Infamous video 'sniper' denies shooting at Red Shirts

[Yunla]

What drivel! Where is there one ounce of evidence for your insulting, conspiracy theory? (Thaksin hired foreign snipers to kill his own supporters) Yeah, thought so, can't back it up. As for your contention that the Reds got an inordinate length of "protest time"; How long were the PAD Yellow shirts in control of two international airports? Oh, almost forgot. How long were the o so peaceful Yellows camped in Government House and environs before they went on the rampage and ransacked the buildings? To be critical at least be balanced. Yes, the Red shirts that went on the rampage after their brothers and sisters had been mown down by soldiers and ransacked Central World were rightly rounded up and many are languishing in jail. For balance, how many Yellow Shirts have been banged up for their crimes 2 years earlier? Balance dear boy, balance.

I refer you to my earlier reply, regarding this thread is about the 2010 redshirt protest / siege of Bangkok, and not airports.

The foreign contractors is my own personal theory. It is no less substantiated than the deeply vague rumours and photos regarding blackclad men and army snipers. At this point, only the snipers themselves and the men who gave them orders, know what really happened. I just feel that it is easier to get foreign pro snipers to do the work and leave the country, if you want to cover your tracks. Especially as they would have less issues with shooting Thai protesters and soldiers alike.

My actual question was 'why didn't the red siege end after two months, when they had recieved early elections and great kindness from the people of Bangkok.' Despite the disruption to the city, for months, Bangkok nurses offered medical support to the reds who cut themselves for their little blood-pouring display, food and drinks were brought to them by locals, despite the fact that the siege was causing great disruption and even fear locally. When the red leaders went on stage and gave the "burn Bangkok to the ground" speeches, to hordes of cheering supporters, it could only have generated terror in the local communities, yet those same local people went to the protest site with food, drink, flowers and medical supplies.

Also Abhisit was frequently broadcasting, voicing his fears that the redshirts were sitting in the hot sun all day for months, and how it could cause them injury. He also worried about them contracting disease from the blood incident. Abhisit was a very patient man, waiting months, granting the red their requested early elections, providing aid of every kind, and broadcasting how he worried about them getting sunstroke etc. And yet you would have people believe that after months of this incredibly patient and kindhearted response to the reds, he suddenly decided to have them shot.

I suspect that the people who ordered the shootings, were the same Thaksin people who could have ordered (but did not do so) the reds to go back home after the protest had brought about the desired outcome, of an early election and the right to express your views in public for months on end, which by the way you would not have seen under any of the worlds other leaders.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Yunla

[fasteddie]

If you had any knowledge of the red riots you would be aware thet the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces for the remainder of the insurection. Further the more traditional methoods of crowd control such as police, riot shields and clubs and rubberbullets were either ineffective or countered with automatic weapons and granade launchers.

"the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces"

Hysterical and hilarious at the same time.

Gunshots rang out throughout the night and into the morning in central Bangkok. At daybreak, a group of protesters captured and vandalized two military water cannon trucks at the intersection of Sathorn and Rama IV roads in the heart of the business district. They ripped the cannon from its moorings and used its plastic barrel to shoot firecrackers from behind a sandbag bunker they had commandeered from soldiers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/thailand-readies-lockdown-red-shirts-says-shoot-terrorists-defy/#ixzz2fcj7CPc2

More fiction from fox news!

[nicknostitz]

What drivel! Where is there one ounce of evidence for your insulting, conspiracy theory? (Thaksin hired foreign snipers to kill his own supporters) Yeah, thought so, can't back it up. As for your contention that the Reds got an inordinate length of "protest time"; How long were the PAD Yellow shirts in control of two international airports? Oh, almost forgot. How long were the o so peaceful Yellows camped in Government House and environs before they went on the rampage and ransacked the buildings? To be critical at least be balanced. Yes, the Red shirts that went on the rampage after their brothers and sisters had been mown down by soldiers and ransacked Central World were rightly rounded up and many are languishing in jail. For balance, how many Yellow Shirts have been banged up for their crimes 2 years earlier? Balance dear boy, balance.

I refer you to my earlier reply, regarding this thread is about the 2010 redshirt protest / siege of Bangkok, and not airports.

The foreign contractors is my own personal theory. It is no less substantiated than the deeply vague rumours and photos regarding blackclad men and army snipers. At this point, only the snipers themselves and the men who gave them orders, know what really happened. I just feel that it is easier to get foreign pro snipers to do the work and leave the country, if you want to cover your tracks. Especially as they would have less issues with shooting Thai protesters and soldiers alike.

My actual question was 'why didn't the red siege end after two months, when they had recieved early elections and great kindness from the people of Bangkok.' Despite the disruption to the city, for months, Bangkok nurses offered medical support to the reds who cut themselves for their little blood-pouring display, food and drinks were brought to them by locals, despite the fact that the siege was causing great disruption and even fear locally. When the red leaders went on stage and gave the "burn Bangkok to the ground" speeches, to hordes of cheering supporters, it could only have generated terror in the local communities, yet those same local people went to the protest site with food, drink, flowers and medical supplies.

Also Abhisit was frequently broadcasting, voicing his fears that the redshirts were sitting in the hot sun all day for months, and how it could cause them injury. He also worried about them contracting disease from the blood incident. Abhisit was a very patient man, waiting months, granting the red their requested early elections, providing aid of every kind, and broadcasting how he worried about them getting sunstroke etc. And yet you would have people believe that after months of this incredibly patient and kindhearted response to the reds, he suddenly decided to have them shot.

I suspect that the people who ordered the shootings, were the same Thaksin people who could have ordered (but did not do so) the reds to go back home after the protest had brought about the desired outcome, of an early election and the right to express your views in public for months on end, which by the way you would not have seen under any of the worlds other leaders.

Drivel is the correct way to describe this rant.

First of all - soldiers did kill protesters indeed, as now more than in a dozen cases the court inquests have already proven - beyond any doubt. Several unarmed protesters were killed and injured right in front of me, with the fire directly coming from the military lines. In several of those cases during the court inquests forensic investigations have clearly proven that. In addition to that - when i worked on the side of the soldiers, in many cases i have seen and photographed soldiers firing at protesters.

Armed militants under the Red Shirts existed as well, who have fired at soldiers, injured and killed some. Not foreign fighters (what an idiotic conspiracy theory...), but Thais. I have on one occasion seen them operating, and had a brief encounter with them, where they asked me not to take pictures of them. Several of my colleagues had similar encounters.

And briefly to some your off topic points: many Red Shirt protesters came from Bangkok as well. This wasn't as you try to make it out - upcountry hordes descending on Bangkok. It was Red Shirt protesters from Bangkok who brought food into the protest zone, from Bangkok based kitchens, prepared by Red Shirt supporters.

The blood collection was not by "Red Shirts cutting themselves" and "nurses giving aid to protesters", but Red Shirt protesters donating blood, taken by certified nurses and doctors, who were members of the Red Shirt movement, with sterile syringes. I and many other photographers have photographed and filmed the blood donation in the tents next to the Pan Fa stage.

Your question regarding the final rejection of the 5 point plan is again enormously off topic, but briefly - this was not an "offer by Abhisit", but the result of negotiations. Why it was rejected (which undoubtedly was a huge mistake by the UDD leadership) is a combination of many factors, part of them were internal conflicts within the UDD leadership, and a radicalization of protesters after the April 10 incident. I am not going any more into this, as it is way off topic.

And back to the topic - the statements by the soldiers filmed firing at protesters here is so obviously a blatant lie regarding shooting blanks, and has been covered by several posters that i do not really need to repeat the obvious, such as lack of the necessary attachment that would enable to shoot blanks without manually reloading, etc.

This has been a consistent line during all the court inquests, soldiers made outrageous statements. In one of the cases, for example, soldiers stated that they did not shoot, but that a shooter was at a position which would have made it necessary for the bullets that killed a protester, and injured several others (including one journalist) to make sharp curves mid air in order to hit them at the places they were hit.

Given that - it is also quite clear that this was not single soldiers who have broken discipline and rules of engagement, but that there was a policy that permitted the use of lethal force, and a policy ordering soldiers to lie at the inquests.

As to rules of engagement, as brought up by some here - i do not see protesters with Molotov cocktails being a legitimate target, especially when, as in these cases, the security officers were way out of the throwing distance. Teargas and rubber bullets would have been legitimate choices to stop such protesters. When i was young in the 80's in Germany, we had countless violent demonstrations, in which Molotov cocktails were a regular feature. I can't recall a single incident in which police fired guns at protesters throwing those.

Armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters would have indeed been legitimate targets. Yet not one single armed protester is known or proven to have died. As far as it is known so far - all protesters who died in 2010 were unarmed protesters. Many of them died in front of journalists. There are many photos and ample video footage of protesters who died or were injured in front of our cameras.

Such attempts of obfuscation by people who hold opinions, yet reject any factual evidence that counters these opinions, is simply untenable.

[Yunla]

And briefly to some your off topic points: many Red Shirt protesters came from Bangkok as well. This wasn't as you try to make it out - upcountry hordes descending on Bangkok. It was Red Shirt protesters from Bangkok who brought food into the protest zone, from Bangkok based kitchens, prepared by Red Shirt supporters.

The blood collection was not by "Red Shirts cutting themselves" and "nurses giving aid to protesters", but Red Shirt protesters donating blood, taken by certified nurses and doctors, who were members of the Red Shirt movement, with sterile syringes. I and many other photographers have photographed and filmed the blood donation in the tents next to the Pan Fa stage.

I never said there were no people in the redshirt group who were not Bangkok citizens. I said that Bangkok citizens went to bring supplies and flowers to the protestors. You are implying that only redshirt supporters in Bangkok were bringing gifts and supplies. I think that is a very divisive thing to say, and creates an illusion of "us versus them" ie. no people in Bangkok who weren't pro-Thaksin would go to bring gifts or supplies to the redshirts. Infact, as I was in the city here in 2010 too, I can confirm that most people here that I spoke to were supportive of the redshirts right to protest, and brought them gifts, even if they had no wish to see Thaksin return.

Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges. Also our current Government, who has as defacto leader a wanted fugitive criminal, and a ruling party that is by all accounts no stranger to crime, we can safely assume that the legal rulings are not being arrived at without pressure of one kind or another from this government who owes its very existence to the events of 2010.

I wouldn't believe any of these stories I've heard unless I saw video evidence, clearly showing people committing these acts, and those people being identified clearly. I think its fair to say that there were armed men in the redshirt group, and there were of course armed soldiers. However there is no hard evidence of who killed any of those people. And you have no evidence that foreign professional shooters were not waiting in the wings to set light to an increasingly volatile situation. I have already said that my theory is just a theory, whereas you are citing your own theory as a fact.

Also I enjoyed your comment about blood donations. The redshirts poured the blood 'donations' allover the pavements, where kids were walking past. And some of the blood was apparently STD+, not that this causes any real hazard on the road but do you really think that this in any way to behave in the capital city of a great and ancient nation.

I also disagree deeply that the offered resolution to the siege, the early elections, is NOT offtopic but infact is the very crux of the matter. Had the redshirts accepted the early elections and gone home, the situation would have ended immediately and you wouldn't be here now wondering who shot who, because they would have packed up their bags and gone home before it escalated. I was asking why they didn't accept the early elections as a victory, and go home. Your very vague "there was some UDD conflict" doesnt change the fact that the redshirts could have gone home, and there would have been no deaths on either side. I put it to you that the deaths were an intended part of the redshirt program. Also the redshirt leader quoted as saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause" ( before the actual fighting started) might sound like bravado but I think it was drunken slip of the tongue, and he was basically outlining strategy. Also by the way, calling things "conspiracy theory" as a way of arguing against them is a nonsense, its a blanket term which covers not only politics but aliens and flying horses and fairies in the garden. The gulf of Tonkin incident was also filed under the vague and unhelpful 'conspiracy theory' grouping for decades, until more recent testimonies show that there was infact far more to it than the official story. It is healthy to keep an open mind until there is proof, not dismiss things as conspiracy theories until there is actual hard evidence of some kind.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Yunla

[nicknostitz]

I never said there were no people in the redshirt group who were not Bangkok citizens. I said that Bangkok citizens went to bring supplies and flowers to the protestors. You are implying that only redshirt supporters in Bangkok were bringing gifts and supplies. I think that is a very divisive thing to say, and creates an illusion of "us versus them" ie. no people in Bangkok who weren't pro-Thaksin would go to bring gifts or supplies to the redshirts. Infact, as I was in the city here in 2010 too, I can confirm that most people here that I spoke to were supportive of the redshirts right to protest, and brought them gifts, even if they had no wish to see Thaksin return.

Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges. Also our current Government, who has as defacto leader a wanted fugitive criminal, and a ruling party that is by all accounts no stranger to crime, we can safely assume that the legal rulings are not being arrived at without pressure of one kind or another from this government who owes its very existence to the events of 2010.

I wouldn't believe any of these stories I've heard unless I saw video evidence, clearly showing people committing these acts, and those people being identified clearly. I think its fair to say that there were armed men in the redshirt group, and there were of course armed soldiers. However there is no hard evidence of who killed any of those people. And you have no evidence that foreign professional shooters were not waiting in the wings to set light to an increasingly volatile situation. I have already said that my theory is just a theory, whereas you are citing your own theory as a fact.

Also I enjoyed your comment about blood donations. The redshirts poured the blood 'donations' allover the pavements, where kids were walking past. And some of the blood was apparently STD+, not that this causes any real hazard on the road but do you really think that this in any way to behave in the capital city of a great and ancient nation.

I also disagree deeply that the offered resolution to the siege, the early elections, is NOT offtopic but infact is the very crux of the matter. Had the redshirts accepted the early elections and gone home, the situation would have ended immediately and you wouldn't be here now wondering who shot who, because they would have packed up their bags and gone home before it escalated. I was asking why they didn't accept the early elections as a victory, and go home. Your very vague "there was some UDD conflict" doesnt change the fact that the redshirts could have gone home, and there would have been no deaths on either side. I put it to you that the deaths were an intended part of the redshirt program. Also the redshirt leader quoted as saying "deaths among our numbers can only further our cause" ( before the actual fighting started) might sound like bravado but I think it was drunken slip of the tongue, and he was basically outlining strategy. Also by the way, calling things "conspiracy theory" as a way of arguing against them is a nonsense, its a blanket term which covers not only politics but aliens and flying horses and fairies in the garden. The gulf of Tonkin incident was also filed under the vague and unhelpful 'conspiracy theory' grouping for decades, until more recent testimonies show that there was infact far more to it than the official story. It is healthy to keep an open mind until there is proof, not dismiss things as conspiracy theories until there is actual hard evidence of some kind.

Your sly accusation against me to be corrupt (eg. "Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges.") doesn't fly and is borderline libelous.

And sorry, yes, there is video evidence, as well well as there are photos, and forensic investigations of bullet trajectories, etc, which have been presented at the court inquests, which together with witness accounts have resulted in the verdicts against the military. Some of the evidence came from me and from some of my colleagues.

Your notion of foreign fighters shooting both soldiers and protesters is a circular argument and not a theory. For a theory you have to present at least some evidence, and you have presented none whatsoever.

As to off-topic: i would suggest to ask the moderators what comprises "off-topic". To many of my posts have been deleted that i am not going waste my time with debates that have so little to do with the thread title that i already know now that they will be deleted.

On topic: these soldiers have been filmed firing at protesters, and quite clearly caught in a blatant lie. Instead of going off on tangents, do you have anything to state about that?

[Yunla]

Your sly accusation against me to be corrupt (eg. "Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges.") doesn't fly and is borderline libelous.

And sorry, yes, there is video evidence, as well well as there are photos, and forensic investigations of bullet trajectories, etc, which have been presented at the court inquests, which together with witness accounts have resulted in the verdicts against the military. Some of the evidence came from me and from some of my colleagues.

Your notion of foreign fighters shooting both soldiers and protesters is a circular argument and not a theory. For a theory you have to present at least some evidence, and you have presented none whatsoever.

As to off-topic: i would suggest to ask the moderators what comprises "off-topic". To many of my posts have been deleted that i am not going waste my time with debates that have so little to do with the thread title that i already know now that they will be deleted.

On topic: these soldiers have been filmed firing at protesters, and quite clearly caught in a blatant lie. Instead of going off on tangents, do you have anything to state about that?

I assure you I was not accusing you of anything. If I had been accusing you I would have said something directly to you, and for me to say that I would have to have proof. As it stands I have neither proof nor suspicion of you. Theres nothing sly about it.

I said your evidence was empirical, which you failed to BOLD in your reply, and the consensus is that empirical evidence is very nice to have, but it is not proof of any kind.

And that in Thailand, arguably one of the most corrupt nations on earth, if a Government's very survival hinges on the outcome of a trial, things like witness accounts and judges and yes even bullet-trajectories can be doctored to provide the desired verdict. Its a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier. I'm surprised you don't see the enormity of the 2010 events to the PTP legitimacy, and the way they covet victory on this issue the same way Sauron coveted the One Ring.

Like I said earlier, you and I disagree on the relevance of why the redshirts did not pack up and leave after two months, and after getting the early elections. In my opinion, not only is it on topic, it is the sole reason people died in the 2010 event. If the reds had packed up and gone home victorious, and prepared for the elections, there would have been no shootings. My question was just why they didn't. Not only did you avoid answering that central question, you even started the offtopic thing, even though truthfully you must realise if the reds had gone home there wouldn't have been "infamous video snipers" of any kind, so it is entirely on topic.

[wave]

I think what will be interesting is how the soldiers testimony will be received by the lawyers present.

As previously mentioned the accounts they have provided would be unlikely to stand up to any detailed cross examination.

Furthermore this starts to bring in to question any testimony provided by military personnel.

With regards to this thread going off-topic I fail to see any relevance in bringing up legitimacy of the military use of force, statements made by the red shirt leadership at the time or Thakins involvement.

The issue in the original post is the testimony of these 2 soldiers in respect to the video.

Plain and simple really

[nicknostitz]

Your sly accusation against me to be corrupt (eg. "Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges.") doesn't fly and is borderline libelous.

And sorry, yes, there is video evidence, as well well as there are photos, and forensic investigations of bullet trajectories, etc, which have been presented at the court inquests, which together with witness accounts have resulted in the verdicts against the military. Some of the evidence came from me and from some of my colleagues.

Your notion of foreign fighters shooting both soldiers and protesters is a circular argument and not a theory. For a theory you have to present at least some evidence, and you have presented none whatsoever.

As to off-topic: i would suggest to ask the moderators what comprises "off-topic". To many of my posts have been deleted that i am not going waste my time with debates that have so little to do with the thread title that i already know now that they will be deleted.

On topic: these soldiers have been filmed firing at protesters, and quite clearly caught in a blatant lie. Instead of going off on tangents, do you have anything to state about that?

I assure you I was not accusing you of anything. If I had been accusing you I would have said something directly to you, and for me to say that I would have to have proof. As it stands I have neither proof nor suspicion of you. Theres nothing sly about it.

I said your evidence was empirical, which you failed to BOLD in your reply, and the consensus is that empirical evidence is very nice to have, but it is not proof of any kind.

And that in Thailand, arguably one of the most corrupt nations on earth, if a Government's very survival hinges on the outcome of a trial, things like witness accounts and judges and yes even bullet-trajectories can be doctored to provide the desired verdict. Its a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier. I'm surprised you don't see the enormity of the 2010 events to the PTP legitimacy, and the way they covet victory on this issue the same way Sauron coveted the One Ring.

Like I said earlier, you and I disagree on the relevance of why the redshirts did not pack up and leave after two months, and after getting the early elections. In my opinion, not only is it on topic, it is the sole reason people died in the 2010 event. If the reds had packed up and gone home victorious, and prepared for the elections, there would have been no shootings. My question was just why they didn't. Not only did you avoid answering that central question, you even started the offtopic thing, even though truthfully you must realise if the reds had gone home there wouldn't have been "infamous video snipers" of any kind, so it is entirely on topic.

Again you circumvent the issue.

No, it is not "a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier", but clear video evidence that stands against the testimony of a soldier. If you would have followed the thread you would have seen that several posters have rightly stated, that it would be physically impossible for this soldier to have fired blanks (as the soldier himself stated) from his rifle without manually reloading without a muzzle attachment, which he did not have on his rifle. And he did not manually reload after firing his rifle.

"Empirical evidence"? Ridiculous. Images, videos from different positions of the same incidents, corresponding witness accounts and clear forensic evidence that led to court inquest results. Just because you have not seen these videos and photos does not mean they do not exist. And again, your tactics of rubbishing witnesses, trying to discredit the courts and investigators are not proof of your position, they are just increasingly desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.

Sauron and the ring? Please, leave Tolkien out of this. Already in his lifetime Tolkien has strongly refuted attempts to describe his work as an allegory to WW1 or WW2. It does not suit as a metaphor to Thailand's conflict, and any attempt of doing so is abusing Tolkien's great work.

There are many issues that are relevant to what occurred in 2010. But they will be considered "off-topic" by the moderators as regards to this particular thread topic.

[waza]

Your sly accusation against me to be corrupt (eg. "Your eyewitness account, is entirely empirical, but like all the theories put forward so far it lacks evidence. As you know, money buys anything here, and certainly buys reporters and also witness testimonies and even judges.") doesn't fly and is borderline libelous.

And sorry, yes, there is video evidence, as well well as there are photos, and forensic investigations of bullet trajectories, etc, which have been presented at the court inquests, which together with witness accounts have resulted in the verdicts against the military. Some of the evidence came from me and from some of my colleagues.

Your notion of foreign fighters shooting both soldiers and protesters is a circular argument and not a theory. For a theory you have to present at least some evidence, and you have presented none whatsoever.

As to off-topic: i would suggest to ask the moderators what comprises "off-topic". To many of my posts have been deleted that i am not going waste my time with debates that have so little to do with the thread title that i already know now that they will be deleted.

On topic: these soldiers have been filmed firing at protesters, and quite clearly caught in a blatant lie. Instead of going off on tangents, do you have anything to state about that?

I assure you I was not accusing you of anything. If I had been accusing you I would have said something directly to you, and for me to say that I would have to have proof. As it stands I have neither proof nor suspicion of you. Theres nothing sly about it.

I said your evidence was empirical, which you failed to BOLD in your reply, and the consensus is that empirical evidence is very nice to have, but it is not proof of any kind.

And that in Thailand, arguably one of the most corrupt nations on earth, if a Government's very survival hinges on the outcome of a trial, things like witness accounts and judges and yes even bullet-trajectories can be doctored to provide the desired verdict. Its a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier. I'm surprised you don't see the enormity of the 2010 events to the PTP legitimacy, and the way they covet victory on this issue the same way Sauron coveted the One Ring.

Like I said earlier, you and I disagree on the relevance of why the redshirts did not pack up and leave after two months, and after getting the early elections. In my opinion, not only is it on topic, it is the sole reason people died in the 2010 event. If the reds had packed up and gone home victorious, and prepared for the elections, there would have been no shootings. My question was just why they didn't. Not only did you avoid answering that central question, you even started the offtopic thing, even though truthfully you must realise if the reds had gone home there wouldn't have been "infamous video snipers" of any kind, so it is entirely on topic.

Again you circumvent the issue.

No, it is not "a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier", but clear video evidence that stands against the testimony of a soldier. If you would have followed the thread you would have seen that several posters have rightly stated, that it would be physically impossible for this soldier to have fired blanks (as the soldier himself stated) from his rifle without manually reloading without a muzzle attachment, which he did not have on his rifle. And he did not manually reload after firing his rifle.

"Empirical evidence"? Ridiculous. Images, videos from different positions of the same incidents, corresponding witness accounts and clear forensic evidence that led to court inquest results. Just because you have not seen these videos and photos does not mean they do not exist. And again, your tactics of rubbishing witnesses, trying to discredit the courts and investigators are not proof of your position, they are just increasingly desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.

Sauron and the ring? Please, leave Tolkien out of this. Already in his lifetime Tolkien has strongly refuted attempts to describe his work as an allegory to WW1 or WW2. It does not suit as a metaphor to Thailand's conflict, and any attempt of doing so is abusing Tolkien's great work.

There are many issues that are relevant to what occurred in 2010. But they will be considered "off-topic" by the moderators as regards to this particular thread topic.

When they say blanks they may mean training rounds, like they used in 2009, or maker rounds which dont require alterations to the weapon. However, it is his testamony, why would that have less value than your opinion? There are too many variables and too little evidence to make a difinitive conclusion on an internet forum. However, I agree that if Thaksin didnt organise and pay for the redshirts to riot in Bangkok in 2010, in response to the siezure of his illgotten assets this never would have happened

[nicknostitz]

When they say blanks they may mean training rounds, like they used in 2009, or maker rounds which dont require alterations to the weapon. However, it is his testamony, why would that have less value than your opinion? There are too many variables and too little evidence to make a difinitive conclusion on an internet forum. However, I agree that if Thaksin didnt organise and pay for the redshirts to riot in Bangkok in 2010, in response to the siezure of his illgotten assets this never would have happened

"Training rounds" as the military used in 2009 - another specious argument.

These "training rounds" have in the 2009 crackdown resulted in many injuries of protesters in the early morning attack at Samliem Dindaeng, two of the protesters were crippled for life, the wounds being absolutely consistent with the wounds high velocity bullets create. One was shot in the knee, and other in the upper arm, breaking his bone, severing his nerves beyond repair, and taking a large chunk of flesh out of his arm at the exit wound. This has left him with a paralyzed arm. In a civil court case in 2011 these two were awarded damages by the military. I am not aware of a criminal court conviction yet.

[Yunla]

Again you circumvent the issue.

No, it is not "a billionaire's money and power against the word of a common soldier", but clear video evidence that stands against the testimony of a soldier. If you would have followed the thread you would have seen that several posters have rightly stated, that it would be physically impossible for this soldier to have fired blanks (as the soldier himself stated) from his rifle without manually reloading without a muzzle attachment, which he did not have on his rifle. And he did not manually reload after firing his rifle.

"Empirical evidence"? Ridiculous. Images, videos from different positions of the same incidents, corresponding witness accounts and clear forensic evidence that led to court inquest results. Just because you have not seen these videos and photos does not mean they do not exist. And again, your tactics of rubbishing witnesses, trying to discredit the courts and investigators are not proof of your position, they are just increasingly desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.

Sauron and the ring? Please, leave Tolkien out of this. Already in his lifetime Tolkien has strongly refuted attempts to describe his work as an allegory to WW1 or WW2. It does not suit as a metaphor to Thailand's conflict, and any attempt of doing so is abusing Tolkien's great work.

There are many issues that are relevant to what occurred in 2010. But they will be considered "off-topic" by the moderators as regards to this particular thread topic.

You say I circumvent the issue and that I'm 'desperately attempting' to defend things. And then in your very next line you take my comparison of PTP's seeking to control the 2010 event story to Sauron's seeking to control the ring, a simple metaphor, but you desperately start talking about what Tolkien felt about WW2. My comparison was very specific and was a mere linguistic device, to see you leap on it that manner shows me that I am not the desperate one. And start the whole 'respect Tolkiens memory' spiel. Really. I'm sure anyone who has read his books cherishes his memory 100%.

Again on topic ; in a country with terrible corruption, and ruled by a fugitive criminal by proxy, one MUST question the official story, it is simply inevitable. And in a corrupt nation, the official story can well include the media, forensics, ballistics, judges, everything. So the sniper in the video, the bullet trajectories, his later comments about blanks, should be viewed not on face value only. It is really important to remember who funded the redshirts, and who encouraged them relentlessly to march on Bangkok in the first place, with his ranting on the tv etc. And then it is important to remember that this same man had 2000~ innocent people killed without trial during his 'war on drugs.' So we already know the value he places on the lives of poor Thai people. These factors have to be taken into account when reviewing the specific details of who shot who, and more importantly why. "Who benefits" is the question that must be asked. The Abhisit govt certainly did not stand to benefit from ordering massacre of citizens in the capital. If you want to buy the official story, sponsored by PTP/Thaksin, that the redshirts were innocent lambs massacred by soldiers, thats fine. I don't buy that story personally.

I don't believe for an instant that Abhisit would have ordered soldiers to shoot Thai citizens. He had held out for two months and begged the redshirts to go home, offered them aid and advice on not sitting in the sun too long. That doesn't chime with a man who would order shootings. Then theres the other option, that soldiers started shooting on their own initiative, without orders. That is of course possible, as are all theories including your theory and my theory. I just take Thai media with a huge pinch of salt, and I have very little faith in any official inquiries carried out under the watch of the PTP regime, who define the phrase "vested interest" in this matter. I wondered for a long time why the UDD refused to immediately grasp the early elections offered at the start of May. It would have avoided the ensuing bloodshed. If that bloodshed was intended by the UDD leadership, then obviously that is on-topic to who fired the killshots, and who has been made scapegoats afterwards. But these waters are very murky and I think it is a mistake to believe your (or my) theory is the right one, with 100% certainty, even though we may express it, we can never prove any of it. I certainly don't know what happened because I wasn't listening to the UDD high-command before all hell broke loose.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Yunla

[waza]

When they say blanks they may mean training rounds, like they used in 2009, or maker rounds which dont require alterations to the weapon. However, it is his testamony, why would that have less value than your opinion? There are too many variables and too little evidence to make a difinitive conclusion on an internet forum. However, I agree that if Thaksin didnt organise and pay for the redshirts to riot in Bangkok in 2010, in response to the siezure of his illgotten assets this never would have happened

"Training rounds" as the military used in 2009 - another specious argument.

These "training rounds" have in the 2009 crackdown resulted in many injuries of protesters in the early morning attack at Samliem Dindaeng, two of the protesters were crippled for life, the wounds being absolutely consistent with the wounds high velocity bullets create. One was shot in the knee, and other in the upper arm, breaking his bone, severing his nerves beyond repair, and taking a large chunk of flesh out of his arm at the exit wound. This has left him with a paralyzed arm. In a civil court case in 2011 these two were awarded damages by the military. I am not aware of a criminal court conviction yet.

Evidence has shown that you are wrong,

^] The Army later claimed that live rounds were only fired into the air while training rounds were fired at the crowd. Human Rights Watch confirmed that there are some cases where the Army fired live ammunition directly at protesters, but that this only occurred when military forces approached protesters throwing Molotov bombs and improvised grenades, firing slingshots, and shooting guns at the troops.^{[125] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9310_Thai_political_crisis}

Sound familiar?

Edited September 25, 2013 by waza

[nicknostitz]

Evidence has show that you are wrong,

^] The Army later claimed that live rounds were only fired into the air while training rounds were fired at the crowd. Human Rights Watch confirmed that there are some cases where the Army fired live ammunition directly at protesters, but that this only occurred when military forces approached protesters throwing Molotov bombs and improvised grenades, firing slingshots, and shooting guns at the troops.^{[125] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9310_Thai_political_crisis}

Sound familiar?

The early morning 2009 crackdown is indeed very familiar to me as i was there, and bullets shot from the military lines passed me. At that particular time there was no visible thread against the military from anywhere close to my vicinity.

[nicknostitz]

You say I circumvent the issue and that I'm 'desperately attempting' to defend things. And then in your very next line you take my comparison of PTP's seeking to control the 2010 event story to Sauron's seeking to control the ring, a simple metaphor, but you desperately start talking about what Tolkien felt about WW2. My comparison was very specific and was a mere linguistic device, to see you leap on it that manner shows me that I am not the desperate one. And start the whole 'respect Tolkiens memory' spiel. Really. I'm sure anyone who has read his books cherishes his memory 100%.

Again on topic ; in a country with terrible corruption, and ruled by a fugitive criminal by proxy, one MUST question the official story, it is simply inevitable. And in a corrupt nation, the official story can well include the media, forensics, ballistics, judges, everything. So the sniper in the video, the bullet trajectories, his later comments about blanks, should be viewed not on face value only. It is really important to remember who funded the redshirts, and who encouraged them relentlessly to march on Bangkok in the first place, with his ranting on the tv etc. And then it is important to remember that this same man had 2000~ innocent people killed without trial during his 'war on drugs.' So we already know the value he places on the lives of poor Thai people. These factors have to be taken into account when reviewing the specific details of who shot who, and more importantly why. "Who benefits" is the question that must be asked. The Abhisit govt certainly did not stand to benefit from ordering massacre of citizens in the capital. If you want to buy the official story, sponsored by PTP/Thaksin, that the redshirts were innocent lambs massacred by soldiers, thats fine. I don't buy that story personally.

I don't believe for an instant that Abhisit would have ordered soldiers to shoot Thai citizens. He had held out for two months and begged the redshirts to go home, offered them aid and advice on not sitting in the sun too long. That doesn't chime with a man who would order shootings. Then theres the other option, that soldiers started shooting on their own initiative, without orders. That is of course possible, as are all theories including your theory and my theory. I just take Thai media with a huge pinch of salt, and I have very little faith in any official inquiries carried out under the watch of the PTP regime, who define the phrase "vested interest" in this matter. I wondered for a long time why the UDD refused to immediately grasp the early elections offered at the start of May. It would have avoided the ensuing bloodshed. If that bloodshed was intended by the UDD leadership, then obviously that is on-topic to who fired the killshots, and who has been made scapegoats afterwards. But these waters are very murky and I think it is a mistake to believe your (or my) theory is the right one, with 100% certainty, even though we may express it, we can never prove any of it. I certainly don't know what happened because I wasn't listening to the UDD high-command before all hell broke loose.

There is no need for me to believe any narrative from whatever side, as i was not just in Bangkok in 2010, but at the front lines of the events, and had therefore the opportunity to witness first hand and to photograph the events directly. Therefore i would suggest not to equate your "theories" - or better: speculation without any factual base - with what i and many colleagues have witnessed and recorded, and also have provided as evidence in court inquests in addition to our testimonies.

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters. Contesting the clear video evidence puts you (and several others here) into the quite ridiculous realm of flat earth society adherents.

[waza]

You say I circumvent the issue and that I'm 'desperately attempting' to defend things. And then in your very next line you take my comparison of PTP's seeking to control the 2010 event story to Sauron's seeking to control the ring, a simple metaphor, but you desperately start talking about what Tolkien felt about WW2. My comparison was very specific and was a mere linguistic device, to see you leap on it that manner shows me that I am not the desperate one. And start the whole 'respect Tolkiens memory' spiel. Really. I'm sure anyone who has read his books cherishes his memory 100%.

Again on topic ; in a country with terrible corruption, and ruled by a fugitive criminal by proxy, one MUST question the official story, it is simply inevitable. And in a corrupt nation, the official story can well include the media, forensics, ballistics, judges, everything. So the sniper in the video, the bullet trajectories, his later comments about blanks, should be viewed not on face value only. It is really important to remember who funded the redshirts, and who encouraged them relentlessly to march on Bangkok in the first place, with his ranting on the tv etc. And then it is important to remember that this same man had 2000~ innocent people killed without trial during his 'war on drugs.' So we already know the value he places on the lives of poor Thai people. These factors have to be taken into account when reviewing the specific details of who shot who, and more importantly why. "Who benefits" is the question that must be asked. The Abhisit govt certainly did not stand to benefit from ordering massacre of citizens in the capital. If you want to buy the official story, sponsored by PTP/Thaksin, that the redshirts were innocent lambs massacred by soldiers, thats fine. I don't buy that story personally.

I don't believe for an instant that Abhisit would have ordered soldiers to shoot Thai citizens. He had held out for two months and begged the redshirts to go home, offered them aid and advice on not sitting in the sun too long. That doesn't chime with a man who would order shootings. Then theres the other option, that soldiers started shooting on their own initiative, without orders. That is of course possible, as are all theories including your theory and my theory. I just take Thai media with a huge pinch of salt, and I have very little faith in any official inquiries carried out under the watch of the PTP regime, who define the phrase "vested interest" in this matter. I wondered for a long time why the UDD refused to immediately grasp the early elections offered at the start of May. It would have avoided the ensuing bloodshed. If that bloodshed was intended by the UDD leadership, then obviously that is on-topic to who fired the killshots, and who has been made scapegoats afterwards. But these waters are very murky and I think it is a mistake to believe your (or my) theory is the right one, with 100% certainty, even though we may express it, we can never prove any of it. I certainly don't know what happened because I wasn't listening to the UDD high-command before all hell broke loose.

There is no need for me to believe any narrative from whatever side, as i was not just in Bangkok in 2010, but at the front lines of the events, and had therefore the opportunity to witness first hand and to photograph the events directly. Therefore i would suggest not to equate your "theories" - or better: speculation without any factual base - with what i and many colleagues have witnessed and recorded, and also have provided as evidence in court inquests in addition to our testimonies.

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters. Contesting the clear video evidence puts you (and several others here) into the quite ridiculous realm of flat earth society adherents.

So you were an eye witness to this event?

[nicknostitz]

So you were an eye witness to this event?

Not to this particular event, otherwise i would have said so.

Fortunately we have a video though of this particular event which proves the soldiers' statement wrong.

Which is in line with every other inquest so far, in which soldiers have made similarly ridiculous statements countering forensic evidence and witness accounts, leading, with the exception of two, to verdicts against the military. You may scream foul, and propose the notion of courts being pressured and whatever not, but if you would have made the effort observe in person some of these inquests, you would have been able to see that the verdicts were indeed based on hard evidence and investigation, and not on what you claim - on politics.

[waza]

So you were an eye witness to this event?

Not to this particular event, otherwise i would have said so.

Fortunately we have a video though of this particular event which proves the soldiers' statement wrong.

Which is in line with every other inquest so far, in which soldiers have made similarly ridiculous statements countering forensic evidence and witness accounts, leading, with the exception of two, to verdicts against the military. You may scream foul, and propose the notion of courts being pressured and whatever not, but if you would have made the effort observe in person some of these inquests, you would have been able to see that the verdicts were indeed based on hard evidence and investigation, and not on what you claim - on politics.

Where can I read thefinding to this inquest? Have they been published? or are you making this judgement on this man?

[nicknostitz]

Where can I read thefinding to this inquest? Have they been published? or are you making this judgement on this man?

Be patient, you will read the result of the inquest at the time the judges will issue the verdict.

In the Channarong Ponsrila verdict, for example, the judge commented on the soldiers' testimony, which included similarly ridiculous statements as the one described here, that their statements were not believable given the evidence against them.

Point being - this is not the first such testimony in which the military has lied about events.

So, yes, i make that judgement right now. And given the evidence, i am positively sure that this will also be the weight the judge will give to this statement when issuing a verdict.

Edited September 25, 2013 by nicknostitz

[Tigre101]

the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

Whatever rings your sick little bell.

It's called censorship, not moderation and Mr Slater's Avian is correct.

waza and the moderation is correct.

There's absolutely no need for posting overly graphic images of brains being bown[sic] out, particularly when the depiction isn't in regards to the specifics of the topic.

[Tigre101]

First of all - soldiers did kill protesters indeed, as now more than in a dozen cases the court inquests have already proven - beyond any doubt.

No it hasn't.

For that to occur, specific individuals would need to be have been indicted for specific occurrences and subsequently convicted and all follow-on appeals would need to have failed.

If and when that occurs, your statement will be true.

"beyond any doubt" is far too exclusionary to be tossed about so haphazardly. For one thing, it's a measure used for trials, not inquests.

Hopefully you could also curtail your use of insulting rhetoric when replying to fellow members in your posts. Your use of incendiary words like "drivel" and "idiotic" that I snipped out of your post impedes discussion amongst members.

Thanks.

[nicknostitz]

First of all - soldiers did kill protesters indeed, as now more than in a dozen cases the court inquests have already proven - beyond any doubt.

No it hasn't.

For that to occur, specific individuals would need to be have been indicted for specific occurrences and subsequently convicted and all follow-on appeals would need to have failed.

If and when that occurs, your statement will be true.

"beyond any doubt" is far too exclusionary to be tossed about so haphazardly. For one thing, it's a measure used for trials, not inquests.

Hopefully you could also curtail your use of insulting rhetoric when replying to fellow members in your posts. Your use of incendiary words like "drivel" and "idiotic" that I snipped out of your post impedes discussion amongst members.

Thanks.

Well, it has been proven that bullets came from the military, as reflected in the verdicts of several inquests. In the Channarong case the judge was quite explicitly pointing out the lack of credibility of the soldiers' testimony, especially regarding that it went completely against not just witness accounts but also against available video footage and forensic evidence.

Therefore we can clearly state that soldiers have killed Channarong Ponsrila, while we cannot point out the individual soldier. The same counts for other cases.

In many of the cases video footage of soldiers firing at protesters have been shown as evidence.

One of the main reasons individual soldiers could not be pointed out was that the army was not exactly forthcoming in providing evidence. I would suggest to talk with the investigators if you want to know the particulars.

You may be incensed, but ignoring the evidence, and therefore the inquest verdicts is dishonest.

But i really do not care what you feel about me. I have seen people killed and injured in front of me in 2010. I can't change that unfortunately, and it will stay with me. But it does give me at least some satisfaction that some part of the truth could not be swiped under the table. And as the inquests continue, more will come out - no matter how you and others may fume and argue over these inquests and verdicts.

[Tigre101]

First of all - soldiers did kill protesters indeed, as now more than in a dozen cases the court inquests have already proven - beyond any doubt.

No it hasn't.

For that to occur, specific individuals would need to be have been indicted for specific occurrences and subsequently convicted and all follow-on appeals would need to have failed.

If and when that occurs, your statement will be true.

"beyond any doubt" is far too exclusionary to be tossed about so haphazardly. For one thing, it's a measure used for trials, not inquests.

Hopefully you could also curtail your use of insulting rhetoric when replying to fellow members in your posts. Your use of incendiary words like "drivel" and "idiotic" that I snipped out of your post impedes discussion amongst members.

Thanks.

Well, it has been proven that bullets came from the military, as reflected in the verdicts of several inquests. In the Channarong case the judge was quite explicitly pointing out the lack of credibility of the soldiers' testimony, especially regarding that it went completely against not just witness accounts but also against available video footage and forensic evidence.

Therefore we can clearly state that soldiers have killed Channarong Ponsrila, while we cannot point out the individual soldier. The same counts for other cases.

In many of the cases video footage of soldiers firing at protesters have been shown as evidence.

One of the main reasons individual soldiers could not be pointed out was that the army was not exactly forthcoming in providing evidence. I would suggest to talk with the investigators if you want to know the particulars.

You may be incensed, but ignoring the evidence, and therefore the inquest verdicts is dishonest.

But i really do not care what you feel about me. I have seen people killed and injured in front of me in 2010. I can't change that unfortunately, and it will stay with me. But it does give me at least some satisfaction that some part of the truth could not be swiped under the table. And as the inquests continue, more will come out - no matter how you and others may fume and argue over these inquests and verdicts.

"incensed"....."fume and argue"????

Who's doing that? That's way out of line with what my succinct post said.

As said, your misstated "beyond any doubt" fails to meet the standard of that phrase as explained above, but perhaps, one day, it might.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Tigre101

[fasteddie]

If you had any knowledge of the red riots you would be aware thet the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces for the remainder of the insurection. Further the more traditional methoods of crowd control such as police, riot shields and clubs and rubberbullets were either ineffective or countered with automatic weapons and granade launchers.

"the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces"

Hysterical and hilarious at the same time.

Gunshots rang out throughout the night and into the morning in central Bangkok. At daybreak, a group of protesters captured and vandalized two military water cannon trucks at the intersection of Sathorn and Rama IV roads in the heart of the business district. They ripped the cannon from its moorings and used its plastic barrel to shoot firecrackers from behind a sandbag bunker they had commandeered from soldiers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/thailand-readies-lockdown-red-shirts-says-shoot-terrorists-defy/#ixzz2fcj7CPc2

Oh please! Fox news? That's really grasping at straws.

[fasteddie]

If you had any knowledge of the red riots you would be aware thet the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces for the remainder of the insurection. Further the more traditional methoods of crowd control such as police, riot shields and clubs and rubberbullets were either ineffective or countered with automatic weapons and granade launchers.

"the water cannons were captured by the reds at the begining of the riots and then used to fire rockets at the security forces"

Hysterical and hilarious at the same time.

Gunshots rang out throughout the night and into the morning in central Bangkok. At daybreak, a group of protesters captured and vandalized two military water cannon trucks at the intersection of Sathorn and Rama IV roads in the heart of the business district. They ripped the cannon from its moorings and used its plastic barrel to shoot firecrackers from behind a sandbag bunker they had commandeered from soldiers

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/thailand-readies-lockdown-red-shirts-says-shoot-terrorists-defy/#ixzz2fcj7CPc2

What is hysterical and hilarious is reading the red shirt defenders' posts as they backtrack when faced with factual reports.

Factual reports? Fox news? Good one/

[Yunla]

There is no need for me to believe any narrative from whatever side, as i was not just in Bangkok in 2010, but at the front lines of the events, and had therefore the opportunity to witness first hand and to photograph the events directly. Therefore i would suggest not to equate your "theories" - or better: speculation without any factual base - with what i and many colleagues have witnessed and recorded, and also have provided as evidence in court inquests in addition to our testimonies.

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters. Contesting the clear video evidence puts you (and several others here) into the quite ridiculous realm of flat earth society adherents.

Obviously your comments to me about being a conspiracy theorist and flat-earth etc. are insulting. Also there is enough historical facts of assassins in civilian clothes or in army fatigues, carrying out pivotal shots at volatile times. Also a long history of soldiers being paid by the opposing force, to carry out incendiary acts to escalate the situation and yes to create martyrs. In both cases you would see a soldier shooting people.This kind of double bluff has existed in wars and politics since the very earliest human civilisations, and this is not conspiracy theory it is History. So to simply rule out the strategies humans have used forever, because its the 21st century now, seems wrongheaded to me. And as I said before, given the man behind PT, I refuse to take anything at face value on the events following the offered & refused early-elections in May and the massacre that followed. I would have to see much clearer evidence than what is currently on offer. But as I also said, it is possible that some soldiers were shooting on their own initiative, without being bribed to do so, or anything. Really that is something only the soldiers in question would know.

[nicknostitz]

There is no need for me to believe any narrative from whatever side, as i was not just in Bangkok in 2010, but at the front lines of the events, and had therefore the opportunity to witness first hand and to photograph the events directly. Therefore i would suggest not to equate your "theories" - or better: speculation without any factual base - with what i and many colleagues have witnessed and recorded, and also have provided as evidence in court inquests in addition to our testimonies.

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters. Contesting the clear video evidence puts you (and several others here) into the quite ridiculous realm of flat earth society adherents.

Obviously your comments to me about being a conspiracy theorist and flat-earth etc. are insulting. Also there is enough historical facts of assassins in civilian clothes or in army fatigues, carrying out pivotal shots at volatile times. Also a long history of soldiers being paid by the opposing force, to carry out incendiary acts to escalate the situation and yes to create martyrs. In both cases you would see a soldier shooting people.This kind of double bluff has existed in wars and politics since the very earliest human civilisations, and this is not conspiracy theory it is History. So to simply rule out the strategies humans have used forever, because its the 21st century now, seems wrongheaded to me. And as I said before, given the man behind PT, I refuse to take anything at face value on the events following the offered & refused early-elections in May and the massacre that followed. I would have to see much clearer evidence than what is currently on offer. But as I also said, it is possible that some soldiers were shooting on their own initiative, without being bribed to do so, or anything. Really that is something only the soldiers in question would know.

Have you ever thought how insulting the tone and content of your posts here are to victims? Or to me?

You have the freedom to spin your little theories. I haven't - people have been killed in front of me, i have seen soldiers killing these people. Regardless of being a journalist - i am also a human being, and naturally 2010 had a lasting effect on me. I am not a parachute journo who goes to the next theater when the action here is over. I have talked with relatives of these people killed in front of me. I have even had very difficult talks with soldiers who have taken these shots, and who have shot at me. Talks which were very emotional, for me and them. Because, naturally, these soldiers are human beings as well, and are as haunted by what took place then.

While you can sit at your screen and fabulate your version of 2010 colored by your political preference - i haven't got that luxury. For me, this is quite personal.

Anyhow - i stop with this little excursion into my personal feelings, as this is most likely anyhow rather useless here, in this place. You have quite obviously made your mind up, and nothing i can possibly say will change that.

[MrSlatersParrot]

the moderators on here would not allow me to show pictures of people's brains literally bown out.

For the sake of decency.

Whatever rings your sick little bell.

It's called censorship, not moderation and Mr Slater's Avian is correct.

waza and the moderation is correct.

There's absolutely no need for posting overly graphic images of brains being bown[sic] out, particularly when the depiction isn't in regards to the specifics of the topic.

Well if you're like Waza and don't believe these pictures exist (and similar have been shown on Thai Visa in the past) I felt justified and not a little irritated to post a selection of the poor people who were murdered with shots to the head including 2 who had their brains literally blown out.

Furthermore the topic was about the sniper denying he was firing any live rounds when the video clearly showed he was and not blank as other posters have pointed out.

I showed some of the evidence.

[GentlemanJim]

You say I circumvent the issue and that I'm 'desperately attempting' to defend things. And then in your very next line you take my comparison of PTP's seeking to control the 2010 event story to Sauron's seeking to control the ring, a simple metaphor, but you desperately start talking about what Tolkien felt about WW2. My comparison was very specific and was a mere linguistic device, to see you leap on it that manner shows me that I am not the desperate one. And start the whole 'respect Tolkiens memory' spiel. Really. I'm sure anyone who has read his books cherishes his memory 100%.

Again on topic ; in a country with terrible corruption, and ruled by a fugitive criminal by proxy, one MUST question the official story, it is simply inevitable. And in a corrupt nation, the official story can well include the media, forensics, ballistics, judges, everything. So the sniper in the video, the bullet trajectories, his later comments about blanks, should be viewed not on face value only. It is really important to remember who funded the redshirts, and who encouraged them relentlessly to march on Bangkok in the first place, with his ranting on the tv etc. And then it is important to remember that this same man had 2000~ innocent people killed without trial during his 'war on drugs.' So we already know the value he places on the lives of poor Thai people. These factors have to be taken into account when reviewing the specific details of who shot who, and more importantly why. "Who benefits" is the question that must be asked. The Abhisit govt certainly did not stand to benefit from ordering massacre of citizens in the capital. If you want to buy the official story, sponsored by PTP/Thaksin, that the redshirts were innocent lambs massacred by soldiers, thats fine. I don't buy that story personally.

I don't believe for an instant that Abhisit would have ordered soldiers to shoot Thai citizens. He had held out for two months and begged the redshirts to go home, offered them aid and advice on not sitting in the sun too long. That doesn't chime with a man who would order shootings. Then theres the other option, that soldiers started shooting on their own initiative, without orders. That is of course possible, as are all theories including your theory and my theory. I just take Thai media with a huge pinch of salt, and I have very little faith in any official inquiries carried out under the watch of the PTP regime, who define the phrase "vested interest" in this matter. I wondered for a long time why the UDD refused to immediately grasp the early elections offered at the start of May. It would have avoided the ensuing bloodshed. If that bloodshed was intended by the UDD leadership, then obviously that is on-topic to who fired the killshots, and who has been made scapegoats afterwards. But these waters are very murky and I think it is a mistake to believe your (or my) theory is the right one, with 100% certainty, even though we may express it, we can never prove any of it. I certainly don't know what happened because I wasn't listening to the UDD high-command before all hell broke loose.

There is no need for me to believe any narrative from whatever side, as i was not just in Bangkok in 2010, but at the front lines of the events, and had therefore the opportunity to witness first hand and to photograph the events directly. Therefore i would suggest not to equate your "theories" - or better: speculation without any factual base - with what i and many colleagues have witnessed and recorded, and also have provided as evidence in court inquests in addition to our testimonies.

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters. Contesting the clear video evidence puts you (and several others here) into the quite ridiculous realm of flat earth society adherents.

How funny! The last time you pounced into the forum as Somchai's Super Hero "The Great Caped Red Defender', I asked you why out of all of the photo's you provided of bullet holes in walls and cars that you presented as proof that the army had fired the bullets , why you had no photo's of any blackshirts, remember the ones that were all over the media and on youtube, and were always present at the main protest area. You told us how could you be expected to see everything and be everywhere all at the same time! Yet here you are saying that you were there, you saw it first hand. Show us the photo evidence you have again that proves the army shot at you, it's quite funny. I bet you have never paid for a whiskey though when you get Somchai the Red and all his friends sat around your laptop going ooooh aaaaahhhh!

The Shin clan feed on these poor uneducated people for what little money they have and what power they unknowingly wield, it seems some just like to feed their ego from their limitless supply of gullibility You seem to be one of the only photo journalists who seemed desperate NOT to want to photo invasions of hospitals or blackshirt guards with weapons or the well advertised disgraceful blood throwing spectacles, or maybe bamboo spear barricades manned with armed 'footsoldiers'. Nope nothing. The balance displayed in terms of journalism was zero. It would be much less painful to us all if you just clearly stated your position instead of claiming to be impartial. It is rubbish and a great disrespect to everyone on here who has a complete working brain.

You say

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters.

No, the basic issue is a soldier firing at someone throwing molotov cocktails, manufactured with the intent to maim, kill and destroy public property. In that case the rules of engagement for any soldier in any country in the world are clear, and the guy throwing the molotov cocktail would have found that out, at twice the speed of sound!

[nicknostitz]

How funny! The last time you pounced into the forum as Somchai's Super Hero "The Great Caped Red Defender', I asked you why out of all of the photo's you provided of bullet holes in walls and cars that you presented as proof that the army had fired the bullets , why you had no photo's of any blackshirts, remember the ones that were all over the media and on youtube, and were always present at the main protest area. You told us how could you be expected to see everything and be everywhere all at the same time! Yet here you are saying that you were there, you saw it first hand. Show us the photo evidence you have again that proves the army shot at you, it's quite funny. I bet you have never paid for a whiskey though when you get Somchai the Red and all his friends sat around your laptop going ooooh aaaaahhhh!

The Shin clan feed on these poor uneducated people for what little money they have and what power they unknowingly wield, it seems some just like to feed their ego from their limitless supply of gullibility You seem to be one of the only photo journalists who seemed desperate NOT to want to photo invasions of hospitals or blackshirt guards with weapons or the well advertised disgraceful blood throwing spectacles, or maybe bamboo spear barricades manned with armed 'footsoldiers'. Nope nothing. The balance displayed in terms of journalism was zero. It would be much less painful to us all if you just clearly stated your position instead of claiming to be impartial. It is rubbish and a great disrespect to everyone on here who has a complete working brain.

You say

Whatever factors you may want to take into account, the basic issue here: a soldier firing at protesters.

No, the basic issue is a soldier firing at someone throwing molotov cocktails, manufactured with the intent to maim, kill and destroy public property. In that case the rules of engagement for any soldier in any country in the world are clear, and the guy throwing the molotov cocktail would have found that out, at twice the speed of sound!

A few corrections:

I have not answered on the question why i have no images of armed militants under the Red Shirts that i could not "be expected to see everything and be everywhere all at the same time". I have always stated that the one night i have met them during the fighting that they asked me not to take their images, and that i preferred to follow that request for safety reasons. Which should be understandable.

Furthermore, the armed militants were not "always present", and definitely not easily visible, that is why so few images and videos of these groups exist. Many confuse Red Shirt guards, who dressed in a black uniform, with the so-called "Men in Black", or better defined as armed militants. These are different entities.

Secondly - i have published images of the blood collection and the curse laid by the Red Shirt Brahmin exactly here, during the 2010 protests:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/03/25/bangkok-or-bust-part-1/

I have not photographed the hospital invasion, because i heard too late about it and could not make it in time. I am not omnipresent.

Thirdly, when i am at the side that is getting shot at, and try to photograph the ones that shoot at the side i am, chances are that i will be shot while attempting to take images of the ones that shoot at me. 2010 was not a video game, and i primarily intended to survive. Maybe you have never been in a combat zone, and therefore cannot relate to the pure terror one experiences and has to deal with in such a situation, while still trying to be observant enough to do one's job. Putting myself into direct line of fire just to capture a few images is not worth the risk, in my opinion.

However, i have taken images of soldiers that have shot at protesters during incidents i was working at the side of the military. I am not aware if these images have been published. I have handed these images though over to the investigators, and they were used as evidence in relevant court cases. Together with other images and videos from different positions and angles, including footage from surveillance cameras, they have led to verdicts. I can't help you if you do not attend court sessions where images and videos of these incidents are shown.

Concluding- I would suggest, before you accuse me of violating the ethics of my profession, to check your facts before spreading slanderous lies about me.

Edited September 27, 2013 by nicknostitz

[SinCityGr8One]

Any and all Thai's will deny any partaking or knowledge of guilt to any and all things. Part of Thainess, I suppose. Watch the video of the sniper and spotter. Blanks my ASS! Guilty aa charged, set a date with the axeman!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app