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

[rubl]

...

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?

Not at all. I just try to stick to the inquest on Mr. Hiro's death. Till now most of the posts seem to avoid that or wander off to the wider fields we've rehashed three or four dozen times without getting new info to base an opinion on.

You believe hiro got caught in the gunfire opened by the retreating army. That's on topic even though it's only what you believe. Other journalists and reporters killed or wounded later are not part of this topic.

[Baerboxer]

It is not necessary to have blank-firing attachment to fire blanks. A BFA allows the rifle to operate in semi-auto or full auto mode while firing blanks. Without a BFA and firing blanks, the rifle must be manually cocked after each shot.

How does anybody know "when the first black shirt arrived"? Someone may state "before the first blackshirt I saw arrive" but can only witness their own POV.

Interesting question Mick. If somone didn't see any himself on that day, so could not photograph them, then how does he know what time they actually arrived? Reliant on heresay from someone who did see them - but may have done so a longtime after they actually arrived.

[philw]

...

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.

To be factual, the RTA killed or murdered a number of unarmed protestors and wounded a large number of others, in a cold blooded, despicable manner and they, the RTA, need to be brought to account for this.

The patent lies of the army are beyond belief and could only be got away with in Thailand, where sometimes the normal rules of physics seem not to apply.............

The rest is hyperbole.

NN witnessed it, at risk to his life and has staked his journalistic reputation recording what he saw.

Give him some credit.

[nicknostitz]

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.

The army reads my stuff, since 5 years. I am still here. No libel cases or any other legal cases were filed against me. That should tell you something.

Sorry, i have no links, i would have to do the same you would have to do - to google it.

With early on i mean not just in 2010, but already in 2008, when i began writing publicly on politics.

The soldiers attacked at just after 17.00 on April 10, beginning with baton charges, teargas, and rubber bullets, and throwing teargas canisters even from helicopters.

I was there.

Where were you that you can state that the army did not attack?

[nicknostitz]

It is not necessary to have blank-firing attachment to fire blanks. A BFA allows the rifle to operate in semi-auto or full auto mode while firing blanks. Without a BFA and firing blanks, the rifle must be manually cocked after each shot.

How does anybody know "when the first black shirt arrived"? Someone may state "before the first blackshirt I saw arrive" but can only witness their own POV.

Interesting question Mick. If somone didn't see any himself on that day, so could not photograph them, then how does he know what time they actually arrived? Reliant on heresay from someone who did see them - but may have done so a longtime after they actually arrived.

Because he did not just speak with "someone", but with many colleagues, all respected journos, who were there, and whose statements matched.

[philw]

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.

The army reads my stuff, since 5 years. I am still here. No libel cases or any other legal cases were filed against me. That should tell you something.

Sorry, i have no links, i would have to do the same you would have to do - to google it.

With early on i mean not just in 2010, but already in 2008, when i began writing publicly on politics.

The soldiers attacked at just after 17.00 on April 10, beginning with baton charges, teargas, and rubber bullets, and throwing teargas canisters even from helicopters.

I was there.

Where were you that you can state that the army did not attack?

Er.............

Not there , i guess.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Just reminder to all of you - please stick to the topic in the OP.

And lets not turn this into a bickering session either.

[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.

To be factual, the RTA killed or murdered a number of unarmed protestors and wounded a large number of others, in a cold blooded, despicable manner and they, the RTA, need to be brought to account for this.

The patent lies of the army are beyond belief and could only be got away with in Thailand, where sometimes the normal rules of physics seem not to apply.............

The rest is hyperbole.

NN witnessed it, at risk to his life and has staked his journalistic reputation recording what he saw.

Give him some credit.

I really know how to appreciate when a member come with clear objective arguments. Like 'murder', 'cold blooded' and 'despicable'. Especially since the 'only' sixteen or so killed by grenade blasts are ignored, or described as 'retaliation', or 'by unknowns'.

BTW NN never said he had witnessed the killing of Mr. Hiro. He only said he 'believed' it was the army firing while retreating and provided photo's of what he described 'the aftermath'

[rubl]

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.

The army reads my stuff, since 5 years. I am still here. No libel cases or any other legal cases were filed against me. That should tell you something.

Sorry, i have no links, i would have to do the same you would have to do - to google it.

With early on i mean not just in 2010, but already in 2008, when i began writing publicly on politics.

The soldiers attacked at just after 17.00 on April 10, beginning with baton charges, teargas, and rubber bullets, and throwing teargas canisters even from helicopters.

I was there.

Where were you that you can state that the army did not attack?

Er.............

Not there , i guess.

Attack? As in moving towards an enemy? Surely you guys mean 'trying to disperse' an unruly crowd with a few militant, armed elements mingled in and some peaceful grenade lobbing unknowns?

[hellodolly]

According to his testimony, as his force made its way to their destination, Kok Wua Intersection near Khaosarn Road, they met resistance from ′no more than 500′ Redshirts who used sharp objects to repel the soldiers. He said 2 soldiers under his command were injured by gunshots fired from Redshirts′ position.

"The Redshirts were constantly provoking us," the witness said.

The witness added that the resistance became stiffer as evening approached. He claimed that the soldiers were attacked by iron bars, wooden sticks, firebombs, fireworks, fire extinguishers, and even some handfuls of pepper. He insisted that some soldiers were beaten by the protesters.

Around 19.30-19.40, according to the witness, 14 M79 grenades were fired from the Redshirts′ position in Kok Wua Intersection toward the soldiers′ line near Khaosarn Road. He said he saw 4-5 men clad in black and balaclava armed with AK-47 and M-16 rifles firing at the soldiers. The witness told the court that 33 out of 150 soldiers in his unit were injured by such weapons, including himself.

That matches which what I saw on live TV on that day . . . peaceful protest it was not . . . and the blackshirts were clearly in evidence on TV all around that time also if anyone cared to open their eyes and look. Somehow that footage has not been aired since. I wonder why.

I'm glad somebody else saw blackshirts on TV. I was beginning to think my memory was playing tricks.

I remember on BBC, the human shield redshirts (as opposed to the activists) When asked who are the blackshirts? The response was "We don't know, except they are here to protect us."

So push come to pull they have some thing on BBC. I don't think Thaksin can get them to conveniently lose that kind of incriminating footage.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Reminder to posters of the Forum Rules regarding quoting other members' posts:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

Any further off topic, misquoted or otherwise inappropriate posts will be removed without notice.

[hellodolly]

What was this guy's job?

BS.jpg

Posing for the camera, i guess.

That answer pretty well destroyed any credibility you had.

[nicknostitz]

What was this guy's job?

BS.jpg

Posing for the camera, i guess.

That answer pretty well destroyed any credibility you had.

Now you like totally crushed me dude... a hellodolly on Thaivsa has decided that i have no credibility anymore.

Anyhow, a Red Shirt guard with riot gear taken from the soldiers either on April 9 or April 10 poses with a bullet held up high in the air a day or two after April 10 is .... posing for the camera.

Or what do you think he is doing? Throwing that bullet at the photographer with the attempt to kill him and then blaming the death on the soldiers?

Any other theory what the guy in the image is doing?

[waza]

What was this guy's job?

BS.jpg

Posing for the camera, i guess.

That answer pretty well destroyed any credibility you had.

Now you like totally crushed me dude... a hellodolly on Thaivsa has decided that i have no credibility anymore.

Anyhow, a Red Shirt guard with riot gear taken from the soldiers either on April 9 or April 10 poses with a bullet held up high in the air a day or two after April 10 is .... posing for the camera.

Or what do you think he is doing? Throwing that bullet at the photographer with the attempt to kill him and then blaming the death on the soldiers?

Any other theory what the guy in the image is doing?

I guess like you he is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by saying heres proof that the army are firing live rounds by exhibiting an unspent cartridge. Even though he is also displaying looted equipment from the military which he must have gained by advancing in to that alledged live fire.

Edited June 20, 2013 by waza

[nicknostitz]

I guess like you he is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by saying heres proof that the army are firing live rounds by exhibiting an unspent cartridge. Even though he is also displaying looted equipment from the military which he must have gained by advancing in to that alledged live fire.

Do i read that correctly?

Are you just saying that the soldiers that day did not fire at protesters at all?

Regardless of clear forensic evidence, such as bullet holes in fixed structures from which the trajectories can be clearly pinpointed at the point of origin having been from the military lines, or videos that show soldiers firing towards the protesters?

I mean, no observer in his right mind disputes that armed militants that day fired at soldiers, and equally - there is no dispute over the fact that soldiers fired at protesters. Disputes are over the timeline, and who exactly killed whom, but...

...no, sorry, i give up.

I start getting a headache.

Good night.

[rubl]

It's interesting to observe that we have only two groups why fired. The army and armed militants. Somehow that always seems to exclude red-shirts who are peaceful, innocent, deaf,dumb&blind.

So who shot the japanese reporter, the army or the (non-red-shirt) armed militants? That's the question and no, it doesn't matter what I or others believe. The court is looking for facts to base a well-founded conclusion on.

[waza]

I guess like you he is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by saying heres proof that the army are firing live rounds by exhibiting an unspent cartridge. Even though he is also displaying looted equipment from the military which he must have gained by advancing in to that alledged live fire.

Do i read that correctly?

Are you just saying that the soldiers that day did not fire at protesters at all?

Regardless of clear forensic evidence, such as bullet holes in fixed structures from which the trajectories can be clearly pinpointed at the point of origin having been from the military lines, or videos that show soldiers firing towards the protesters?

I mean, no observer in his right mind disputes that armed militants that day fired at soldiers, and equally - there is no dispute over the fact that soldiers fired at protesters. Disputes are over the timeline, and who exactly killed whom, but...

...no, sorry, i give up.

I start getting a headache.

Good night.

Read the OP

[waza]

Read the OP

However, yes I believe the military did fire live rounds into the air above the protesters. as the did in 2009 as is amply shown in many videos and witness accounts.

Heres a video from the redshirts side.........

Heres one from the Military. Which group are under live fire and which group do the reporters look safe with?

http://youtu.be/VnROmyjyjMo

Edited June 20, 2013 by waza

[smedly]

The most likely scenario was that ordinary soldiers on the ground had specific orders as per the OP testimony but I'd guess that there were special army units positioned at strategic points to offer cover to the soldiers on the ground against lethal resistance, so it is quite conceivable that the soldiers on the ground had nothing more that shotguns loaded with rubber pellets which many riot police units use throughout the world

The simple truth is that the redshirts had the means and the will to use deadly force, the moment they appear with firearms the game they play changes dramatically and unfortunately innocents could and very possibly did get caught in the middle

The authorities had two choices - tell the army to go home and let the reds burn down Bangkok or Try and restore order and prevent them from doing so, the reds equally had the same two choices - either fight with deadly force (which they did) or go home and wait for the offered election to take place - they made the choice and made it deadly

[whybother]

 

 

...

 

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.

 

To be factual, the RTA killed or murdered a number of unarmed protestors and wounded a large number of others, in a cold blooded, despicable manner and they, the RTA, need to be brought to account for this.

 

The patent lies of the army are beyond belief and could only be got away with in Thailand, where sometimes the normal rules of physics seem not to apply.............

 

The rest is hyperbole.

 

NN witnessed it, at risk to his life and has staked his journalistic reputation recording what he saw.

 

Give him some credit.

How about the patent lies of the red shirts .... "We done nothin'. We're peaceful protesters."

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[whybother]

 

I guess like you he is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill by saying heres proof that the army are firing live rounds by exhibiting an unspent cartridge.  Even though he is also displaying looted equipment from the military which he must have gained by advancing in to that alledged live fire.  

 

 

 

Do i read that correctly?

 

Are you just saying that the soldiers that day did not fire at protesters at all?

 

Regardless of clear forensic evidence, such as bullet holes in fixed structures from which the trajectories can be clearly pinpointed at the point of origin having been from the military lines, or videos that show soldiers firing towards the protesters?

 

 

 

I mean, no observer in his right mind disputes that armed militants that day fired at soldiers, and equally - there is no dispute over the fact that soldiers fired at protesters. Disputes are over the timeline, and who exactly killed whom, but...

 

 

 

...no, sorry, i give up.

 

I start getting a headache.

 

Good night.

Interesting that the red leaders aren't in their right mind.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Barontt]

Question to Nick not directed at any particular of his posts.

While covering the conflict, how much of your time did you spend with the red-shirt/black-shirts, versus how much time did you spend with the military?

was it 50-50 or something else?

[nicknostitz]

Question to Nick not directed at any particular of his posts.

While covering the conflict, how much of your time did you spend with the red-shirt/black-shirts, versus how much time did you spend with the military?

was it 50-50 or something else?

Difficult to say.

Depends on the situation - i spent time with all sides, Red Shirts, soldiers, Yellow Shirts (or "multicoloreds", or how they called themselves in 2010). Naturally i spent more time with the Red Shirts during those 2 months in 2010 as there were the activities. In clashes i sometimes switched sides (as on April 10), sometimes stayed with the soldiers exclusively (such as during April 28) or only with the Red Shirts (most of the May clashes - the soldiers were often not too inviting to foreign journalists at the interesting spots), or only with the Yellow Shirts (such as on the day of the Silom grenades).

But i do not look it this way - from my perspective the conflict began in late 2005/early 2006, and still goes on. 2010 was just a peak in an ongoing conflict which i have followed closely from the beginning. And i have and still spend my time equally at all sides during those years, wherever things take place. Such as right now, i spend more time with the Yellow Shirts (or "white masks", and the people that occupy Sanam Luang), and inside court rooms.

And of course i have private meetings for off the record talks with leaders and actors of different sides.

[nicknostitz]

Read the OP

However, yes I believe the military did fire live rounds into the air above the protesters. as the did in 2009 as is amply shown in many videos and witness accounts.

<snip>

That is wrong - in 2009 the military fired directly at the protesters during the early morning attack that lasted from about 3.30 until 7.30 in the morning. I was there and bullets passed way too close for comfort.

Two of the badly injured Red Shirts got compensation awarded from the military by the civil court about 11/2 or 2 years ago.

[yoshiwara]

I really know how to appreciate when a member come with clear objective arguments. Like 'murder', 'cold blooded' and 'despicable'. Especially since the 'only' sixteen or so killed by grenade blasts are ignored, or described as 'retaliation', or 'by unknowns'.

BTW NN never said he had witnessed the killing of Mr. Hiro. He only said he 'believed' it was the army firing while retreating and provided photo's of what he described 'the aftermath'

A man indeed 'embedded' with the redshirts and claiming special observational qualities; out of one eye with the other one, well....

[rubl]

I can see it's still difficult for most posters to stick to the topic

The topic being the inquest into the death of the Japanese reporter Hiroyuki Muramoto.

Edited June 21, 2013 by rubl

[Tatsujin]

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?

+1

[Tatsujin]

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.

The whole incident was a setup on the Red's part (masterminded by Thaksin from afar) to discredit the Govt by forcing them into a situation where they could only come out the losers. The death of an international Journalist ONLY benefits the Red side, i.e. Thaksin. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's more than likely that "some" of those deaths were at the hands of the militant side of the Red camp, the Black shirts.

However, I personally lay the blame for all the deaths firmly at Thaksin's door. I also say that whoever chose to stay there when they had been warned to leave, told that the SoE was in effect (and all the implications that has), told there was a curfew in effect, told that live ammunition WOULD be used against them if the soldiers felt their lives were at risk . . . if they chose to stay after all that, then that's on their heads. Their choice to be there. Their choice to put themselves at risk in a situation which was only ever going to go one way.

[yoshiwara]

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?

+1

++1. Journalistic pretensions skewered good and proper.

[rubl]

Some here are really negative, I think.

Regarding the OP the only new thing I've learned was from NN when he wrote in #81:

"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."