Thai Army Officer Insists To Court Japanese Reporter Killed By 'Blackshirts'

[oceanview]

* Moderator-deleted post removed *

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

Very valid points

[oceanview]

Jayboy, I have absolutely no desire to give any credence to any self proclaimed expert (acknowledged by whom?), who at every opportunity does nothing more than support the aims and objectives of an organization that is fashioned on communism and Cambodian style of leadership. It is little wonder you jump in, in moral support, but I am not falling for it and am not sucked in by it. I could go back through a dozen threads on here and it's the same old story. If you want to support a group whose leadership wish to destroy the fabric of this country then don't expect a smooth ride. Communists may desire everyone to obey and be submissive, but not so here.

It's not a question

Nice commercial, but the topic is not NN but the inquest into the japanese reporter's death.

good one

[GentlemanJim]

Nick Nostitz is not a "self proclaimed expert" but a courageous, honest and widely acclaimed photojournalist whose written and visual recoprd of the events of 2010 will be studied for many decades to come.

Part of studying, i'm sure you agree, is to question and to cross-examining records... and also to question and cross-examine sources. Well respected honest professional journalists i'm sure welcome that and have nothing to fear from it.

Earlier in this thread, i questioned Nick on what is required these days to call yourself a professional journalist. He responded by saying that having studied and qualified in the field is not necessarily a requirement. I think my definition is somewhat different from his, and perhaps your too, but that's ok because although we may differ on what we think is a requirement of being a professional journalist, i think we all agree that Nick writes with authority and is very well informed; something i have said many times.

I also questioned him on the business of what constitutes "support". Nick has openly admitted having his sympathies quite firmly placed with the red shirt movement more than any other political movement in Thailand. Fair enough. For me though, the line between sympathizing and supporting is quite a thin and blurry one.

That is all that was discussed. I don't think the way that i questioned him on these matters was disrespectful, and i appreciated his responses, if not agreeing with them.

You however concluded from our polite and cordial exchange that i had been totally eviscerated and humiliated. It's a bizarre conclusion to have made, and one that i can only assume borne out of some sort of an overly-sensitive, protective desire to discourage any sort of open and challenging debate, where Nick is concerned.

I happen to think that Nick is perfectly capable of defending himself and giving his own explanations, and you jumping in to protect him, and attacking those who dare question him, is doing neither him nor yourself any favours. Wind the neck back in a few clicks and relax is my advice.

NN can certainly speak for himself.I only intervened to ensure that the "self appointed expert" insult didn't pass unchallenged.My hunch is that he is too modest to boast of the undoubted high regard in which he is held by the academic and journalism communities, and beyond.

In the exchange to which you refer I recall only your absurd suggestion about how all Thais could get along if only Thaksin was out of the picture by rallying around the flag, a saccharine concept that even Pollyanna would find absurd.

No. You intervened BEFORE the 'self appointed expert' remark have a re-read eh. Please point me to an academic community that waxes lyrical, or indeed a Journalistic community.

Here is an example of a blog that creates completely the wrong impression with the people who read it from thousands of miles away, leaving them to arrive at a completely different conclusion to reality. In this blogg, your hero is attached to a small group of reds behind a tiny barracade (well the reds are behind the barricade). Note the first photo and the joke of 'see this is all we are armed with, and then it is as if the entire Thai army is descending on this small group armed only with one joker with a slingshot between them (the fact that reds were firing metal nuts and bolts from slingshots, a head shot would kill you - 'David and Goliath refers). Nowhere is it mentioning the reds with grenades, grenade launchers, M16's and a armoury of small arms weapons. Firing rockets at the troops from improvised tubes. This is not balanced journalism, it has been written for a specific purpose, to generate sympathy for a band of lawless, city destroying thugs.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

What would the army get from targeting a journalist like the japanese man.......grief, and trouble for a long time to come and absolutely nothing else.

What would the reds get from having one of their mercs target and kill a Journo?................Lots!

[nicknostitz]

No. You intervened BEFORE the 'self appointed expert' remark have a re-read eh. Please point me to an academic community that waxes lyrical, or indeed a Journalistic community.

Here is an example of a blog that creates completely the wrong impression with the people who read it from thousands of miles away, leaving them to arrive at a completely different conclusion to reality. In this blogg, your hero is attached to a small group of reds behind a tiny barracade (well the reds are behind the barricade). Note the first photo and the joke of 'see this is all we are armed with, and then it is as if the entire Thai army is descending on this small group armed only with one joker with a slingshot between them (the fact that reds were firing metal nuts and bolts from slingshots, a head shot would kill you - 'David and Goliath refers). Nowhere is it mentioning the reds with grenades, grenade launchers, M16's and a armoury of small arms weapons. Firing rockets at the troops from improvised tubes. This is not balanced journalism, it has been written for a specific purpose, to generate sympathy for a band of lawless, city destroying thugs.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

What would the army get from targeting a journalist like the japanese man.......grief, and trouble for a long time to come and absolutely nothing else.

What would the reds get from having one of their mercs target and kill a Journo?................Lots!

Given your diatribe about my article i have to step in briefly.

1) This was a description, or witness account of one incident, not an analyses of the overall situation. This incident unfolded as i described. There are more than a few videos of this incident which have shown the scene from other positions, and do not contradict anything i wrote.

2) if these protesters behind the barricade would have fired guns or grenades at the soldiers, i would have written so. But they didn't. if you scroll down to the comment section, though, you will see a comment of mine in which i stated that i have seen armed militants. I wrote in the story though:

The gunfire continued for a long time. In the distance, from the direction of the stage area we heard a few M79 explosions. We did not hear any firing from the direction of Samliem Din Daeng.

So yes, i did mention M79 grenades in this article.

3) While you may find the article worthless, the judge of the court inquest did find it rather important, at least enough to highlight in his explanation for the judgement.

What do you think i care more about - the opinion of an anonymous person on the net who has slight difficulties to live up to the manners his chosen handle would suggest - or the one of a judge at court?

Anyhow - i would really like to get out of this debate now. So please, can you continue with the thread topic, and not make *me* the thread topic.

Please?

Edited June 20, 2013 by nicknostitz

[GentlemanJim]

No. You intervened BEFORE the 'self appointed expert' remark have a re-read eh. Please point me to an academic community that waxes lyrical, or indeed a Journalistic community.

Here is an example of a blog that creates completely the wrong impression with the people who read it from thousands of miles away, leaving them to arrive at a completely different conclusion to reality. In this blogg, your hero is attached to a small group of reds behind a tiny barracade (well the reds are behind the barricade). Note the first photo and the joke of 'see this is all we are armed with, and then it is as if the entire Thai army is descending on this small group armed only with one joker with a slingshot between them (the fact that reds were firing metal nuts and bolts from slingshots, a head shot would kill you - 'David and Goliath refers). Nowhere is it mentioning the reds with grenades, grenade launchers, M16's and a armoury of small arms weapons. Firing rockets at the troops from improvised tubes. This is not balanced journalism, it has been written for a specific purpose, to generate sympathy for a band of lawless, city destroying thugs.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

What would the army get from targeting a journalist like the japanese man.......grief, and trouble for a long time to come and absolutely nothing else.

What would the reds get from having one of their mercs target and kill a Journo?................Lots!

Given your diatribe about my article i have to step in briefly.

1) This was a description, or witness account of one incident, not an analyses of the overall situation. This incident unfolded as i described. There are more than a few videos of this incident which have shown the scene from other positions, and do not contradict anything i wrote.

2) if these protesters behind the barricade would have fired guns or grenades at the soldiers, i would have written so. But they didn't. if you scroll down to the comment section, though, you will see a comment of mine in which i stated that i have seen armed militants. I wrote in the story though:

The gunfire continued for a long time. In the distance, from the direction of the stage area we heard a few M79 explosions. We did not hear any firing from the direction of Samliem Din Daeng.

So yes, i did mention M79 grenades in this article.

3) While you may find the article worthless, the judge of the court inquest did find it rather important, at least enough to highlight in his explanation for the judgement.

What do you think i care more about - the opinion of an anonymous person on the net who has slight difficulties to live up to the manners his chosen handle would suggest - or the one of a judge at court?

Anyhow - i would really like to get out of this debate now. So please, can you continue with the thread topic, and not make *me* the thread topic.

Please?

Damn, you just forgot to mention those grenades were being fired by the reds.

This is nothing to do with living up to the manners my chosen handle would suggest. You say you write this stuff professionally then live with it, you need to take responsibility for what you write. Just why is it bad manners to state that I do not think you are objective and I do think your work is massively biased to the reds? Perhaps you ought to consider what your 'readership' thinks, rather than a Judge who may read what he wants to see. The reason you end up in these fights on almost every thread is you insist on portraying yourself as neutral and you are not Nick. Stop doing it. You can fool people 5 thousand miles away but not people that live here.

[nicknostitz]

dam_n, you just forgot to mention those grenades were being fired by the reds.

This is nothing to do with living up to the manners my chosen handle would suggest. You say you write this stuff professionally then live with it, you need to take responsibility for what you write. Just why is it bad manners to state that I do not think you are objective and I do think your work is massively biased to the reds? Perhaps you ought to consider what your 'readership' thinks, rather than a Judge who may read what he wants to see. The reason you end up in these fights on almost every thread is you insist on portraying yourself as neutral and you are not Nick. Stop doing it. You can fool people 5 thousand miles away but not people that live here.

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

As you can see from the comment section, you see that a lot of my readers appreciated the article. This article has been quoted in many academic studies as well.

You don't appreciate it - so what? Others do.

If it would be up to you i should have simply sat at the 11th infantry regiment press conferences, and scribbled down word by word what the government reps have stated and then communicated that unaltered.

Sorry, won't happen.

Can we now finish this? Please?

[rubl]

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

To be fair Nick, by the 16th of May when you wrote the article quoted almost everyone had the distinct impression that grenades dropped on non-red-shirts only. Army, multi-colour shirts, the odd BTS station and other offensive buildings, even a few police chaps. Pure chance of course.

BTW at least all bullets are accounted for as being Army fired, I hope? This brings us back to the OP as well.

Edited June 20, 2013 by rubl

[bigbamboo]

From where I was sitting, albeit in front of the TV, I got the distinct impression that the blackshirts were allied with the redshirts, and have been at a loss as to why Abhisit keeps getting charged with murder when the antogonists were clearly reddish coloured.

The moral of the story i think is if you are going to organise a violent and heavily armed insurrection of a capital city in an attempt to topple a government, get the violent members of your group to throw on a different colour shirt, that way you can later throw a cunning veil of mystery over who these people were, and thereby protect the group as a whole, and most importantly of course, its leaders.

I remember there was a cynical line of thought that suggested the more red shirt 'martyrs' the better as that would lead to a greater outpouring of support being generated home and abroad for the anti-government movement.

[khunken]

From where I was sitting, albeit in front of the TV, I got the distinct impression that the blackshirts were allied with the redshirts, and have been at a loss as to why Abhisit keeps getting charged with murder when the antogonists were clearly reddish coloured.

The moral of the story i think is if you are going to organise a violent and heavily armed insurrection of a capital city in an attempt to topple a government, get the violent members of your group to throw on a different colour shirt, that way you can later throw a cunning veil of mystery over who these people were, and thereby protect the group as a whole, and most importantly of course, its leaders.

I remember there was a cynical line of thought that suggested the more red shirt 'martyrs' the better as that would lead to a greater outpouring of support being generated home and abroad for the anti-government movement.

Yes and that's what happened with the BBC (World). Standard news bulletins on the hour had a report, usually biased from Mr Leithead or Ms Harvey followed by pictures of tanks to complete the 'news' from Bangkok.

[lee b]

Wow were going through the rainbow

[billd766]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

So you personally have seen or are in possession of a written order from Suthep stating that the army units were under a shoot to kill order.

A simple yes or no answer is what is required.

If your answer is yes then it should be simple to convict Suthep.

If your answer is no then you must be telling lies as you avow that all the evidence points to Suthep.

Any other answer is bulls***.

Has any order been found or produced as evidence, yes or no once again?

[khunken]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

So you personally have seen or are in possession of a written order from Suthep stating that the army units were under a shoot to kill order.

A simple yes or no answer is what is required.

If your answer is yes then it should be simple to convict Suthep.

If your answer is no then you must be telling lies as you avow that all the evidence points to Suthep.

Any other answer is bulls***.

Has any order been found or produced as evidence, yes or no once again?

You won't get an answer - he's a troll.

[GentlemanJim]

dam_n, you just forgot to mention those grenades were being fired by the reds.

This is nothing to do with living up to the manners my chosen handle would suggest. You say you write this stuff professionally then live with it, you need to take responsibility for what you write. Just why is it bad manners to state that I do not think you are objective and I do think your work is massively biased to the reds? Perhaps you ought to consider what your 'readership' thinks, rather than a Judge who may read what he wants to see. The reason you end up in these fights on almost every thread is you insist on portraying yourself as neutral and you are not Nick. Stop doing it. You can fool people 5 thousand miles away but not people that live here.

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

As you can see from the comment section, you see that a lot of my readers appreciated the article. This article has been quoted in many academic studies as well.

You don't appreciate it - so what? Others do.

If it would be up to you i should have simply sat at the 11th infantry regiment press conferences, and scribbled down word by word what the government reps have stated and then communicated that unaltered.

Sorry, won't happen.

Can we now finish this? Please?

What Academic studies?

Correct, I don't appreciate it, people either like it or they don't. Does that give you the excuse to call those that dislike it bad mannered.

I hope everyone here does read your blogg. I can guess who will appreciate it, but just look at the comments you stirred up with that one article from people with no clue. They make comments such as how the "b*****d Government are attacking people who only have sling shots. They tell us on the news the reds are armed but they are not". What you do is irresponsible and you KNOW it is not balanced. You painted a different picture to what was actually happening and you never communicated the holistic situation.

Show me one blogg of yours that tells of the Reds invading hospitals, of the red leaders telling the reds to kill soldiers and bring fuel to burn down bangkok, or maybe 10 and 11 year olds giving blood for that disgusting red blood throwing event. Maybe the weapons that were on display by the red stage. Or as you seem to reckon you get in on all the action, just one blogg with pictures of reds and blacks down at Saleh Deng firing weapons and RPG's, or you must have done one of the massive tyre and sharpened bamboo stick barricades in the center of a city. If non of that how about something just as significant as to how dreadful the reds were when the Government eventually conceded to all their demands, they changed their minds and went back to the rampage.

Show me those bloggs Nick to show us all you were doing a balanced job.

Is it any wonder when the Japanese Journalist is killed many people are convinced it was definitely the army. Please answer the question, what would the army have to gain by killing any journalist? What would the red leadership gain by having a shot Journalist?

Edited June 20, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[toybits]

I was there, and I know I saw something. . . But some guy did a flashy thingy on me... and now, I can't remember what I saw....

Edited June 20, 2013 by toybits

[rixalex]

Nick Nostitz is not a "self proclaimed expert" but a courageous, honest and widely acclaimed photojournalist whose written and visual recoprd of the events of 2010 will be studied for many decades to come.

Part of studying, i'm sure you agree, is to question and to cross-examining records... and also to question and cross-examine sources. Well respected honest professional journalists i'm sure welcome that and have nothing to fear from it.

Earlier in this thread, i questioned Nick on what is required these days to call yourself a professional journalist. He responded by saying that having studied and qualified in the field is not necessarily a requirement. I think my definition is somewhat different from his, and perhaps your too, but that's ok because although we may differ on what we think is a requirement of being a professional journalist, i think we all agree that Nick writes with authority and is very well informed; something i have said many times.

I also questioned him on the business of what constitutes "support". Nick has openly admitted having his sympathies quite firmly placed with the red shirt movement more than any other political movement in Thailand. Fair enough. For me though, the line between sympathizing and supporting is quite a thin and blurry one.

That is all that was discussed. I don't think the way that i questioned him on these matters was disrespectful, and i appreciated his responses, if not agreeing with them.

You however concluded from our polite and cordial exchange that i had been totally eviscerated and humiliated. It's a bizarre conclusion to have made, and one that i can only assume borne out of some sort of an overly-sensitive, protective desire to discourage any sort of open and challenging debate, where Nick is concerned.

I happen to think that Nick is perfectly capable of defending himself and giving his own explanations, and you jumping in to protect him, and attacking those who dare question him, is doing neither him nor yourself any favours. Wind the neck back in a few clicks and relax is my advice.

In the exchange to which you refer I recall only your absurd suggestion about how all Thais could get along if only Thaksin was out of the picture by rallying around the flag, a saccharine concept that even Pollyanna would find absurd.

Well then add selective memory to your long list of talents.

[billd766]

Yes and the men in black were also army officers so it is still the army. However all evidence point directly to the army units that were under kill to shoot orders fro, Suthep. It will be as with the Ramkhamhaeng bombing. When they catch someone they still bullshit their way out of it.

So you personally have seen or are in possession of a written order from Suthep stating that the army units were under a shoot to kill order.

A simple yes or no answer is what is required.

If your answer is yes then it should be simple to convict Suthep.

If your answer is no then you must be telling lies as you avow that all the evidence points to Suthep.

Any other answer is bulls***.

Has any order been found or produced as evidence, yes or no once again?

You won't get an answer - he's a troll.

I know but it just got up my nose.

I would have described him as a PITA.

[nicknostitz]

What Academic studies?

Correct, I don't appreciate it, people either like it or they don't. Does that give you the excuse to call those that dislike it bad mannered.

I hope everyone here does read your blogg. I can guess who will appreciate it, but just look at the comments you stirred up with that one article from people with no clue. They make comments such as how the "b*****d Government are attacking people who only have sling shots. They tell us on the news the reds are armed but they are not". What you do is irresponsible and you KNOW it is not balanced. You painted a different picture to what was actually happening and you never communicated the holistic situation.

Show me one blogg of yours that tells of the Reds invading hospitals, of the red leaders telling the reds to kill soldiers and bring fuel to burn down bangkok, or maybe 10 and 11 year olds giving blood for that disgusting red blood throwing event. Maybe the weapons that were on display by the red stage. Or as you seem to reckon you get in on all the action, just one blogg with pictures of reds and blacks down at Saleh Deng firing weapons and RPG's, or you must have done one of the massive tyre and sharpened bamboo stick barricades in the center of a city. If non of that how about something just as significant as to how dreadful the reds were when the Government eventually conceded to all their demands, they changed their minds and went back to the rampage.

Show me those bloggs Nick to show us all you were doing a balanced job.

Is it any wonder when the Japanese Journalist is killed many people are convinced it was definitely the army. Please answer the question, what would the army have to gain by killing any journalist? What would the red leadership gain by having a shot Journalist?

I have done over the years dozens of blog articles on the developing conflict, since i began writing in public on this in mid 2008. Just google them. I do them for free, and don't make a cent out of them, and when i have time to do them. I began that as i got sick and tired of reading the rubbish in the two English language papers on incidents i have been in and saw them often completely differently.

My first article was when after a PAD press conference shortly after the Udon Lovers attacked the Yellow Shirts in Udon, and the media simply repeated the statements of the PAD leaders who assured that they are absolutely peaceful, but failed to report that in the PAD area around government house PAD protesters were beginning to arm themselves quite openly with sharpened sticks and clubs with nails. I photographed that, and made my first blog article on New Mandala.

During 2010 there were many incidents i did not write in blog articles about. I simply did not have the time, i worked for several different media organizations as photographer, consultant, fixer, etc (as i also have to make a living, which is difficult enough nowadays), and i had to be on the ground as much as possible.

When things happened, i had on average only three to four hours sleep at most, and at times even less. There is only that much i can do, i am not a machine.

I have published two books on the conflict, in which i am a lot more detailed on what took place during the period these books cover. You can buy them in bookstores here. Both of these books have gotten very good reviews in relevant academic journals.

It also may interest you that i was the first photographer that has photographed an armed Red Shirt - a man holding a shotgun, back in 2008, and have published that picture in my first book on the conflict.

My articles and books have been quoted by Baker, McCargo, and many others. Students from from Universities regularly contact me, and often use my work.

I have been researching since three years on my book on what took place in 2010. No grant or outside funding, all from my own pocket. I will come out with that book when i feel that my research is as complete as i can manage to, and not earlier.

But before i am accused of trying to put a sly advertisement in here - no i don't. You asked me what i can show, and i answered.

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

Edited June 20, 2013 by nicknostitz

[rixalex]

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts.

Why don't you think the red shirts stood to gain by the death of an international journalist?

The red shirts were trying to put pressure on the government to the point where the government would have to stand down, or be made to stand down. One way of helping achieve that goal would be to create an outcry on the international stage about Thai armed forces cruelly killing innocent individuals, including journalists, and for the government's actions to be condemned by other nations.

Please be clear. I am not accusing the red shirts of having killed him. I am just baffled as to why you would think they would not / did not gain by his death.

[GentlemanJim]

I have done over the years dozens of blog articles on the developing conflict, since i began writing in public on this in mid 2008. Just google them. I do them for free, and don't make a cent out of them, and when i have time to do them. I began that as i got sick and tired of reading the rubbish in the two English language papers on incidents i have been in and saw them often completely differently.

My first article was when after a PAD press conference shortly after the Udon Lovers attacked the Yellow Shirts in Udon, and the media simply repeated the statements of the PAD leaders who assured that they are absolutely peaceful, but failed to report that in the PAD area around government house PAD protesters were beginning to arm themselves quite openly with sharpened sticks and clubs with nails. I photographed that, and made my first blog article on New Mandala.

During 2010 there were many incidents i did not write in blog articles about on many things that happened. I simply did not have the time, i worked for several different media organizations as photographer, consultant, fixer, etc (as i also have to make a living, which is difficult enough nowadays), and i had to be on the ground as much as possible.

When things happened, i had on average only three to four hours sleep at most, and at times even less. There is only that much i can do, i am not a machine.

I have published two books on the conflict, in which i am a lot more detailed on what took place during the period these books cover. You can buy them in bookstores here. Both of these books have gotten very good reviews in relevant academic journals.

It also may interest you that i was the first photographer that has photographed an armed Red Shirt - a man holding a shotgun, back in 2008, and have published that picture in my first book on the conflict.

My articles and books have been quoted by Baker, McCargo, and many others. Students from from Universities regularly contact me, and often use my work.

I have been researching since three years on my book on what took place in 2010. No grant or outside funding, all from my own pocket. I will come out with that book when i feel that my research is as complete as i can manage to, and not earlier.

But before i am accused of trying to put a sly advertisement in here - no i don't. You asked me what i can show, and i answered.

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

So your first article on the PAD was about how it was definitely not a peaceful protest and you got photo's of the yellows with sharpened sticks and clubs with nails, but when it came to the reds you were just too busy to get any of that stuff. Was the red protest peaceful? No, but you didn't report that. You didn't report all those things I mentioned in my previous post that would have got all of those 'haven't got a clue apart from anything Nick writes' followers on your blogg site thinking, 'blimey, there is more to this than meets the eyes'. An impartial Journo would have spent all day and night trying to get the blackshirts and armed militia on film. But you see, the masses will only see what they are fed, a fact that is crystal clear from the comments by the people on your blogg.

I appreciate you have to make a living, but too busy to report the balanced truth? I guess it was whatever the people that paid your bills wanted eh.

As for Hiro, to even suggest that PTP and the reds did not benefit from his death is a blatant side step. If as an intelligent educated person you are unable to fathom that one out then it is very disappointing.

Earlier you said of the M79's you reported on your blogg

The gunfire continued for a long time. In the distance, from the direction of the stage area we heard a few M79 explosions. We did not hear any firing from the direction of Samliem Din Daeng.

when I pointed out you omitted to say these were being used by reds, you said

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

Ok point taken then about how did you know it was reds, but then how did you know it was M79's? You were not there. In a city you would not know an M79 from an IED or any other small explosive device. The buildings alter any characteristic sound of an explosion. It would be like hearing gunshot fire and saying it was a Glock or a Magnum. Why report them as an M79 when you were nowhere near?

Finally on Hiro you say 'accidental killing' but say it was likely to be from bullets fired by retreating panicking soldiers. Why not a bullet from the people the soldiers were retreating from. surely it could have been either. I think for a red sniper to pick out a journo at such a time was definitely scoring a strike.

Accidental killing who knows as there is nowhere near enough reliable evidence, but it definitely was not murder on the part of Abihsit was it.

Edited June 20, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[nicknostitz]

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts.

Why don't you think the red shirts stood to gain by the death of an international journalist?

The red shirts were trying to put pressure on the government to the point where the government would have to stand down, or be made to stand down. One way of helping achieve that goal would be to create an outcry on the international stage about Thai armed forces cruelly killing innocent individuals, including journalists, and for the government's actions to be condemned by other nations.

Please be clear. I am not accusing the red shirts of having killed him. I am just baffled as to why you would think they would not / did not gain by his death.

Please don't forget that it was not the Red Shirts who chose that battle ground at Pan Fa, but the military which attacked that day.

This hypotheses simply does not make any sense.

There were so many journalists around the two incidents at Khok Wua and Dinso. Don't you think that if the Red Shirt armed militants would have had a plan to kill a journalist they would not have done so already at Khok Wua? They could have easily done so as several colleagues of mine were very exposed there. Why wait until the end, when it is not even clear what the military will do after the grenade blasts?

Why stop at Hiro? In May the armed militants would have had ample opportunity to kill several journalists. On one occasion they could have easily killed me. When i met them briefly they only asked my not to take any pictures. I was the only journalist, and the only farang, there. I have friends who saw them at other places where the militants could have easily killed them - they were alone, and it was dark. But they didn't. The only common thing with my experience was that they asked not to photograph them.

The only journalist who was injured by the armed militants was Chandler, and that was because he was with a group of soldiers, which were the target of those armed militants.

On the other hand, many journalists were shot right in front of us - by fire from the soldiers, and some of them even on video, such as Nelson rand on the other side of the road from me and many other journos at Lumphini police station. Or Chaiwat, the Nation photographer - where a video clearly shows a bullet hitting his leg at a position where the bullet could only have come from the soldiers as he was standing with a wall in his back, and fronting only the soldiers about 80 meters away, during the same incident my 'killing zone' story describes.

[rubl]

...

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

The answer depends on who did the actual killing. If it was the army it would be 'colleteral damage'. If by a MiB or red-shirt it would be a criminal offence close to a terrorist activity.

Your believe ("i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired") doesn't really matter. The court is looking for the truth only.

[nicknostitz]

I have done over the years dozens of blog articles on the developing conflict, since i began writing in public on this in mid 2008. Just google them. I do them for free, and don't make a cent out of them, and when i have time to do them. I began that as i got sick and tired of reading the rubbish in the two English language papers on incidents i have been in and saw them often completely differently.

My first article was when after a PAD press conference shortly after the Udon Lovers attacked the Yellow Shirts in Udon, and the media simply repeated the statements of the PAD leaders who assured that they are absolutely peaceful, but failed to report that in the PAD area around government house PAD protesters were beginning to arm themselves quite openly with sharpened sticks and clubs with nails. I photographed that, and made my first blog article on New Mandala.

During 2010 there were many incidents i did not write in blog articles about on many things that happened. I simply did not have the time, i worked for several different media organizations as photographer, consultant, fixer, etc (as i also have to make a living, which is difficult enough nowadays), and i had to be on the ground as much as possible.

When things happened, i had on average only three to four hours sleep at most, and at times even less. There is only that much i can do, i am not a machine.

I have published two books on the conflict, in which i am a lot more detailed on what took place during the period these books cover. You can buy them in bookstores here. Both of these books have gotten very good reviews in relevant academic journals.

It also may interest you that i was the first photographer that has photographed an armed Red Shirt - a man holding a shotgun, back in 2008, and have published that picture in my first book on the conflict.

My articles and books have been quoted by Baker, McCargo, and many others. Students from from Universities regularly contact me, and often use my work.

I have been researching since three years on my book on what took place in 2010. No grant or outside funding, all from my own pocket. I will come out with that book when i feel that my research is as complete as i can manage to, and not earlier.

But before i am accused of trying to put a sly advertisement in here - no i don't. You asked me what i can show, and i answered.

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

So your first article on the PAD was about how it was definitely not a peaceful protest and you got photo's of the yellows with sharpened sticks and clubs with nails, but when it came to the reds you were just too busy to get any of that stuff. Was the red protest peaceful? No, but you didn't report that. You didn't report all those things I mentioned in my previous post that would have got all of those 'haven't got a clue apart from anything Nick writes' followers on your blogg site thinking, 'blimey, there is more to this than meets the eyes'. An impartial Journo would have spent all day and night trying to get the blackshirts and armed militia on film. But you see, the masses will only see what they are fed, a fact that is crystal clear from the comments by the people on your blogg.

I appreciate you have to make a living, but too busy to report the balanced truth? I guess it was whatever the people that paid your bills wanted eh.

As for Hiro, to even suggest that PTP and the reds did not benefit from his death is a blatant side step. If as an intelligent educated person you are unable to fathom that one out then it is very disappointing.

Earlier you said of the M79's you reported on your blogg

The gunfire continued for a long time. In the distance, from the direction of the stage area we heard a few M79 explosions. We did not hear any firing from the direction of Samliem Din Daeng.

when I pointed out you omitted to say these were being used by reds, you said

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

Ok point taken then about how did you know it was reds, but then how did you know it was M79's? You were not there. In a city you would not know an M79 from an IED or any other small explosive device. The buildings alter any characteristic sound of an explosion. It would be like hearing gunshot fire and saying it was a Glock or a Magnum. Why report them as an M79 when you were nowhere near?

Finally on Hiro you say 'accidental killing' but say it was likely to be from bullets fired by retreating panicking soldiers. Why not a bullet from the people the soldiers were retreating from. surely it could have been either. I think for a red sniper to pick out a journo at such a time was definitely scoring a strike.

Accidental killing who knows as there is nowhere near enough reliable evidence, but it definitely was not murder on the part of Abihsit was it.

Sorry, but i have written very early on that the Red Shirts had as much potential for violence as the PAD. I have published photos of that already in my early blogs, and also in my books, and described those scenes.

Read my work before you judge it, please.

I assumed that it was an M79 explosion. Over the years i got quite familiar with the sound, and this was the most common explosive device with that sound profile over the years here in Bangkok. And actually, i wasn't wrong, a colleague of mine was there, and he told me after the dispersal that it was an M79 grenade fired by armed militants, when we compared experiences.

As to the circumstances of Hiro's death - i have already posted that i spoke with several eyewitness. I assume that they will not testify at court, but i am not sure. I cannot reveal their identities as there is a rule in journalism regarding protection of sources. I am sorry, but this is an iron rule we simply cannot break.

While i would not call the particular circumstances of Hiro's death "murder" - i do very much question all aspects of the April 10 attack by the military, not the least why they began the main attack at Khok Wua and Dinso only one hour before sunset. Such an attack should have begun at sunrise, so that there is enough time to evaluate the situation in the afternoon, to be able to retreat, if necessary before sunset.

[rubl]

Please don't forget that it was not the Red Shirts who chose that battle ground at Pan Fa, but the military which attacked that day.

This hypotheses simply does not make any sense.

--- rest removed

The military tried to disperse protesters. Those just happened to be at Phan Fa as well as other areas. By being there the 'battle ground' was decided, as far as red-shirts didn't want to disperse and even had help from MiB.

BTW the 'army attacked' does show a wee bit of prejudice and bias.

All of this might just give the court doing the inquest the indication that they really need to put 'witness' statements under a microscope in order to get the truth bits rather than the 'I believe' parts. IMHO

[rubl]

...

Why stop at Hiro?

....

Because this topic is on the inquest into the death of Hiroyuki Muramoto only

[nicknostitz]

...

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

The answer depends on who did the actual killing. If it was the army it would be 'colleteral damage'. If by a MiB or red-shirt it would be a criminal offence close to a terrorist activity.

Your believe ("i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired") doesn't really matter. The court is looking for the truth only.

Well, and i am not the court.

Lets just wait and see how the court judges it.

But would you accept the truth if the court decides against the military?

I haven't seen you yet accepting the verdicts against the military in the previous judgements. What i have seen of you and your ilk ranged from crying "misjudgement", "Thaksin bought..." and trying to worm your way out with flimsy interpretations of what the court in your imagination may have said, still trying to maintain the untenable position that the military did not kill unarmed protesters.

[nicknostitz]

...

Why stop at Hiro?

....

Because this topic is on the inquest into the death of Hiroyuki Muramoto only

It is extremely annoying to be so badly taken out of context.

Are you deliberately trying to bait me into another argument?

[rubl]

Sorry, but i have written very early on that the Red Shirts had as much potential for violence as the PAD. I have published photos of that already in my early blogs, and also in my books, and described those scenes.

Read my work before you judge it, please.

I assumed that it was an M79 explosion. Over the years i got quite familiar with the sound, and this was the most common explosive device with that sound profile over the years here in Bangkok. And actually, i wasn't wrong, a colleague of mine was there, and he told me after the dispersal that it was an M79 grenade fired by armed militants, when we compared experiences.

As to the circumstances of Hiro's death - i have already posted that i spoke with several eyewitness. I assume that they will not testify at court, but i am not sure. I cannot reveal their identities as there is a rule in journalism regarding protection of sources. I am sorry, but this is an iron rule we simply cannot break.

While i would not call the particular circumstances of Hiro's death "murder" - i do very much question all aspects of the April 10 attack by the military, not the least why they began the main attack at Khok Wua and Dinso only one hour before sunset. Such an attack should have begun at sunrise, so that there is enough time to evaluate the situation in the afternoon, to be able to retreat, if necessary before sunset.

'I know but can't tell you'. Now that's something the court doing the inquest would surely like to hear. 'attack one hour before sunset', totally unfair, should have been at sunrise. There was no attack, there was a dispersal action which saw some unexpected violence from some with such potential.

BTW "Red Shirts had as much potential for violence as the PAD". Who would have thought, I was told they were 'peaceful protesters' only. Ghandi Tshirt and all. Surely it was the MiB, not red-shirts?

[rubl]

...

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts. From all i have gathered by speaking with many eyewitnesses - i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired during their panicky retreat in the chaos, kept on filming when he should have taken cover. I do not think think he was deliberately targeted as a journalist. These things happen.

What would be the correct term? Accidental killing?

The answer depends on who did the actual killing. If it was the army it would be 'colleteral damage'. If by a MiB or red-shirt it would be a criminal offence close to a terrorist activity.

Your believe ("i believe that it is more than likely that he simply got into the way of the bullets the soldiers fired") doesn't really matter. The court is looking for the truth only.

Well, and i am not the court.

Lets just wait and see how the court judges it.

But would you accept the truth if the court decides against the military?

I haven't seen you yet accepting the verdicts against the military in the previous judgements. What i have seen of you and your ilk ranged from crying "misjudgement", "Thaksin bought..." and trying to worm your way out with flimsy interpretations of what the court in your imagination may have said, still trying to maintain the untenable position that the military did not kill unarmed protesters.

I would wait for the reasoning the court would give coming to any conclusion to their inquest. As for military kill unarmed protesters, well with armed elements mingling that is unavoidable, very unfortunately.

BTW no need to get personal and insulting. Writing 'you and your ilk' just shows your red-shirt mentality coming through it would seem.

[rixalex]

As to your question about who may have gained from Hiro's death: nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts.

Why don't you think the red shirts stood to gain by the death of an international journalist?

The red shirts were trying to put pressure on the government to the point where the government would have to stand down, or be made to stand down. One way of helping achieve that goal would be to create an outcry on the international stage about Thai armed forces cruelly killing innocent individuals, including journalists, and for the government's actions to be condemned by other nations.

Please be clear. I am not accusing the red shirts of having killed him. I am just baffled as to why you would think they would not / did not gain by his death.

Please don't forget that it was not the Red Shirts who chose that battle ground at Pan Fa, but the military which attacked that day.

This hypotheses simply does not make any sense.

There were so many journalists around the two incidents at Khok Wua and Dinso. Don't you think that if the Red Shirt armed militants would have had a plan to kill a journalist they would not have done so already at Khok Wua? They could have easily done so as several colleagues of mine were very exposed there. Why wait until the end, when it is not even clear what the military will do after the grenade blasts?

Why stop at Hiro? In May the armed militants would have had ample opportunity to kill several journalists. On one occasion they could have easily killed me. When i met them briefly they only asked my not to take any pictures. I was the only journalist, and the only farang, there. I have friends who saw them at other places where the militants could have easily killed them - they were alone, and it was dark. But they didn't. The only common thing with my experience was that they asked not to photograph them.

The only journalist who was injured by the armed militants was Chandler, and that was because he was with a group of soldiers, which were the target of those armed militants.

On the other hand, many journalists were shot right in front of us - by fire from the soldiers, and some of them even on video, such as Nelson rand on the other side of the road from me and many other journos at Lumphini police station. Or Chaiwat, the Nation photographer - where a video clearly shows a bullet hitting his leg at a position where the bullet could only have come from the soldiers as he was standing with a wall in his back, and fronting only the soldiers about 80 meters away, during the same incident my 'killing zone' story describes.

What i was contesting wasn't anything to do with who might have shot the journalist, it was to do with your statement with regards who might have stood to gain from his death: "nobody would, neither the government nor the Red Shirts". I explained to you why i think that is a false statement, and why i think that, regardless of where the blame lies, that the reds did stand to gain. Please tell me why you think they didn't.

[GentlemanJim]

Sorry, but i have written very early on that the Red Shirts had as much potential for violence as the PAD. I have published photos of that already in my early blogs, and also in my books, and described those scenes.

Read my work before you judge it, please.

I assumed that it was an M79 explosion. Over the years i got quite familiar with the sound, and this was the most common explosive device with that sound profile over the years here in Bangkok. And actually, i wasn't wrong, a colleague of mine was there, and he told me after the dispersal that it was an M79 grenade fired by armed militants, when we compared experiences.

As to the circumstances of Hiro's death - i have already posted that i spoke with several eyewitness. I assume that they will not testify at court, but i am not sure. I cannot reveal their identities as there is a rule in journalism regarding protection of sources. I am sorry, but this is an iron rule we simply cannot break.

While i would not call the particular circumstances of Hiro's death "murder" - i do very much question all aspects of the April 10 attack by the military, not the least why they began the main attack at Khok Wua and Dinso only one hour before sunset. Such an attack should have begun at sunrise, so that there is enough time to evaluate the situation in the afternoon, to be able to retreat, if necessary before sunset.

reporting early on that the reds had potential for violence is one thing, but they were then doing this for a month. They actually exceeded anything the yellows had done in terms of violence, but you don't mention that. Where are the early bloggs, do you have a link please.

OK, if you reported M79's because you assumed that's what is was because of local knowledge, then the same local knowledge would have told you it was only the reds firing these during the 'conflict', you would have known that. I also doubt that accurate direction would be achieved either because of the scatter effect of the blast and sound waves on the buildings, so stating 'from the area of the stage' from Victory monument...Mmmmm. So a pretty good assumption of an M79, but no inclusion of the pretty good assumption it was the reds, that would have ruined that particular blogg I guess.

Re other Journo's, nobody has asked you for your sources.

The soldiers did not attack on the evening of the 10th. But for future reference if soldiers are going to attack they tend to attack either at dawn or dusk , for good reason.

re your recent posts, there are no flimsy interpretations of what the courts said, the courts said that it was 'likely' to be a bullet from a soldier, 'you and your ilk' say definitely.

you said

It is extremely annoying to be so badly taken out of context.

I bet that's what the army would think if they read your stuff.