Thai Troops Shot Italian Photographer: Police

[nurofiend]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

[phiphidon]

The 'dead journalist' Fabio Polenghi was rumoured to have been shot in the chest. That's the part of the body mostly considered to be the front, rather than the back. Of course there's a distinct possibility that another Italian journalist was killed that day under similar circumstances, but I'm sure we'd have heard by now.

The person with funny helmet is still being searched for. It is unknown till now if he's a member of the armed forces, a militant red-shirt or just a friendly person helping.

Conclusion: stick to the truth, it will set you free

And don't believe rumours.........

An autopsy of Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, who was killed in Bangkok on May 19, 2010 during the so-called Red-Shirt protests against the Democrat Party-led government, has confirmed suspicions that he was shot in the back. Polenghi, a regular contributor to SPIEGEL, was shot as he ran from advancing soldiers. His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, says she is certain it was an army bullet that killed him by tearing through his heart, lung and liver.

http://www.fabiopole...2&limitstart=14

http://www.spiegel.d...s-a-796003.html

Bradley Cox, a Bangkok-based documentary filmmaker, said that earlier on the morning of May 19, troops fired sporadically from behind a barricade into areas 200 meters away that were controlled by red-shirted protesters for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD. Cox, interviewed for a CPJ special report, said both he and Polenghi had taken footage of a protester shot in the leg around 10:45 a.m.

About 15 minutes later, Cox said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Polenghi sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.

Polenghi was wearing a blue helmet with the word "Press" written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

"My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet," said Cox, adding that he didn't hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Polenghi. "I don't know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. ... Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody."

http://www.unhcr.org...e54d6aec,0.html

Edited July 24, 2012 by phiphidon

[AleG]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

What do you make of the Red Shirt leaders, on stage, calling on those "minuscule" elements to fight for them?

[transam]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

If l was a red shirt and a couple of guys behind me had AK47's, l would have been long gone. BUT, l am not Thai.

[nurofiend]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

What do you make of the Red Shirt leaders, on stage, calling on those "minuscule" elements to fight for them?

why do you ask? what has that got to do with my point?

[Reasonableman]

The last question is a bit misleading, or just a conclusion to the general back-and-forth here. When you do not have a weapon with you, you're unarmed, simple. If someone from the group is armed and the group spreads out a bit, the group is not armed, but has armed elements in its midst. If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on.

It's the same with "the army was shooting" ergo they killed Fabio. Possibly, but not proven. IMHO

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

So you're addressing the non-point pointlessly?

[rubl]

Thanks for your post rubl

A post to the point, which cannot be stated concerning lots of .............. in other posts unfortunately. However the phrase "Written by Robert Amsterdam Thailand" will spark (again) aggression of certain posters which are not able to see both sides clearly and "judging" will be done by the court we hope, and not only for Fabio and his next of kin but also for more mysteries concerning killings done to, for example, non-paid first-aid volunteers.

No offence my dear mistitimikis. I assume you refer to my post #100. I'm sorry I did include the 'Robert A' remark, but with all this I just report 'as is', no speculation added. Note that doubters nor believers need a link to 'RobertA'. Minds are made up and with every renewed discussion opinions settle more-and-more in rockhard cement (aka concrete).

The truth may set you free, but some seem to dislike that freedom

Edited July 24, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

The 'dead journalist' Fabio Polenghi was rumoured to have been shot in the chest. That's the part of the body mostly considered to be the front, rather than the back. Of course there's a distinct possibility that another Italian journalist was killed that day under similar circumstances, but I'm sure we'd have heard by now.

The person with funny helmet is still being searched for. It is unknown till now if he's a member of the armed forces, a militant red-shirt or just a friendly person helping.

Conclusion: stick to the truth, it will set you free

His fellow journalist was hit at the same time (I believe in the leg) and he was infront of him so how did he get hit in the chest they were running away. The bullet was never found because the thief, in funny helmet, recovered it from the front of the journalist vest after it had passed thru the body. Who can believe he nicked the camera and then pulled him to safety. He was there to recover the film and the incrimminating round which is the most feasible explanation on this thread

Written by Robert Amsterdam Thailand:

"Polenghi’s family has expressed concerns about the government’s opaque response to his death. His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, told CPJ that her family has repeatedly requested, but has not received, an official autopsy report. She said there are conflicting accounts from police and the Justice Ministry about the precise location of her brother’s wounds, which she did not see herself before his body was cremated. She also noted that many of Polenghi’s personal belongings, including his camera and telephone, are now missing. Such contradiction and obfuscation have fueled her fears that Polenghi could have been targeted for being a journalist.

She and a group of Polenghi’s colleagues have pieced together video clips—some received from journalists who were in Polenghi’s vicinty, others downloaded from unknown sources on the Internet—to develop a timeline of movements before and after the shooting. There is no known footage of the shooting itself. One video clip shows that an unidentified man wearing a silver helmet was the first to reach Polenghi after he was shot. The brief footage shows him feeling around Polenghi’s chest and briefly jostling with his camera, while another unidentified man wearing a yellow helmet kneels and takes his photograph. (…)"

http://fabiopolenghi...2:news&Itemid=2

"Of the five victims there is also an Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, 45, shot in the abdomen and chest by bullets fired during clashes between the army and demonstrators. He arrived in hospital, "already a corpse." A Dutch colleague, Michel Maas, who works for a public television based in Jakarta, was wounded in the shoulder by a bullet, but it is not life threatening."

http://www.asianews....lled-18444.html

I'm willing to submit to more reliable sources, like mistitimikis who is in contact with Elisabetta the sister of he late Fabio. Seems like a better way than speculation on doubtfull info. IMHO

So why did you not submit yourself to the news button on the same page of the link you provided, fabiopolenghi.org? There you will find a further 8 pages of views and news from all kinds of sources, especially seeing that you cannot bring yourself to believe anything Robert Amsterdam says.

[phiphidon]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

Calm down, Phil.

I never said they aren't real photos.

Who took the photo?

Every photo ever posted on this forum on hundreds of news topics is subject to providing sourcing of its origin.

For another reason, if it's a media-sourced photo, it's posting is prohibited by forum rules (which led to a number of my own posted photos being deleted) due to copyrighting.

.

It is possible to rightclick the photo, and follow what is shown as its properties. You can normally get some idea of where it's from - unless of course it's from a private photobucket library that is.

[rubl]

The 'dead journalist' Fabio Polenghi was rumoured to have been shot in the chest. That's the part of the body mostly considered to be the front, rather than the back. Of course there's a distinct possibility that another Italian journalist was killed that day under similar circumstances, but I'm sure we'd have heard by now.

The person with funny helmet is still being searched for. It is unknown till now if he's a member of the armed forces, a militant red-shirt or just a friendly person helping.

Conclusion: stick to the truth, it will set you free

And don't believe rumours.........

An autopsy of Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, who was killed in Bangkok on May 19, 2010 during the so-called Red-Shirt protests against the Democrat Party-led government, has confirmed suspicions that he was shot in the back. Polenghi, a regular contributor to SPIEGEL, was shot as he ran from advancing soldiers. His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, says she is certain it was an army bullet that killed him by tearing through his heart, lung and liver.

http://www.fabiopole...2&limitstart=14

http://www.spiegel.d...s-a-796003.html

Bradley Cox, a Bangkok-based documentary filmmaker, said that earlier on the morning of May 19, troops fired sporadically from behind a barricade into areas 200 meters away that were controlled by red-shirted protesters for the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, or UDD. Cox, interviewed for a CPJ special report, said both he and Polenghi had taken footage of a protester shot in the leg around 10:45 a.m.

About 15 minutes later, Cox said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Polenghi sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.

Polenghi was wearing a blue helmet with the word "Press" written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

"My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet," said Cox, adding that he didn't hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Polenghi. "I don't know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. ... Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody."

http://www.unhcr.org...e54d6aec,0.html

"Fabio Polenghi, the Italian news photographer killed in Bangkok in May 2010 during the so-called Red-Shirt protests, was shot in the back, an autopsy has confirmed. His sister Elisabetta and a Canadian lawyer believe he was killed by an army bullet and say they have witness testimony that soldiers were ordered to fire on journalists.

"We have statements from witnesses in the army who say there were orders to specifically target journalists," Amsterdam says."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/italian-photographer-s-death-probed-thai-army-alleged-to-have-targeted-journalists-in-2010-protests-a-796003.html

Very interesting we never heard this again. The current Inquest only mentioned "we believe the army was shooting". Did the Canadian lawyer (Robert A I presume) loose some documents, or was he a wee bit too optimistic in his statement?

I haven't seen the autopsy report, but the phrasing "Polenghi died from a high-velocity bullet that entered the heart, and caused damage to his lungs and liver." somehow doesn't sound like a shot in the back. Sorry to say, but all info provided here in this topic seem to distract from the posible fact that we do not know anything for sure, with the exception that Fabio was killed. Question: where's the autopsy report? Buried by the previous government and current government reluctant to dig it up?

Let's agree on 'insufficient data', may be Inquest shed more light on this

[rubl]

So why did you not submit yourself to the news button on the same page of the link you provided, fabiopolenghi.org? There you will find a further 8 pages of views and news from all kinds of sources, especially seeing that you cannot bring yourself to believe anything Robert Amsterdam says.

Answered in reply to previous post. See

[Buchholz]

Buchholtz, if you go to page 4 and you click "read more" under the well-known photo (NOT on "who is this man because than you have to sign-in into Facebook" ) than you see scrolling down all the photos and specs of the camera................... (including the credits...............)

thank you.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Buchholz

[rubl]

If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful", and so on

why is it difficult to convince people that they were peaceful? if they were unarmed and not commiting violent acts how were they not peaceful?

it's not difficult for them to convince others that "there was nothing we could do about it"! regarding the armed elements.

just because there were (only proven to be a miniscule number of) armed elements doing there own thing, doesn't put the guilt on every protester, that is just an idiotic point (not saying that's the point you were making, but some here do think like that)

What do you make of the Red Shirt leaders, on stage, calling on those "minuscule" elements to fight for them?

why do you ask? what has that got to do with my point?

The quote is from me. I guess this means that with every question you ask, I will be permitted to ask "why do you ask" and 'what has it got to do with my point'?

We're in for some very interesting discussion I fear

[Buchholz]

Can you tell the source of the pic and who took it ??

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

from "Mr Photobucket"

Read Posts # 101 and # 115 , Mr. Baiter.

.

[Buchholz]

Very much in need of sourcing and verification for all the photos posted and that the photos are even that of the scene of the subject matter's death.

.

It's pretty obvious they are real photo's, do please try to make less spin.

Calm down, Phil.

I never said they aren't real photos.

Who took the photo?

Every photo ever posted on this forum on hundreds of news topics is subject to providing sourcing of its origin.

For another reason, if it's a media-sourced photo, it's posting is prohibited by forum rules (which led to a number of my own posted photos being deleted) due to copyrighting.

It is possible to rightclick the photo, and follow what is shown as its properties. You can normally get some idea of where it's from - unless of course it's from a private photobucket library that is.

Right click doesn't provide the news media source of the photo.

Anyway, it's redundant. The photos are gone.

.

[nurofiend]

The quote is from me. I guess this means that with every question you ask, I will be permitted to ask "why do you ask" and 'what has it got to do with my point'?

We're in for some very interesting discussion I fear

you can do whatever makes you happy rubl, but i can easily answer what my question had to with your point because my question was about your point, his wasn't and had nothing to do with what i was asking you about.

mine was a post with questions about your point that you chose not to answer and ignore but now you chime in with this great contribution.

you're just being purposefully difficult, so i guess your fear is correct but you can lay the blame for that one on yourself.

Edited July 24, 2012 by nurofiend

[cdnski12]

Duh ... Italian Photographer shooting pictures in the middle of a massive riot, in a 3rd world country, with heavily armed soldiers and some armed rioters mobbing all about. Gee, I wonder how he could be shot? This scenario should have indicated to the Italian, that he maybe should take himself to a safer location ... or safer occupation for that matter.

[nurofiend]

so tough s**t.. is that it?

Edited July 24, 2012 by nurofiend

[waza]

Heres some more sources.................

A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/08/17/who-killed-italian-photographer-fabio-polenghi/

The pics are cited here..............

This might explain the missing bullet............

Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Polenghi sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.........

"My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet," said Cox, adding that he didn't hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Polenghi. http://www.cpj.org/killed/2010/fabio-polenghi.php

The redshirts were targeting pro-government media and journalists...........

Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters. http://en.rsf.org/a-second-journalist-killed-in-19-05-2010,37509.html

[Reasonableman]

so tough s**t.. is that it?

The suggestion is that his behavior, putting himself in danger, was a contributory factor to his being shot. Not that he deserved to be shot. No-one has suggested that, afaik. As usual, your logic is grasshopperlike, flitting emotionally from premise to prejudiced conclusion, or more correctly, from prejudiced conclusion to premise. The investigation will, it is fervently hoped, determine objectively what happened.

[maidu]

If you call in the Army, you're going to get people trained in killing. Even so, they seemed restrained in their operation, compared to what armies are capable of doing in dire situations.

The Reds were commandeering downtown Bkk for 8 weeks, with petrol soaked tire barricades with bamboo spikes everywhere. They were massively disrupting peoples' lives in that region. They stormed a hospital. They marched, armed, to another section of town to commandeer a petrol station. Except for one incident early on, Abhisit was sheepish in his response. He finally called in the Army, after heeding the call of many for weeks prior, to do so. It was needed. The Red Shirts were getting increasingly threatening. The reporter knew it was a dangerous situation and he chose to get closely involved. Sad that he got killed.

[nurofiend]

so tough s**t.. is that it?

The suggestion is that his behavior, putting himself in danger, was a contributory factor to his being shot. Not that he deserved to be shot. No-one has suggested that, afaik. As usual, your logic is grasshopperlike, flitting emotionally from premise to prejudiced conclusion, or more correctly, from prejudiced conclusion to premise. The investigation will, it is fervently hoped, determine objectively what happened.

the only person who suggested that he deserved to be shot is you.

but as usual, your logic is grasshopperlike, flitting emotionally from premise to prejudiced conclusion, or more correctly, from prejudiced conclusion to premise..............

me saying tough s**t? was to highlight the posters style of "duh" and "gee" "This scenario should have indicated to the Italian, that he maybe should take himself to a safer location ... or safer occupation for that matter."

do you not see how that comes across as sounding like???

i don't suggest that the poster is saying he deserved it but it comes across sounding like he is saying it was an act of ignorance of the dangers to stay there to do exactly what his job was...

which makes hindsight a great thing doesn't it... but do you think any journalists that stayed around to get footage of all these important scenes were ignorant of the dangers to do so, do you think they should all have just have said duh, gee, maybe i should take myself to a safer location ... or safer occupation for that matter?

as usual, your logic is grasshopperlike etc etc........

[Reasonableman]

No, you rushed straight to your prejudiced conclusion, the same one that motivates most of your posts, Grasshopper

[nurofiend]

and we have the 'classic' cop out to complete reasonablemans quality contribution to the thread

[Reasonableman]

and we have the 'classic' cop out to complete reasonablemans quality contribution to the thread

so tough s**t.. is that it? Outstanding.

[PETERTHEEATER]

I'm not a gun expert but were there guns being used that day that are rated as low velocity guns? Which side had them? Could a low velocity gun penetrate the heart?

Yes.

[rubl]

The quote is from me. I guess this means that with every question you ask, I will be permitted to ask "why do you ask" and 'what has it got to do with my point'?

We're in for some very interesting discussion I fear

you can do whatever makes you happy rubl, but i can easily answer what my question had to with your point because my question was about your point, his wasn't and had nothing to do with what i was asking you about.

mine was a post with questions about your point that you chose not to answer and ignore but now you chime in with this great contribution.

you're just being purposefully difficult, so i guess your fear is correct but you can lay the blame for that one on yourself.

Thousand excuses, my dear fiend. As you probably noticed this topic saw a sudden influx of posts and replies, yours got snowed under I'm afraid. By the time I saw it, you had already replied on a reply to your reply to my post. Imagine!

Well, since you quoted my

"If the armed elements act like guerillias appear, shot/kill, disappear amongst the other, unarmed elements in the group, it's difficult to convince others that "we didn't know", "we're peaceful"

I think you already have the answer why it's difficult to convince people that some protesters were really, really peaceful. Unless you want me to point out that those 'really, really peacefullers' were maybe blind for not having seen the militants hopping around in their midst, deaf for not hearing the UDD leader shoutcasts, dumb for not understanding assuming they heard, or just gullable to be used as cannon fodder. K. Jatuporn in Ghandi Tshirt saying "we'll fight to the last drop of our blood". A picture from Thai comic booklets comes to mind, it shows someone thinking "black foot!".

Anyway, why did you ask?

EDIT rephrased the black foot

Edited July 25, 2012 by rubl

[Ferangled]

This thread has descended into a complete mockery of bickering and deliberate belligerence. What a surprise. I particular like the petty jibes and name calling that posters believe somehow reinforces what they are saying when in reality it makes them appear childish and irrelevant.

"No, you rushed straight to your prejudiced conclusion, the same one that motivates most of your posts, Grasshopper "

"Read Posts # 101 and # 115 , Mr. Baiter."

"Anyway, it's redundant. The photos are gone. "

One could be forgiven for thinking this was actually an argument in a nursery school not a forum for comment on news, specifically the shooting of a photographer. A shameful display.

To some it's fairly obvious what took place, photographic evidence coupled with witness statements leave little doubt in the minds of those with any sense of impartiality. It's evident that many here would doubt a signed confession from those responsible along with a complete video of the events that took place. There is clearly enough evidence pointing to what happened but the knee jerk refusal of some to accept anything that goes against what they would like to believe happened is a worrying indication of how people are prepared to ignore better judgement and reason in favour of pandering to their ego.

It's pretty obvious that one group here was actively seeking media attention for their cause, while another was doing everything possible to play down the situation and control any press releases. Consider that, the motivations at play, the weight of photographic evidence and witness statements available... and please try to keep the playground out of the News forum, if you really have to call people names just send them a PM, don't make a tw@t of yourself on a public forum and lower the tone for what's quite an emotional topic for those more directly involved than others.

[tlansford]

Heres some more sources.................

A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. http://asiapacific.a...fabio-polenghi/

The pics are cited here..............

This might explain the missing bullet............

Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Polenghi sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him.........

"My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet," said Cox, adding that he didn't hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Polenghi. http://www.cpj.org/k...io-polenghi.php

The redshirts were targeting pro-government media and journalists...........

Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters. http://en.rsf.org/a-...2010,37509.html

This post reminds me of your fictional urban dictionary definitions...

Here is the rest of the quote that you left out, replacing it instead with "The redshirts were targeting pro-government media and journalists..........."

About 15 minutes later, Cox said, sensing a lull in the shooting, he moved away from a barricade controlled by the UDD and into a nearly empty road to investigate a commotion among protesters approximately 30 to 40 meters away. Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury. When he turned to look back in the direction of the troops, he saw Polenghi sprawled on the ground about two or three meters behind him. Polenghi was wearing a blue helmet with the word "Press" written across the front and back, and a green armband indicating that he was a working journalist.

"My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet," said Cox, adding that he didn't hear the gunshot or shots that hit him or Polenghi. "I don't know who shot me or Fabio, but if the military was trying to shoot red shirts, there was no one around us. ... Soldiers were firing at anything or anybody."

The Nation and the BKK Post sent their reporters home fearing for their safety, and I have seen if often reported that the red shirts were not friendly to any Thai journalists. I have never read any reports of the red shirts attacking foreign journalists, ... which is what you apparently would like to imply here.

It was very sad that journalists were targeted - whether purposefully or due to negligence - and it doesn't matter who they were reporting for or who was targeting them - that should never have happened.

BTW, from your second link, your selective quoting missed this one.

We are outraged to see the media being repeatedly targeted by both the army and demonstrators. We urge the Thai government to restore order without delay and to lift the media censorship.”

Please don't choke on your patongo...

[rubl]

The Nation and the BKK Post sent their reporters home fearing for their safety, and I have seen if often reported that the red shirts were not friendly to any Thai journalists. I have never read any reports of the red shirts attacking foreign journalists, ... which is what you apparently would like to imply here.

It was very sad that journalists were targeted - whether purposefully or due to negligence - and it doesn't matter who they were reporting for or who was targeting them - that should never have happened.

BTW, from your second link, your selective quoting missed this one.

We are outraged to see the media being repeatedly targeted by both the army and demonstrators. We urge the Thai government to restore order without delay and to lift the media censorship.”

Please don't choke on your patongo...

Ton, you write "I have never read any reports of the red shirts attacking foreign journalists" and quote "media being repeatedly targeted by both the army and demonstrators".

Do you read yourself what you post here, or do you think the quote ONLY refers to Thai media people (like in the Channel3 torching and BP being evacuated) and that makes it more acceptable? Mind you a few foreign reporters felt intimidated walking through the red camp and certainly when interviewing 'guards'. vanderGrift being hit by grenades was just collateral damage of course, he shouldn't have wandered along with the army that day What was he thinking?