'm not too far off....

That theory is quite wrong. The Red Shirts have not relocated by nightfall to Kok Wua, as it was well within the Red Shirt protest area all along. Kok Wua was from the start part of the military's assault plan together with Dinso Rd, and over Pin Klao bridge (they troops there though fled). Troops have amassed at both Kok Wua and Dinso for more than one hour before the assault. Before the militants arrived there were already several rounds of clashes between Red Shirts and soldiers. Sorry, you are far off.

And still, you ignore the fact that the military has acted against standard procedures for crowd dispersal.

Photographic and video evidence please. Particularly of the "several rounds of earlier clashes" (which I presume happened in broad daylight...?).

I do believe the red shirts themselves were under orders to get as much video evidence as possible of any confrontation which occurred.

So come sundown, the soldiers should of left the rioters and militants to their own devices. Don't worry, I get it.

I was there, and i have images of parts of the violence before sunset (no, i will not post them here). I was stuck at the military lines for the most part because the soldiers have thrown teargas against the wind, hitting them (and me), delaying their own dispersal, in addition to throwing teargas canisters from helicopters. This, by the way, was the nastiest teargas i have ever experienced, three days after my skin still burned.

No the soldiers should have started their dispersal at the appropriate time - just after sunrise - and if they could not have achieved their goal, retreated well before sunset. The "rioters" only clashed with the army because of the dispersal.

Yet there is also the question why the dispersal at the Pan Fa stage, and not at Rajaprasong, as the problematic protest area was not Pan Fa, but the Rajaprasong occupation.

Whatever you may say here - the April 10 dispersal action of the military was a complete screw up, a fact that most officers i talked with do accept. But for some strange reason Thavisa seems to know better.

[Insight]

I was there, and i have images of parts of the violence before sunset (no, i will not post them here). I was stuck at the military lines for the most part because the soldiers have thrown teargas against the wind, hitting them (and me), delaying their own dispersal, in addition to throwing teargas canisters from helicopters. This, by the way, was the nastiest teargas i have ever experienced, three days after my skin still burned.

No the soldiers should have started their dispersal at the appropriate time - just after sunrise - and if they could not have achieved their goal, retreated well before sunset. The "rioters" only clashed with the army because of the dispersal.

Yet there is also the question why the dispersal at the Pan Fa stage, and not at Rajaprasong, as the problematic protest area was not Pan Fa, but the Rajaprasong occupation.

Whatever you may say here - the April 10 dispersal action of the military was a complete screw up, a fact that most officers i talked with do accept. But for some strange reason Thavisa seems to know better.

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

[nicknostitz]

Absolutely fantastic at the emotive writing, Nick, as always. Just a shame, once again, you're lacking in the solid evidence to support it. In typical UDD/Phua Thai "cliff hanger" style, I guess it's being withheld until some special future date when it's absolutely required.

Why not just release it now?

I have "released" the images on April 11, 2010, already. The are at my agency, and you can contact them, and they will quote you a price.

It is entirely up to me where and in which context i publish *my* images for free. Thaivisa, for reasons jayboy has outlined in a previous post, and hammered as well, hardly belongs to the places i consider publishing things for free, unless the moderators and owners decide to clean this place from the fanatic rabble that clogs any political discussion by serial-posting propaganda and bullying anyone away who does not agree with their distorted view.