Bangkok: Huge Turnout Expected At Red-Shirt Rally Today

[nicknostitz]

If you had read rather than glanced over you'd have noticed the "I past BTS Saladeang a few hours before the grenade attack" in my post. Just like NN, who arrived after hearing about the attack, we missed it (if you can really say 'we missed' that is).

Sorry, no, i didn't miss it. I was in it. It was not exactly comfortable when the grenades went off.

I got images of several injured, possible also of the dead woman. Got images later on of how the Yellow Shirts at Saladaeng tried to lynch a taxi driver after a soldier pulled him out of his taxi (strangely enough the same one-handed taxi driver months after this whole episode finished was featured in the papers for his honesty while handing back a large sum of money to a passenger who has forgotten this money in his taxi) - that was actually one of these moments when i took my camera down and tried to help to protect the driver (and to be fair here - several of the PAD guards tried to protect the taxi driver against the crowd as well).

Then they captured a Red Shirt protester, tried to lynch him as well, but he was then arrested and led away by police just in time, which resulted nearly in a fight with soldiers who wanted the Red Shirt protester for themselves. Then i photographed the subsequent slingshot battle over the barricades between Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts. I also photographed when police finally chased away the Yellow Shirts, who found refuge behind the soldiers who blocked police from pursuing the Yellow Shirts (one military officer even held a gun to the head of a police officer, which pissed the police off quite considerably). Etc.

Main question here though is: Why, for three consecutive days, have the soldiers allowed the Yellow Shirt protesters (they may be have named themselves "Silom People", but were in fact mostly PAD guards and other PAD regulars whom i have known for a long time) to pass their lines in the evening to protest right in front of the Red Shirt barricade? In the days after the Yellow Shirt protesters were still allowed through, but dwindled to a small group of maybe 20 to 40 at most.

In any such situation in a normal country the security forces do their utmost to keep opposing protest groups well away from each other. Not here in Bangkok though...

[gand]

Why bring weapons to a 'Peaceful Protest'? Doing so is suicide for you and you just murdered your fellow protestors by bringing weapons. Those that brought weapons to their peacful protests are the murderers.

[rubl]

If you had read rather than glanced over you'd have noticed the "I past BTS Saladeang a few hours before the grenade attack" in my post. Just like NN, who arrived after hearing about the attack, we missed it (if you can really say 'we missed' that is).

Sorry, no, i didn't miss it. I was in it. It was not exactly comfortable when the grenades went off.

I got images of several injured, possible also of the dead woman.

... rest removed

No offence meant, but I clearly remember you writing here you came later.

I can't find that particular post yet, but it must have been before 2011-08-27 seeing this post/reply where I say a.o. "As you know, you were there a bit later, the Saladaeng grenade attack on the pink-shirts on the 23rd of april 2010 was not only a bit off aim, but hit BTS station, killing a totally innocent ..." and you reply

" was not talking about the grenade attack (and no - i will not get dragged back into another endless debate on last year), ..."

Interesting is also this from 2011-01-31

"Nick Nostitz // Jan 31, 2011 at 11:20 pm

“Geoff Osborn”:

In April were no clashes in DinDaeng intersection.

The PAD protester killed from the M79 was a protester at the Silom/Rama IV intersection, and not at Saladaeng BTS. The grenades that landed at the BTS station caused minor injuries.

Nobody has seen the shooters, how could you know that they “thought it was funny and giggled like small children”?"

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/01/30/expert-testimony-alleges-criminal-acts-by-thai-army-in-april-may-2010/

For those who like realistic clips, may be have a look here

http://thailand.media140.org/bangkok/?p=1218

Excuses for being somewhat off topic here

[nicknostitz]

If you had read rather than glanced over you'd have noticed the "I past BTS Saladeang a few hours before the grenade attack" in my post. Just like NN, who arrived after hearing about the attack, we missed it (if you can really say 'we missed' that is).

Sorry, no, i didn't miss it. I was in it. It was not exactly comfortable when the grenades went off.

I got images of several injured, possible also of the dead woman.

... rest removed

No offence meant, but I clearly remember you writing here you came later.

I came a few minutes after the grenades at the BTS station went off (which caused little damage, only a few lightly injured), but was right in time for the volley that landed a bit later in the middle of the Yellow Shirt protesters at the coffee shop close to the Dusit, killing one and injuring many. Otherwise i could hardly have photographed the injured...

[rubl]

If you had read rather than glanced over you'd have noticed the "I past BTS Saladeang a few hours before the grenade attack" in my post. Just like NN, who arrived after hearing about the attack, we missed it (if you can really say 'we missed' that is).

Sorry, no, i didn't miss it. I was in it. It was not exactly comfortable when the grenades went off.

I got images of several injured, possible also of the dead woman.

... rest removed

No offence meant, but I clearly remember you writing here you came later.

I came a few minutes after the grenades at the BTS station went off (which caused little damage, only a few lightly injured), but was right in time for the volley that landed a bit later in the middle of the Yellow Shirt protesters at the coffee shop close to the Dusit, killing one and injuring many. Otherwise i could hardly have photographed the injured...

So if I understand you correctly you came after the (three) grenades which dropped through the BTS station roof and caused little damage, only a few 'slightly' injured, but you were in time for the volley (of two more) grenades which killed one lady and injured less than 80. Will archive this to avoid future mistakes

[Insight]

Serious question, Nick....

It's pretty clear that the red shirts don't want Thailand and the rest of the world to forget about those who were killed during the clampdown of May 2010. Clearly a lot of resources have gone into planning this memorial event for the 91 deaths which occurred throughout the protest and clampdown.

Why is there no similar memorial to commemorate the deaths of the red shirts allegedly killed during the army clampdown of the red shirt protests in 2009? Specifically those allegedly killed at Din Deang, an event you were apparently an eyewitness to...? Surely the people who were killed in this clampdown should also be remembered?

Has the exact death tool from this action by the army even been established yet? It has been over three years now.

What is your point?

How many times shall it be repeated that there is no proof that Red Shirts were killed in the 2009 crackdown by the military? There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence.

That doesn't mean though that Red Shirts do not talk about what they label as 'Bloody Songkran' - they do.

There are even memorial events still over Numthong - the taxi driver who committed suicide in protest of the coup in late 2006.

English language mainstream local media here in Thailand reports does not reflect the level of discussion under Red Shirts, the Red Shirt movement's diversified structures and only reports a tiny fraction of events. It is not the foreign media's job to report on every detail of this conflict.

Again - what is your point?

A question that would have a point now, which though nobody here has asked so far, is how Red Shirt protesters have felt when listening to Thaksin's speech at the Rajaprasong event two days ago. The answer is - to a large part they were very disappointed. I leave it to you to find out what Thaksin has said, and why protesters were/are disappointed, a feeling that has already begun after the Siam Reap speech.

Well we all know that the red shirts don't really need much in the way of solid evidence to hold a commemoration. It's common knowledge on this forum the figure of 91 deaths often repeated at this rally and others includes the deaths of military personnel, civilians and even people protesting against the red shirts! Even throughout the course of this thread we've seen attempts to increase this figure further using more unsubstantiated claims (I believe these posts have since been deleted).

As you highlight, the red shirts call the 2009 clampdown "Bloody Songkran"; they believe a number of people were killed at Din Daeng and then all bodies disposed of somehow by the army. The last time I mentioned this to you on the forum, philw even went as far as to say a simple Google search would remove any doubts I had of this event. It might not have been stated specifically by you, but other red shirts certainly believe that Col Romklao was targeted by the UDD for presiding over these deaths.

If these deaths did happen, then surely they deserve just as much attention as those which occurred on all sides during April and May 2010...? Perhaps even more so, as - according to red shirt lore - these alleged deaths are the first heavy-handed act of suppression by their nemesis, the Royal Thai Army. But it seems now if there was any memorial at all for these those fallen, it was probably a low-key event not worthy of mainstream media attention....?

You state in your last post "There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence." - is this an attempt to play down what is alleged to of occurred during the clampdown of 2009? Despite avoiding bullets flying by, you didn't witness anybody injured by these bullets in the crowd of people running from them?

Edited May 22, 2012 by Insight

[nicknostitz]

Serious question, Nick....

It's pretty clear that the red shirts don't want Thailand and the rest of the world to forget about those who were killed during the clampdown of May 2010. Clearly a lot of resources have gone into planning this memorial event for the 91 deaths which occurred throughout the protest and clampdown.

Why is there no similar memorial to commemorate the deaths of the red shirts allegedly killed during the army clampdown of the red shirt protests in 2009? Specifically those allegedly killed at Din Deang, an event you were apparently an eyewitness to...? Surely the people who were killed in this clampdown should also be remembered?

Has the exact death tool from this action by the army even been established yet? It has been over three years now.

What is your point?

How many times shall it be repeated that there is no proof that Red Shirts were killed in the 2009 crackdown by the military? There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence.

That doesn't mean though that Red Shirts do not talk about what they label as 'Bloody Songkran' - they do.

There are even memorial events still over Numthong - the taxi driver who committed suicide in protest of the coup in late 2006.

English language mainstream local media here in Thailand reports does not reflect the level of discussion under Red Shirts, the Red Shirt movement's diversified structures and only reports a tiny fraction of events. It is not the foreign media's job to report on every detail of this conflict.

Again - what is your point?

A question that would have a point now, which though nobody here has asked so far, is how Red Shirt protesters have felt when listening to Thaksin's speech at the Rajaprasong event two days ago. The answer is - to a large part they were very disappointed. I leave it to you to find out what Thaksin has said, and why protesters were/are disappointed, a feeling that has already begun after the Siam Reap speech.

Well we all know that the red shirts don't really need much in the way of solid evidence to hold a commemoration. It's common knowledge on this forum the figure of 91 deaths often repeated at this rally and others includes the deaths of military personnel, civilians and even people protesting against the red shirts! Even throughout the course of this thread we've seen attempts to increase this figure further using more unsubstantiated claims (I believe these posts have since been deleted).

As you highlight, the red shirts call the 2009 clampdown "Bloody Songkran"; they believe a number of people were killed at Din Daeng and then all bodies disposed of somehow by the army. The last time I mentioned this to you on the forum, philw even went as far as to say a simple Google search would remove any doubts I had of this event. It might not have been stated specifically by you, but other red shirts certainly believe that Col Romklao was targeted by the UDD for presiding over these deaths.

If these deaths did happen, then surely they deserve just as much attention as those which occurred on all sides during April and May 2010...? Perhaps even more so, as - according to red shirt lore - these alleged deaths are the first heavy-handed act of suppression by their nemesis, the Royal Thai Army. But it seems now if there was any memorial at all for these those fallen, it was probably a low-key event not worthy of mainstream media attention....?

You state in your last post "There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence." - is this an attempt to play down what is alleged to of occurred during the clampdown of 2009? Despite avoiding bullets flying by, you didn't witness anybody injured by these bullets in the crowd of people running from them?

Why do you have to pester me with these quite irrelevant questions?

No, i do not "play down" anything. No, i have no proof of any dead, only witness accounts of a few dead.

No, i haven't seen any injured, i was busy running away. But that there were several injured is proven beyond doubt - last year two of them who were maimed for life there got in a civil case against the army large sums of money awarded by the court. I am not up to date with the criminal case, but believe it is still somewhat stalled.

I am not a Red Shirt, or one of their leaders, you should ask them about what deserves attention.

[hellodolly]

Serious question, Nick....

It's pretty clear that the red shirts don't want Thailand and the rest of the world to forget about those who were killed during the clampdown of May 2010. Clearly a lot of resources have gone into planning this memorial event for the 91 deaths which occurred throughout the protest and clampdown.

Why is there no similar memorial to commemorate the deaths of the red shirts allegedly killed during the army clampdown of the red shirt protests in 2009? Specifically those allegedly killed at Din Deang, an event you were apparently an eyewitness to...? Surely the people who were killed in this clampdown should also be remembered?

Has the exact death tool from this action by the army even been established yet? It has been over three years now.

What is your point?

How many times shall it be repeated that there is no proof that Red Shirts were killed in the 2009 crackdown by the military? There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence.

That doesn't mean though that Red Shirts do not talk about what they label as 'Bloody Songkran' - they do.

There are even memorial events still over Numthong - the taxi driver who committed suicide in protest of the coup in late 2006.

English language mainstream local media here in Thailand reports does not reflect the level of discussion under Red Shirts, the Red Shirt movement's diversified structures and only reports a tiny fraction of events. It is not the foreign media's job to report on every detail of this conflict.

Again - what is your point?

A question that would have a point now, which though nobody here has asked so far, is how Red Shirt protesters have felt when listening to Thaksin's speech at the Rajaprasong event two days ago. The answer is - to a large part they were very disappointed. I leave it to you to find out what Thaksin has said, and why protesters were/are disappointed, a feeling that has already begun after the Siam Reap speech.

Well we all know that the red shirts don't really need much in the way of solid evidence to hold a commemoration. It's common knowledge on this forum the figure of 91 deaths often repeated at this rally and others includes the deaths of military personnel, civilians and even people protesting against the red shirts! Even throughout the course of this thread we've seen attempts to increase this figure further using more unsubstantiated claims (I believe these posts have since been deleted).

As you highlight, the red shirts call the 2009 clampdown "Bloody Songkran"; they believe a number of people were killed at Din Daeng and then all bodies disposed of somehow by the army. The last time I mentioned this to you on the forum, philw even went as far as to say a simple Google search would remove any doubts I had of this event. It might not have been stated specifically by you, but other red shirts certainly believe that Col Romklao was targeted by the UDD for presiding over these deaths.

If these deaths did happen, then surely they deserve just as much attention as those which occurred on all sides during April and May 2010...? Perhaps even more so, as - according to red shirt lore - these alleged deaths are the first heavy-handed act of suppression by their nemesis, the Royal Thai Army. But it seems now if there was any memorial at all for these those fallen, it was probably a low-key event not worthy of mainstream media attention....?

You state in your last post "There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence." - is this an attempt to play down what is alleged to of occurred during the clampdown of 2009? Despite avoiding bullets flying by, you didn't witness anybody injured by these bullets in the crowd of people running from them?

I would like to know in your position as a reporter why is it never mentioned how and why the armed peaceful protest that included a invasion of a hospital was started.

Why is it always made out to look like the Government was in the wrong.

Your reasoning for this as a professional would be appreciated.

[nicknostitz]

I would like to know in your position as a reporter why is it never mentioned how and why the armed peaceful protest that included a invasion of a hospital was started.

Why is it always made out to look like the Government was in the wrong.

Your reasoning for this as a professional would be appreciated.

I think especially in the case of the Chula hospital invasion it has generally been reported that the Red Shirts were clearly in the wrong, and even the Red Shirts have publicly acknowledged this (see Dr. Weng's apology).

Nevertheless, while the Red Shirt's invasion was out of order, it should not be forgotten that the government placed soldiers in the hospital (Matichon has published photos at the time), which is also wrong.

[gand]

I would like to know in your position as a reporter why is it never mentioned how and why the armed peaceful protest that included a invasion of a hospital was started.

Why is it always made out to look like the Government was in the wrong.

Your reasoning for this as a professional would be appreciated.

I think especially in the case of the Chula hospital invasion it has generally been reported that the Red Shirts were clearly in the wrong, and even the Red Shirts have publicly acknowledged this (see Dr. Weng's apology).

Nevertheless, while the Red Shirt's invasion was out of order, it should not be forgotten that the government placed soldiers in the hospital (Matichon has published photos at the time), which is also wrong.

Should not any gov't place soldiers to protect helpless patients from red shirt criminals attacking them?

[Insight]

Serious question, Nick....

It's pretty clear that the red shirts don't want Thailand and the rest of the world to forget about those who were killed during the clampdown of May 2010. Clearly a lot of resources have gone into planning this memorial event for the 91 deaths which occurred throughout the protest and clampdown.

Why is there no similar memorial to commemorate the deaths of the red shirts allegedly killed during the army clampdown of the red shirt protests in 2009? Specifically those allegedly killed at Din Deang, an event you were apparently an eyewitness to...? Surely the people who were killed in this clampdown should also be remembered?

Has the exact death tool from this action by the army even been established yet? It has been over three years now.

What is your point?

How many times shall it be repeated that there is no proof that Red Shirts were killed in the 2009 crackdown by the military? There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence.

That doesn't mean though that Red Shirts do not talk about what they label as 'Bloody Songkran' - they do.

There are even memorial events still over Numthong - the taxi driver who committed suicide in protest of the coup in late 2006.

English language mainstream local media here in Thailand reports does not reflect the level of discussion under Red Shirts, the Red Shirt movement's diversified structures and only reports a tiny fraction of events. It is not the foreign media's job to report on every detail of this conflict.

Again - what is your point?

A question that would have a point now, which though nobody here has asked so far, is how Red Shirt protesters have felt when listening to Thaksin's speech at the Rajaprasong event two days ago. The answer is - to a large part they were very disappointed. I leave it to you to find out what Thaksin has said, and why protesters were/are disappointed, a feeling that has already begun after the Siam Reap speech.

Well we all know that the red shirts don't really need much in the way of solid evidence to hold a commemoration. It's common knowledge on this forum the figure of 91 deaths often repeated at this rally and others includes the deaths of military personnel, civilians and even people protesting against the red shirts! Even throughout the course of this thread we've seen attempts to increase this figure further using more unsubstantiated claims (I believe these posts have since been deleted).

As you highlight, the red shirts call the 2009 clampdown "Bloody Songkran"; they believe a number of people were killed at Din Daeng and then all bodies disposed of somehow by the army. The last time I mentioned this to you on the forum, philw even went as far as to say a simple Google search would remove any doubts I had of this event. It might not have been stated specifically by you, but other red shirts certainly believe that Col Romklao was targeted by the UDD for presiding over these deaths.

If these deaths did happen, then surely they deserve just as much attention as those which occurred on all sides during April and May 2010...? Perhaps even more so, as - according to red shirt lore - these alleged deaths are the first heavy-handed act of suppression by their nemesis, the Royal Thai Army. But it seems now if there was any memorial at all for these those fallen, it was probably a low-key event not worthy of mainstream media attention....?

You state in your last post "There are suspicions that a few may have been killed, but no names and clear enough evidence." - is this an attempt to play down what is alleged to of occurred during the clampdown of 2009? Despite avoiding bullets flying by, you didn't witness anybody injured by these bullets in the crowd of people running from them?

Why do you have to pester me with these quite irrelevant questions?

No, i do not "play down" anything. No, i have no proof of any dead, only witness accounts of a few dead.

No, i haven't seen any injured, i was busy running away. But that there were several injured is proven beyond doubt - last year two of them who were maimed for life there got in a civil case against the army large sums of money awarded by the court. I am not up to date with the criminal case, but believe it is still somewhat stalled.

I am not a Red Shirt, or one of their leaders, you should ask them about what deserves attention.

It is disappointing you find these questions irrelevant. I was just wondering if you, as somebody who is undeniably closer to the red movement than us, and carries "all the luggage of humanism", can offer any perspective on why these alleged deaths have now apparently been discarded to the sands of time by the red shirt leaders? Instead your defensive responses to this query have shades of being removed from your comfort zone.

It is interesting however that although we know some people are adamant people were killed, nobody seems to know any of their identities. Neither can I find any eyewitness accounts from anybody who wishes to be identified. "Several" people were apparently injured by the army. I won't bother asking for specifics, but that vague figure pales massively compared to the 834 injured on April 10th 2010.

The targeted attack on Col Romklao is now sounding like a very cold-blooded act of aggression by the UDD indeed.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Insight

[gand]

2 journalists describe that they saw armed protestors, so let's hear no more about the peaceful protest.

"They had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s" "They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers."

http://www.hrw.org/node/98399/section/5

A journalist, who spent several days together with a group of armed militants at the Ratchaprasong protest camp, described to Human Rights Watch his experience with the Black Shirts:

The day I met up with the group, they were near Lumphini Park and the Rama IV [road] junction, living in a tent. I was not allowed to photograph them. I met about 17 or 18 of them, but they said they were part of a group of 30. They had more people helping them, helpers and their own medics. They were all ex-military, and some of them were still on active duty. Some of them were paratroopers, and at least one was from the Navy. They had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s [military assault rifles], but I didn’t see them with M79s [grenade launchers]. They told me that their job was to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers.

[T]hese guys were fearless. They operated mostly at night, but sometimes also during the day. They went out in small teams [to confront the army].…

They didn’t use walkie-talkies, just mobile phones and runners [to deliver messages]. I saw no interaction with the Red Shirt leaders. But these guys were contacted by someone, someone recruited them to come, I have no idea who. Someone provided them with weapons…. They rationed their bullets—when they went out they had 30 bullets [each].

They weren’t really “black” shirts—they were sometimes in green military uniforms and others dressed like Red Shirt protesters. They didn’t have any relationship with the Red Guards, and weren’t interested in dealing with the Red Shirt leaders.… They took their work very seriously. The guys I met, they knew how to move and shoot. They also had experience handling explosives.… The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat.

A Thai journalist stationed near Bon Kai junction said the Black Shirt militants he encountered during the May 17-19 clashes were well-armed, appeared to be trained in military tactics, and seemed to have a separate command line from the Red Shirt Guards:

From what I saw, the Black Shirt militants and the Red Shirt protesters were fighting alongside each other in the areas around Bon Kai junction. But they did not share the same command line. The Red Shirts seemed to be driven by anger as they saw soldiers moving in and opening fire at the protesters. They burned tires and used slingshots to shoot metal bolts, rocks, and fire crackers at soldiers. They also tried to use petrol bombs and homemade rockets, made of PVC [durable plastic] and metal pipes, to attack soldiers. But the aim of their rockets was not accurate enough to hit soldier bunkers and cause any serious damage. Some of the Red Shirts went out on foot and motorcycles to challenge soldiers to come out from their bunkers and fight openly. But they had to dash back behind the barricades when soldiers shot them with rubber bullets and live rounds. This cat-and-mouse game went on all day. I only saw two of the Red Shirts firing at soldiers with revolver pistols.

The Black Shirts, on the other hand, were well armed. They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers. They were also very cautious when they moved around, using smoke as their cover. They appeared to benefit from the havoc created by the Red Shirts, which distracted soldiers as well. The Black Shirts did not stay in one spot for too long. They moved around, took their positions, opened fire, and then retreated. The way they operated reminded me of those with military training. Some of the Black Shirts used walkie-talkies, while others use mobile phones, to communicate with each other. Their operations seemed to be coordinated by a man who always had sunglasses on. At one point, I heard him giving orders to the Black Shirts to fire M79 grenades at the bunkers and sniper posts of soldiers. But when I asked the Black Shirts about that man, they told me I should not raise that question again if I want to stay behind their line. The Red Shirts that I talked to said they did not know who that man was either. Nevertheless, they believed that the Black Shirts were there to protect them and help them fight more effectively.

[hyperdimension]

Isn't it sad that they are only starting to realize that they have been used by the madman as cannon fodder for his and his clan's own interests?

Nick, did you ever discuss with Red Shirts Thaksin's character and behaviour and the appropriateness of fighting to hand power back to him? Or did you only ever support them in their cries for "democracy"? Or were you as blinded as they were to what the protests and riots were really about? I have not yet read your "Red vs. Yellow" books, but how much do you cover about the elite power struggles in which Thaksin is one of the key players?

Well, read the books. I am not gonna give you a short version of them here.

While i naturally mention the elite struggles and its effects, the bulk of my work concerns street events and the grass roots level conflict, including the rise of political consciousness under grass roots level people.

Focusing mainly on the grassroots and street levels may hinder your ability to see the "forest for the trees". Decisions made at the elite levels can have substantial effects at the grassroots and street levels. Inversely, what happens at the grassroots and street levels are often the results of decisions made at the elite levels. The elite understand that the masses, particularly those in lower classes and with poor education, can be easily manipulated. People who have studied marketing, public relations or psychology would have a good understanding of this. Do you, as a presumably highly educated person, not see that much of the Red Shirt media content is clearly propaganda? For example, the "Asia Update" Red Shirt satellite television channel very often shows music videos portraying Thaksin as a saviour who has so much love and devotion for the poor. The reality is the opposite, yet I think that there are many who do believe the propaganda that is fed to them, such that there is a "cult of personality" of Thaksin. The lies and deceit that have been digested by the millions of people are an essential component of the socio-political conflict, as the propaganda shapes their collective thought and subsequent behavior. Do you not see that they have been deceived? Do you choose to ignore this phenomenon of mass deception?

Reporting on elite struggles is mostly highly speculative and dominated by rumor, and even worse - the elites of all sides have a tendency to instrumentalize journalists for their own ends and means.

Are these reasons enough to simply ignore elite machinations? To use some of your own words, the elites of all sides have a tendency to instrumentalize ordinary people for their own ends and means; this should be documented and reported, especially when it is obvious (even though it may not be so obvious to the deceived pawns).

As long as we have no real access to corroborate information on that level, i think it is quite fruitless to base our analyses on elite machinations. And, given the nature of the conflict, we very soon get to limits what we can legally report on elite machinations.

You may just be speaking for yourself when you state that "we have no real access to corroborate information on that level". There are other writers who do seem to have access. The recent Asia Times article Daring double game in Thailand by Shawn W Crispin is one example. Sopon Onkgara's articles in The Nation have been quite prescient and may indicate access to reliable sources.

I understand that Thai laws may make you feel restricted in what you think you can write. The result may be articles and books that don't sufficiently cover the relevant and significant issues. But that shouldn't be a reason for avoidance or ignorance of those issues.

[hyperdimension]

I am most interested to find out and give factually correct accounts of what took place on the street, basically as historical raw material for future research and analyses.

That is good and valuable, but is only part of the picture; "what took place on the street" may be outcomes of major elite-level decisions. Machinations at the higher levels can provide essential context for your historical and factual raw material. Reporting of elite machinations need not be pure rumor and speculation, as many of their actions and statements are done in public and can be pieced together for analyses and logical deduction.

You may argue this, but i believe that the driving force of the past 6 years have not been the elite struggle, but to the most part the events on the street. While it appears that now the elites of both sides may have found an understanding, and will try to reign in street politics, history does not end at this. The rising political consciousness under common Thais will not be simply brought under control of the elites again, even though it may take some years before their expression will be again a visible threat against the elites.

Therefore, your questions regarding Thaksin are quite irrelevant, or better, concentrating only on Thaksin while ignoring the massive changes in Thai society will inevitably lead to a skewed analyses of this highly complex conflict.

I do not ignore "the massive changes in Thai society"; in other posts I have given some credit to Thaksin for politically awakening the masses, even though it was purely for his and his clan's benefit, and even though they weren't awoken to true reality but to an alternate reality that had been created by his propaganda. I am also aware that increased access to technology is changing society, particularly with how social media has allowed ordinary people to share ideas, express their opinions and read widely, whereas previously media was not as varied and accessible and therefore could be controlled. This change would have occured and can still occur without Thaksin.

Thaksin is not at all irrelevant. The "it's not about Thaksin" phrase passed its expiry date long ago. Red Shirt leaders instructed Red Shirt supporters to vote for Thaksin's Pheu Thai party. Pheu Thai now runs the country with his sister as prime minister, whom wouldn't have had any chance of being so if she wasn't his sister. He and his political party have been the main benefactors, not the grassroots people. Thaksin has been the central player and agitator in the conflicts of the past 5 or 6 years. The coup against him may have been undemocratic, but he himself is no supporter of democracy, except when it is for his benefit. The Red Shirt movement has been fed manufactured "democracy", "anti-amaart" and pro-Thaksin propaganda. The cries for "democracy" gave Thaksin's efforts to re-take power a much more noble veneer, especially on the international stage. See this post that lists evidence of his high-profile public relations investments since 2007: http://www.thaivisa....75#entry5316745. These public relations investments, particularly the propaganda works of Robert Amsterdam (and his application to the ICC) form part of the bigger picture of the conflicts and should not be ignored. Some of the propaganda may have worked, particularly amongst leftist or progressive sociology academics and journalists who may not have had sufficient awareness of the power games and may have assumed that the protests were grassroots-level initiatives. The fact is that ordinary grassroots-level people cannot easily obtain military weapons. The 2010 protests and subsequent riots were planned and organized by elites who supplied military weapons, and militants who used those weapons. Casualties must have been part of the plan, as firing AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenades at groups of soldiers was bound to produce a proportionate response in return. Sopon Onkgara accurately predicted the 2010 bloodshed in December 2009 in his article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown. The more casualties, the stronger the portrayal of the military and government as brutal and oppressive. It is this willingness to have people die for his cause that is my main gripe about Thaksin. The deaths that occured were not necessary, as there were a number of options available that would have prevented them, such as accepting Abhisit's offer of early elections (and not reneging), or not holding the 2010 protests and riots at all and simply wait 1.5 years for the next election in order to re-take power. But it appears that preventing deaths were not part of the plan nor a priority of Thaksin and his allied elites.

Even after Thaksin is long gone, he will still remain historically relevant in the political consciousness of Thais as not just the one who awakened the political consciousness of the rural poor, but also as being possibly the most egotistic, corrupt, deceptive, selfish, greedy, dishonorable, divisive and megalomanic politician Thailand has ever had. He will serve as a lesson to Thais to not be so easily deceived by too-good-to-be-true promises, small handouts or propaganda, and to have much higher standards in the people they elect into positions of power.

I am also aware of the old elites' efforts to hold onto their long-held power, but Thaksin and his clan are not at all a good alternative. Red Shirt supporters, particularly those who are against the old elites, should realize that Thaksin and his clan do not need to be the only alternative. New political parties could be set up that truly are by grassroots and for grassroots. There could be difficult competition with the heavy investments in marketing / propaganda by Thaksin's party, but that and other bridges can be crossed when or if they ever get there.

By only spending your time on the grassroots and their own struggle and ignoring or avoiding the elite power struggles and their machinations, you are only seeing or presenting part of the complete picture and missing or omitting other crucial parts that provide context or background.

Edited May 22, 2012 by hyperdimension

[MikeyIdea]

George Bernard Shaw: “England and America are two countries divided by a common language.”

Oscar Wilde: "We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language"

[nicknostitz]

By only spending your time on the grassroots and their own struggle and ignoring or avoiding the elite power struggles and their machinations, you are only seeing or presenting part of the complete picture and missing or omitting other crucial parts that provide context or background.

First of all - i do not ignore the elites at all. As you can see, in a recent post i was accused of having flown to dubai to photograph Thaksin in his home for a major German news magazine. I have talked with many members of all side's elites. Nevertheless - as long as i cannot properly corroborate the tales they feed me with - i will remain suspicious.

You mentioned Crispin - this writer is the perfect example of what i talked about. He is never in the field, he only gathers his information by a few elite contacts. The result are stories that are like a lottery - sometimes correct, and sometimes absolutely wrong. I remember, for example, how he predicted after the 2008 airport occupation that the Red Shirts and Thaksin would fizzle away, never to return (there is somewhere a video of this, but i am too lazy to look for it). There were more such stories, such as when in 2009 he described the attack on Nipon Promphan in the interior ministry as a hidden attack against a member of the royal family with whom Nipon is reputedly close to. Oh, if Crispin would just have been in the field, and would have seen the chaos of the attack, the attackers only looking for Abhisit, no clue about who Khun Nipon was, or his royal connections. There is loads more, such as his regular "sources in the diplomatic community". Anyone who knows the diplomatic community knows that it is about as divided about the situation as anyone here is, so when you need "a source from the diplomatic community" for whatever point you are trying to make, you just pick and choose. That's one of the little tricks of our dirty little business of journalism...

I do not have any respect for any journalist writing about this Red/Yellow conflict who is not working it in the field. That doesn't mean that this is solely worked from the field - all of us will have also our talks, chats, lunches and dinners with elite level players. We get information, and then we see if it is correct information or not. One thing lots of people don't seem to know - the elites are about as depending on, and spreading rumors as you old neighborhood market lady.

The relations ship between Thaksin and the Red Shirts is far more complex than you make it out here (and i do not have the time to go too deeply into this here right now). Thaksin may look at the Red Shirts as his own street protest group, so what? The Red Shirts define themselves slightly differently, as you can see right now, where there is widespread discontent on all levels with what Thaksin said on Saturday. Also Asia Update has quite openly reported on this discontent, has given much coverage to main proponents of this discontent, such as Payao - Nong Kate's mother. But yes, of course Asia Update is a propaganda TV station (i have used those exact words when i described this TV station in my second book, by the way).

I would suggest though to once a while have a look at Blue Sky TV - the new Democrat Party propaganda station - the hate speech there is quite beyond believe, far beyond Asia Update, and even of ASTV.

This conflict isn't just about elite machinations, of good against bad - we are in the middle of massive social transformations. It's a dirty fight, by all sides.

You seem to put much weight on "Sopons" predictions, as if would be gospel. Well, it was not too difficult to predict that the longer the 2010 protests take, the more risk for violence breaking out. I have done the same. Just is Sopon's piece nothing but a little propaganda piece without any insight at all other than floating on the surface, and completely ignoring the violent tactics of the side that writer has openly supported all along.

This is the same problem with many posters here, including you - you ignore, obfuscate or outright deny all crimes committed by the side you support. Many posters of your side even go so low to massively discredit any writer that does not agree with their views, even as low as questioning professionalism and ethical conduct. I have never denied the violent nature of many groups in the Red Shirts, yet i am called "biased" when i have written about the exact same violence by the PAD, members of the Democrat Party, or by the military. I am called a liar when i described soldiers having shot at unarmed protesters, journalists and bystanders - even if it happened in front of my eyes, with photos provided, and at times even videos by others supporting what i have written.

Who really is biased? I have countless times offered to look at evidence you guys can provide me countering what i wrote. So far - nil, zilch.

You accuse me of ignoring elite level players. I have spoken with Thaksin, Yingluck, Abhist, countless Ministers of the past three or four governments, all Red Shirt leaders, most Yellow Shirt leaders, countless MP's of the Democrats and Puah Thai, generals of the military and of the police - and that is the exact reason why i am convinced that the far more exiting political transformations are driven by the grassroots level's rise of political awareness. Elites scheme and play politics - but this conflict is far beyond mere politics. You may not see that now - but in a few years you will realize this.

Edited May 23, 2012 by nicknostitz

[philw]

I would like to know in your position as a reporter why is it never mentioned how and why the armed peaceful protest that included a invasion of a hospital was started.

Why is it always made out to look like the Government was in the wrong.

Your reasoning for this as a professional would be appreciated.

I think especially in the case of the Chula hospital invasion it has generally been reported that the Red Shirts were clearly in the wrong, and even the Red Shirts have publicly acknowledged this (see Dr. Weng's apology).

Nevertheless, while the Red Shirt's invasion was out of order, it should not be forgotten that the government placed soldiers in the hospital (Matichon has published photos at the time), which is also wrong.

Should not any gov't place soldiers to protect helpless patients from red shirt criminals attacking them?

Disingenuous, provocative nonsense.

[rubl]

It's interesting to read that the OP "huge turnout expected" is less interesting than grenade attacks which only killed one and injured 80 others, but they weren't red-shirt anyway, and offered a photographer the chance to make nice shots. A hospital invaded, Dr. weng apologised, but the army had some soldiers there also. Doctors, nurses, (almost forgot) patients scared, but obviously it's k. Abhisit's fault.

""On behalf of all leaders, I apologise to the public and Chulalongkorn Hospital for the incident," Red leader Weng Tojirakarn said. "The situation got out of control.""

http://www.dw.de/dw/...5526977,00.html

This is a nice read with pro/con and other BS, hope the link is not deemed against forum rules

"Question: If the above NM reader's account is correct, would the red shirt leaders have issued such a sweeping apology? The apology leads me to suspect that some element of the story must be missing from the NM reader's account."

http://asiapacific.a...native-account/

Anyway after all excursions, let me point out the obvious "huge turnout expected" and many trying to ignore the disappointment

[hyperdimension]

i do not ignore the elites at all. As you can see, in a recent post i was accused of having flown to dubai to photograph Thaksin in his home for a major German news magazine. I have talked with many members of all side's elites. Nevertheless - as long as i cannot properly corroborate the tales they feed me with - i will remain suspicious.

It has been your refusal to discuss Thaksin that makes you appear as if you pay no attention to elites and their actions, as if it's irrelevant. So how is Thaksin so irrelevant, when he is in the news all the time? He himself makes him relevant because he simply chooses not to go away. Thaksin would be far less relevant if he long ago had simply retired from politics and business into complete obscurity, and he certainly could have done so especially with his accumulated wealth. His laughable excuse for not doing so is his love for Thailand and its people and his wish to serve them. The real reason is likely to be his undying maniacal lust for power, prestige and even more wealth.

You mentioned Crispin - this writer is the perfect example of what i talked about. He is never in the field, he only gathers his information by a few elite contacts. The result are stories that are like a lottery - sometimes correct, and sometimes absolutely wrong.

Not being on the streets during the events isn't necessarily a flaw, as he covers the higher level events and manouverings, as opposed to your street level physically-detailed coverage. Even though some of his writings may be inaccurate due to the nature of the information and its sources, they still have value and can add to the overall picture, i.e. it's better than not having any information. If you are going to specialize only on the street level, collaboration with another journalist who specializes on the higher strategic levels could be a good synergy.

Who would you suggest are good journalists for coverage of the elite levels?

I do not have any respect for any journalist writing about this Red/Yellow conflict who is not working it in the field.

How about people in exile like Giles Ungpakorn who is not "in the field"? Do you dismiss his writings because he was not on the streets in Bangkok? I think it depends on what is being covered. Coverage of higher level strategy and decisions may not require close proximity to bullets and dead people.

Also, it's not really a "Red/Yellow conflict" anymore, as the yellow Shirts have largely been out of the picture. It's Thaksin and his clan (riding on the tops of Red Shirt supporters) vs. the old elite. Are you going to continue to use "Red vs. Yellow" for future books?

Edited May 23, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

The relations ship between Thaksin and the Red Shirts is far more complex than you make it out here (and i do not have the time to go too deeply into this here right now). Thaksin may look at the Red Shirts as his own street protest group, so what? The Red Shirts define themselves slightly differently, as you can see right now, where there is widespread discontent on all levels with what Thaksin said on Saturday.

Yes, and I remarked earlier about how sad it is that the pawns are only starting to realize that they've been used for his selfish benefit, when they thought they were fighting against the amaart. The fact that Thaksin funds the movement is significant - they certainly welcome his money, but it also makes them beholden to his wishes. It now seems that some of the Red Shirt leaders are so addicted to his money that Thaksin's wishes and goals take priority over ideology and the grassroots' wishes.

You seem to put much weight on "Sopons" predictions, as if would be gospel. Well, it was not too difficult to predict that the longer the 2010 protests take, the more risk for violence breaking out.

The important points of Sopon's predictions were the plans by Thaksin (and the rogue generals with whom he collaborated) to have violence and bloodshed long before the actual 2010 protests or riots. Did you expect AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenades to be used against authorities, and was Thaksin justified to arrange their supply and use? Faced with such heavy fire, wouldn't soldiers then be justified to return live fire?

This is the same problem with many posters here, including you - you ignore, obfuscate or outright deny all crimes committed by the side you support.

I do not deny that soldiers may have killed completely innocent and unarmed people. Those soldiers should be prosecuted. But I do not believe that Abhisit or Suthep ordered soldiers to kill indiscriminately as has been claimed. Some soldiers may have been trigger-happy (and that may have been the reason to why they joined the military in the first place), or they simply hate Red Shirts and were acting based on personal beliefs.

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

You accuse me of ignoring elite level players. I have spoken with Thaksin, Yingluck, Abhist, countless Ministers of the past three or four governments, all Red Shirt leaders, most Yellow Shirt leaders, countless MP's of the Democrats and Puah Thai, generals of the military and of the police - and that is the exact reason why i am convinced that the far more exiting political transformations are driven by the grassroots level's rise of political awareness. Elites scheme and play politics - but this conflict is far beyond mere politics. You may not see that now - but in a few years you will realize this.

I have already explained that I am aware of the bigger picture social changes. But in the short term, Thaksin is a cancer who has been masquerading as a savior of the rural poor. It is good that some of the Red Shirts are now realizing this and maybe even distancing themselves from him, but it would have been much better if they had known before the election, as it is now more difficult for the people to shake away from his grip as he works to strengthen and consolidate his power.

Politics will still play an essential part in the rise of the grassroots and their voice. They need to find leaders who will sincerely work for and represent their interests, not for the interests of a billionaire businessman and his cronies.

Edited May 23, 2012 by hyperdimension

[KunMatt]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

Edited May 23, 2012 by KunMatt

[nicknostitz]

i do not ignore the elites at all. As you can see, in a recent post i was accused of having flown to dubai to photograph Thaksin in his home for a major German news magazine. I have talked with many members of all side's elites. Nevertheless - as long as i cannot properly corroborate the tales they feed me with - i will remain suspicious.

It has been your refusal to discuss Thaksin that makes you appear as if you pay no attention to elites and their actions, as if it's irrelevant. So how is Thaksin so irrelevant, when he is in the news all the time? He himself makes him relevant because he simply chooses not to go away. Thaksin would be far less relevant if he long ago had simply retired from politics and business into complete obscurity, and he certainly could have done so especially with his accumulated wealth. His laughable excuse for not doing so is his love for Thailand and its people and his wish to serve them. The real reason is likely to be his undying maniacal lust for power, prestige and even more wealth.

You mentioned Crispin - this writer is the perfect example of what i talked about. He is never in the field, he only gathers his information by a few elite contacts. The result are stories that are like a lottery - sometimes correct, and sometimes absolutely wrong.

Not being on the streets during the events isn't necessarily a flaw, as he covers the higher level events and manouverings, as opposed to your street level physically-detailed coverage. Even though some of his writings may be inaccurate due to the nature of the information and its sources, they still have value and can add to the overall picture, i.e. it's better than not having any information. If you are going to specialize only on the street level, collaboration with another journalist who specializes on the higher strategic levels could be a good synergy.

Who would you suggest are good journalists for coverage of the elite levels?

I do not have any respect for any journalist writing about this Red/Yellow conflict who is not working it in the field.

How about people in exile like Giles Ungpakorn who is not "in the field"? Do you dismiss his writings because he was not on the streets in Bangkok? I think it depends on what is being covered. Coverage of higher level strategy and decisions may not require close proximity to bullets and dead people.

Also, it's not really a "Red/Yellow conflict" anymore, as the yellow Shirts have largely been out of the picture. It's Thaksin and his clan (riding on the tops of Red Shirt supporters) vs. the old elite. Are you going to continue to use "Red vs. Yellow" for future books?

Nirmal Ghosh, for example, has far better contacts to all sides than Crispin. Nirmal's reporting on the conflict has also been always outstanding. And he works it on the streets as well. Giles is not a journalist, he's an academic, and a progressive Red Shirt activist - a completely different matter.

Why should i discuss Thaksin, especially on the level you discuss him here? This does not lead anywhere. None of you have ever spoken with Thaksin. I have, on two occasions, and i cannot say that i would come close to knowing him enough to discuss him. People like Thaksin did not become billionaires because they are easy to predict, analyze or understand.

I can only talk about Thaksin's intentions or plans when i can see the results of those on the street. Anything else is just pure speculation. A lot of what you have written here is baseless speculation - you know nothing about the violence that has occurred other than what you have read in news stories. You haven't been there, nor have you any idea about who organized what. I cannot work on the level of speculation - i have to investigate, find evidence, and be open when i do not have enough evidence, and can't just replace evidence with speculation. You do take it as a fact that Thaksin has organized the violence. Where is you evidence? Where are your sources?

You believe that Abhisit and Suthep haven't ordered this or that. Belief, excuse my bluntness, belongs in the church. Personally - i do not believe that Abhisit is a person who orders killings of innocents in cold blood. Suthep though... may i remind you about the Blue Shirts in Pattaya in 2009? Evidence though i haven't. That is why you do not see me writing that Abhisit or Suthep did this or that. This, in my line of work, would be libelous. And it is very very libelous when you accuse Thaksin of having organized the Red Shirt militants without evidence. So, no - i will not discuss Thaksin in this level here on this forum. I am neither interested in fighting a libel suit, nor am i interested in losing myself in speculation.

Have you any privileged information about Thaksin, evidence, or proof? Then i am game - give it to me, i will give will treat you with the same confidentiality as treat all my anonymous sources. I have no time though for opinions, rumors and speculation.

Why on earth do you think that many Red Shirts did not know that Thaksin has a large self-interest? Have you never spoken with Red Shirt activists on those issues? Naturally, many Red Shirts love Thaksin (less so now, though). So what, it is their right to support any politician they chose to. Just because you don't like Thaksin, does not mean that you have the right to tell other who they have to vote for. You have to also see that Thailand is in a rapid process of political conscious building. And no, it was not Thaksin who has started this system of keeping people out of political decision making processes. Thaksin was a product of this system, and for some strange reason a catalyst that enabled large sectors to start this process of political awakening. And just because Thaksin now appears to have made a bit of a U-turn, does not mean that the genie can be put back in the bottle that easily.

And that brings me again to the same old point. The grassroots discussion is far more open and advanced than can possibly be written about here. For this you need to be on the street, in the communities, because you will not know anything about this from normal channels of information. The tone of the discussion here in this forum, and especially by your side of the debate, makes it quite clear that you are, again - sorry to be blunt, completely out of touch what is actually going on within the Red Shirts, and draw all your knowledge from articles in the mainstream media and by discussing these issues within a mutual appreciation society equally out of touch. And worse even, you seem to reject all information that does not conform to your preconceived ideas.

Yes, i will continue to call this Red and Yellow. Red and Yellow does not just mean "Red Shirts" and "Yellow Shirts". These colors stand for quite different forms of identity as Thais, and philosophies. In discussing with Thais that have chosen this or the other side, they themselves call themselves still "Red" or "Yellow". So, yes, even though the PAD doesn't wear many yellow shirts anymore, and is only a shadow of its former self - we still are in the same color coded conflict.

[rubl]

one sentence only:

Giles is not a journalist, he's an academic, and a progressive Red Shirt activist - a completely different matter.

So, Giles is not a real red-shirt

""I would question how many per cent of real red shirts use the Internet socially. It might be folks acting stealthily - PAD or even Democrat people, who want to divide us, as we've seen the Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva trying to do," Pheu Thai MP Vorachai said."

No offence, but some posters here are not journalists or even reporters either, just photographers as they have frequently said.

[nicknostitz]

It's interesting to read that the OP "huge turnout expected" is less interesting than grenade attacks which only killed one and injured 80 others, but they weren't red-shirt anyway, and offered a photographer the chance to make nice shots.

I cannot call these kind of photos i have to take in those situations "nice shots".

People get off on strange things though... just, please, there are things i really don't want and need to know.

[nicknostitz]

one sentence only:

Giles is not a journalist, he's an academic, and a progressive Red Shirt activist - a completely different matter.

So, Giles is not a real red-shirt

""I would question how many per cent of real red shirts use the Internet socially. It might be folks acting stealthily - PAD or even Democrat people, who want to divide us, as we've seen the Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva trying to do," Pheu Thai MP Vorachai said."

No offence, but some posters here are not journalists or even reporters either, just photographers as they have frequently said.

Can't you read?

He is a progressive Red Shirt activist.

So far this discussion has been very quite civil. Leave your little personal snides out of it.

[rubl]

It's interesting to read that the OP "huge turnout expected" is less interesting than grenade attacks which only killed one and injured 80 others, but they weren't red-shirt anyway, and offered a photographer the chance to make nice shots.

I cannot call these kind of photos i have to take in those situations "nice shots".

People get off on strange things though... just, please, there are things i really don't want and need to know.

I thought you understood sarcasm when you wrote

"I came a few minutes after the grenades at the BTS station went off (which caused little damage, only a few lightly injured), but was right in time for the volley that landed a bit later in the middle of the Yellow Shirt protesters at the coffee shop close to the Dusit, killing one and injuring many. Otherwise i could hardly have photographed the injured..."

You have to follow the course "understanding sarcasm 101" again, I'm afraid.

[phiphidon]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

[SomTumTiger]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

Then he's in good company Phi! But frankly - the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the reds were responsible for ANY deaths mean that your legitimacy was lost a long long time ago.

[phiphidon]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

Then he's in good company Phi! But frankly - the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the reds were responsible for ANY deaths mean that your legitimacy was lost a long long time ago.

And when have I stated that?

[metisdead]

Off topic/troll posts have been removed. This topic is not about Nick Nostitz' books, or his journalism career. Stay on topic of "Bangkok Huge Turnout Expected at Red Shirt Rally Today"