Infamous video 'sniper' denies shooting at Red Shirts

[GentlemanJim]

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.

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

[nicknostitz]

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

As expected - when proven wrong on all accusations that you have leveled, instead of admitting to have been wrong and doing as your chosen name would imply - to apologize for the slander, you hit back with even more infantile name calling.

I am bewildered how you can possibly come to the conclusion that i have reported on the floods in 2011?

I haven't.

I have taken pictures only, which were never published as it did not turn into an international story, other than a few of my images here:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/10/23/flood-images-from-nick-nostitz/

I am sorry, but it sounds to me that you have a few issues to solve there, which are quite unrelated to me.

[GentlemanJim]

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

As expected - when proven wrong on all accusations that you have leveled, instead of admitting to have been wrong and doing as your chosen name would imply - to apologize for the slander, you hit back with even more infantile name calling.

I am bewildered how you can possibly come to the conclusion that i have reported on the floods in 2011?

I haven't.

I have taken pictures only, which were never published as it did not turn into an international story, other than a few of my images here:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/10/23/flood-images-from-nick-nostitz/

I am sorry, but it sounds to me that you have a few issues to solve there, which are quite unrelated to me.

Nick

You published images on this very forum concerning the floods in 2011 what are you bewildered about?. Your pictures were accompanied by the same old red propaganda.

Slander? Again you use that, my my journalist, freedom of expression and all that, as I said drama Queen. Does a name imply behaviour, now that is infantile. Are you telling me the floods of 2011 did not turn in to an international story?

I have no issues of any concern, do you Nick? I am neither red, nor yellow, Shin Clan or Abhisit man, I have a pretty objective view of things as to what happened in 2010 and it is light years away from what you think, but I am not burdened by the heavy effects of red propaganda.

Now, just what is it that was slanderous?

By the way you say 'as expected - when proven wrong'??? What did you prove me wrong about? Is this the level of proof you seem to be applying to the Abhisit Government for shooting at armed active combatants (not militants, they were combatants) who were using a red protest as cover to murder soldiers. Would you have fired back if you were a soldier or gone and given them a copy of something nice to read, or maybe handed out a few orchids?

Edited September 27, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[hellodolly]

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.

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

With all the time he spent with the red shirts and not seeing them do any thing wrong. It is a wonder that he was not called as a material witness that the people who got shot were innocent.

I wonder how he knew the difference between a man in black and a red shirt wearing a black shirt? Did he help them dress?

It is sad to see the lengths people will go to just to rewrite history.

Edit

I just read your reply Jim and it reminded me he called it a combat zone. Now I wonder how he could figure that all the people in a combat zone were innocent. I am very very sure that any one innocent would have left the zone at the first opportunity.

Edited September 27, 2013 by hellodolly

[nicknostitz]

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

As expected - when proven wrong on all accusations that you have leveled, instead of admitting to have been wrong and doing as your chosen name would imply - to apologize for the slander, you hit back with even more infantile name calling.

I am bewildered how you can possibly come to the conclusion that i have reported on the floods in 2011?

I haven't.

I have taken pictures only, which were never published as it did not turn into an international story, other than a few of my images here:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/10/23/flood-images-from-nick-nostitz/

I am sorry, but it sounds to me that you have a few issues to solve there, which are quite unrelated to me.

Nick

You published images on this very forum concerning the floods in 2011 what are you bewildered about?. Your pictures were accompanied by the same old red propaganda.

Slander? Again you use that, my my journalist, freedom of expression and all that, as I said drama Queen. Does a name imply behaviour, now that is infantile. Are you telling me the floods of 2011 did not turn in to an international story?

I have no issues of any concern, do you Nick? I am neither red, nor yellow, Shin Clan or Abhisit, I have a pretty objective view of things as to what happened in 2010 and it is light years away from what you think, but I am not burdened by the heavy effects of red propaganda.

Now, just what is it that was slanderous?

It has been a while, so maybe i am wrong, but i do not remember having posted images of the floods here on the forum.

What i remember though is that i have stated that when lots of people here dragged politics into the flood relief efforts, that this was not reflected by what i have seen. What i have seen while wading through the floods was soldiers, police, Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts all helping and working together. But if you consider that "Red propaganda", then we have different definitions of that term.

The floods were a minor international story as the flood waters never reached central Bangkok. Wire services supplied all the stories the market wanted, and hardly any international media invested into producing their own stories, which they do when stories become big enough.

If you want to know what slanderous is, you can see a prime example of that in your first post directed against me here in this discussion.

[nicknostitz]

With all the time he spent with the red shirts and not seeing them do any thing wrong. It is a wonder that he was not called as a material witness that the people who got shot were innocent.

I wonder how he knew the difference between a man in black and a red shirt wearing a black shirt? Did he help them dress?

It is sad to see the lengths people will go to just to rewrite history.

Edit

I just read your reply Jim and it reminded me he called it a combat zone. Now I wonder how he could figure that all the people in a combat zone were innocent. I am very very sure that any one innocent would have left the zone at the first opportunity.

Again, lets not get the truth in the way of a good story...

First of all - i was the first journo who photographed a Red Shirt protester with a gun, back in 2008. Etc...

As to "wrong" - i found it then and now wrong that the Red Shirts have permanently occupied Rajaprasong. I found it wrong that the UDD leadership let Arisaman lead the protest at parliament, in which he led protesters to invade the parliament, giving the government the excuse to implement the emergency decree. I found it wrong that the UDD leadership rejected the negotiated reconciliation plan in May.

So, you see - there are more than a few things that i find wrong with the Red Shirts. That though does not excuse the wrongs of the DP government.

Again - if military snipers would have killed armed militants under the Red Shirts, i would not find any fault as armed militants were indeed legitimate targets. But - as far as we know so far, all of the killed Red Shirt protesters in 2010 were unarmed.

There is more than enough footage available in which unarmed protesters were killed in front of cameras. Not a single journalist who has taken these images has seen these people having been killed by armed Red Shirt militants, and in many cases journalists, both Thai and western, have testified at the courts that they were shot from the direction of the military lines, by soldiers.

But again, anonymous posters on ThaiVisa know better, even though they have seen nothing...

[philw]

Quote from flying officer GJ.

"Is this the level of proof you seem to be applying to the Abhisit Government for shooting at armed active combatants (not militants, they were combatants) who were using a red protest as cover to murder soldiers."

Er....How many armed active "combatants", did the RTA actually kill and wound ???

Answer, none.

How many unarmed civilians ??

About 80+ dead and over 2,000 wounded.

Your propaganda GJ is remarkable for it's innovation.

[hellodolly]

My my, a journalist and a drama queen! Slanderous lies eh!

So there were armed red shirts wearing black shirts in amongst you and all the red grandma's and children, you saw them and spoke with them, yet at no time do you consider that the army or this nation has the right to use lethal force to stop them. There were also men in black? Shame you could not get to the hospital invasion due to lack of time, I know time was tight it only went on for two days. If you are not omnipresent then stop trying to make out that you are. And finally, apart from inserting and extracting combat troops in and out of hot zones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia you are right, I have never been in a combat zone under fire, as one example of many, apart from once when landing with a soldier in the back shot to pieces and conducting an immediate shutdown, unstrapping and going in the back to hold a soldiers belly and chest in place whilst the crewman tried to give resus while we waited two mins for the medics, I have never experienced sheer terror whilst staying focused enough to fly a combat aircraft with combat troops in a combat zone. You are a drama queen Nick that reports one side of the story only, you did it in 2010 and you did it in the floods of 2011.

As expected - when proven wrong on all accusations that you have leveled, instead of admitting to have been wrong and doing as your chosen name would imply - to apologize for the slander, you hit back with even more infantile name calling.

I am bewildered how you can possibly come to the conclusion that i have reported on the floods in 2011?

I haven't.

I have taken pictures only, which were never published as it did not turn into an international story, other than a few of my images here:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/10/23/flood-images-from-nick-nostitz/

I am sorry, but it sounds to me that you have a few issues to solve there, which are quite unrelated to me.

Nick

You published images on this very forum concerning the floods in 2011 what are you bewildered about?. Your pictures were accompanied by the same old red propaganda.

Slander? Again you use that, my my journalist, freedom of expression and all that, as I said drama Queen. Does a name imply behaviour, now that is infantile. Are you telling me the floods of 2011 did not turn in to an international story?

I have no issues of any concern, do you Nick? I am neither red, nor yellow, Shin Clan or Abhisit, I have a pretty objective view of things as to what happened in 2010 and it is light years away from what you think, but I am not burdened by the heavy effects of red propaganda.

Now, just what is it that was slanderous?

It has been a while, so maybe i am wrong, but i do not remember having posted images of the floods here on the forum.

What i remember though is that i have stated that when lots of people here dragged politics into the flood relief efforts, that this was not reflected by what i have seen. What i have seen while wading through the floods was soldiers, police, Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts all helping and working together. But if you consider that "Red propaganda", then we have different definitions of that term.

The floods were a minor international story as the flood waters never reached central Bangkok. Wire services supplied all the stories the market wanted, and hardly any international media invested into producing their own stories, which they do when stories become big enough.

If you want to know what slanderous is, you can see a prime example of that in your first post directed against me here in this discussion.

You are quite correct

"What i have seen while wading through the floods was soldiers, police, Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts all helping and working together. But if you consider that "Red propaganda", then we have different definitions of that term."

That was not politics.

It was citizens banding together to help their neighbors. the army volunteered and worked side by side with red, yellow and possibly a black shirt.

How ever there was a lot of politics involved.

I would say a picture of Yingluck handing out a bag of groceries was a political maneuver. It would have been different if she had been in a bpat full of relief goods. Or the picture of all the abandoned water the government was stock piling at Don Mueang? Or the extrodenary high prices the Government paid for boats or the refusal of help from the U S Navy complete with helicopters equipped for night flight to help out.

[nicknostitz]

You are quite correct

"What i have seen while wading through the floods was soldiers, police, Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts all helping and working together. But if you consider that "Red propaganda", then we have different definitions of that term."

That was not politics.

It was citizens banding together to help their neighbors. the army volunteered and worked side by side with red, yellow and possibly a black shirt.

How ever there was a lot of politics involved.

I would say a picture of Yingluck handing out a bag of groceries was a political maneuver. It would have been different if she had been in a bpat full of relief goods. Or the picture of all the abandoned water the government was stock piling at Don Mueang? Or the extrodenary high prices the Government paid for boats or the refusal of help from the U S Navy complete with helicopters equipped for night flight to help out.

Of course there were politics involved - both sides did that. The Dems handed flood relief packages out with their signs on, from lorries and boats displaying their party logos, and PT did the same. Both sides engaged in a ridiculous bitch fight.

As to the necessity of the US coming with copters. Sorry, but i don't see that. All disaster zones contain a certain amount of chaos and corruption. All in all the Thais have handled it rather well (and that means all sides - government, military, police, normal people, etc) considering the circumstances.

I have seen much worse, and especially when that whole NGO, UN caravan comes into disaster zones.

But, i was not really interested in all that politicking, and stayed as far away as i could. I mostly waded or went by boat through the incredibly surreal flooded areas and took pictures. That's it.

[bitcoinbob]

denial, half truths and lies only get you so far in life. there comes a time when things happen and you have to be honest and fair. the government called in snipers very small amount because they are highly-trained and disciplinde not your normal conscripts who may say no when the order to shoot comes. yes they did shoot and kill people remember the Japanese reporter for reuters that was shot, army denied that all the way until the flood and the jap cars companies had no incentive to rebuild thai govt gave the family a cash payout and did say they shot him.

[cdnvic]

Settle down and stop getting so personal please.

[Yunla]

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.

My tone to you has been perfectly pleasant. And you talk about how you have more compassion and human feelings towards the victims, than I do, just because you were actually there. I would like to inform you that before the red shirts marched on Bangkok, I was attending Buddhist prayer vigils here in Bangkok with some of the local Thais, who were praying that this "protest" did not lead to another turbulent and disastrous chapter of Thai history. We continued to hold candle-light praying on a regular basis throughout the months of UDD seige. We were sometimes crying, during the buckets of blood poured onto the streets of the capital, when UDD announced on stage that they would burn Bangkok down, to huge cheers from their supporters. We as a community were very sorry from Day One.

If you want to talk about I am insulting the victims and I don't feel human compassion because I didn't see them die infront of me, that is madness. I've seen people die infront of me in South America, in Africa, and in the UK. I feel no more sadness for them than I do for somebody I haven't seen die. Its tragic either way and effects me the same as it effects any normal human.

Also this is not about my "political colours". I don't vote in Thailand. I am not a fan of either major party. As said before, Thailand needs a new progressive leader and we don't have that in either party.

Perhaps you should blame all the deaths (protesters, reporter, the soldiers) blame those deaths not on mystery snipers and bits of dodgy video, blame those deaths on the UDD for ordering and funding people to lay seige to the capital for months, and to refuse the olive branch of early elections. They are the ones who caused all the deaths. If Thaksin/UDD had not ordered the reds to march, and to stay there for months, many armed, and megaphone speeches about burning cities down. Nobody would have died. There would have been no victims. Nothing was achieved by those protests. If they had not happened, or if they had only lasted a week, nobody would have died. The only "achievement" we got from those months of hell in 2010, was bringing Thaksin back into power. No revolutionary reforms for the poor of Thailand. I feel very sorry for all the people who lost their lives (from all groups), more so because they could have stayed at home and it would have made no difference at all to the future of Thailand.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Yunla

[nicknostitz]

My tone to you has been perfectly pleasant. And you talk about how you have more compassion and human feelings towards the victims, than I do, just because you were actually there. I would like to inform you that before the red shirts marched on Bangkok, I was attending Buddhist prayer vigils here in Bangkok with some of the local Thais, who were praying that this "protest" did not lead to another turbulent and disastrous chapter of Thai history. We continued to hold candle-light praying on a regular basis throughout the months of UDD seige. We were sometimes crying, during the buckets of blood poured onto the streets of the capital, when UDD announced on stage that they would burn Bangkok down, to huge cheers from their supporters. We as a community were very sorry from Day One.

If you want to talk about I am insulting the victims and I don't feel human compassion because I didn't see them die infront of me, that is madness. I've seen people die infront of me in South America, in Africa, and in the UK. I feel no more sadness for them than I do for somebody I haven't seen die. Its tragic either way and effects me the same as it effects any normal human.

Also this is not about my "political colours". I don't vote in Thailand. I am not a fan of either major party. As said before, Thailand needs a new progressive leader and we don't have that in either party.

Perhaps you should blame all the deaths (protesters, reporter, the soldiers) blame those deaths not on mystery snipers and bits of dodgy video, blame those deaths on the UDD for ordering and funding people to lay seige to the capital for months, and to refuse the olive branch of early elections. They are the ones who caused all the deaths. If Thaksin/UDD had not ordered the reds to march, and to stay there for months, many armed, and megaphone speeches about burning cities down. Nobody would have died. There would have been no victims. Nothing was achieved by those protests. If they had not happened, or if they had only lasted a week, nobody would have died. The only "achievement" we got from those months of hell in 2010, was bringing Thaksin back into power. No revolutionary reforms for the poor of Thailand. I feel very sorry for all the people who lost their lives (from all groups), more so because they could have stayed at home and it would have made no difference at all to the future of Thailand.

I do not need to argue over what you describe as "dodgy video" as i have seen soldiers shooting at protesters on numerous occasions. In one of the incidents, directly in front of me, a soldier screamed at a badly injured protester who was shot in front of me (i still remember the sound of the second bullet hitting his arm, shattering his bones...), and who i had to pull out of a water pond, that he should die (the protester did die). The soldier who died on April 28 in the friendly fire incident died in front of me, his eye pushed out of the socket from the pressure of the bullet that hit his temple. During the same incident i have seen and photographed soldiers wildly firing their rifles (on auto) at protesters throwing bottles and rocks from the tollway above, as the military has failed to secure the high ground before advancing on the street below.

On several occasions i have seen soldiers shooting at ambulances that came to the aid of wounded.

Etc...

We can go on and on about the politics that led to the mess (and yes - Thailand would need more progressive leaders, i don't argue on this point, but they don't just come from nowhere). But regardless, you can throw in one specious argument after the other, matter of the fact is that any existing rule of engagement was broken, the army was incredibly undisciplined during the crackdown, leading to the death of 80 or so unarmed protesters, several rescue volunteers, two journos, and ten or so soldiers. Thaksin or the Red Shirt leadership may be responsible for having prolonged the protests, but the cannot be held responsible for lack of discipline and the brutality of the soldiers. That is on the DP government and the military leadership.

Again, it is dishonest to defend your position with specious and circular arguments, by attacking the courts, discrediting witnesses, media, and investigators, so you can just hold fast to your position against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Tigre101]

Quote:"fasteddie"

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

Unquote

"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/

What's good is... to know that you so are wrapped up in your red shirt defender position to realize that you missed the quoted and linked article was actually written by Associated Press and simply relayed by Fox news.


Don't be so fast in your defense, eddie.

Take the time to actually read what you criticize.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Tigre101

[Tigre101]

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.

Get a clue.

Your post was inappropriate and overly graphic. This isn't the ogrish website.

It was very justifiably deleted by moderators for that reason.

I agreed with the moderation and those highlighting a rather disturbed thought process that somehow thought it was ok to post such trash.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Tigre101

[Yunla]

We can go on and on about the politics that led to the mess (and yes - Thailand would need more progressive leaders, i don't argue on this point, but they don't just come from nowhere). But regardless, you can throw in one specious argument after the other, matter of the fact is that any existing rule of engagement was broken, the army was incredibly undisciplined during the crackdown, leading to the death of 80 or so unarmed protesters, several rescue volunteers, two journos, and ten or so soldiers. Thaksin or the Red Shirt leadership may be responsible for having prolonged the protests, but the cannot be held responsible for lack of discipline and the brutality of the soldiers. That is on the DP government and the military leadership.

Again, it is dishonest to defend your position with specious and circular arguments, by attacking the courts, discrediting witnesses, media, and investigators, so you can just hold fast to your position against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Re; your graphic details about people dying, this is as some other posters have commented, more a case of you relating your personal trauma, than it is evidence of anything. You were clearly upset by the sight of blood and death, and it has affected your judgment on the wider topic.

It is not "dishonest" of me to have an opinion on this story, and to have subscribed to a theory based on the evidence and my own opinions. I was not attacking the courts either, I was just pointing out that when a regime (PTP) is in power, and there are trials held which affect the legitimacy of that regime, and you factor in state level bribes and macrocorruption are commonplace and the defacto leader of the regime has a history of killing 2000~ innocent Thais from poor backgrounds, and PTP have also released home-addresses of judges families to groups of redshirts during the height of the Charter problems (which shows how they strongarm the legal institutions), and as a social scientist I have to factor those things in.

I have already said it is possible that some soldiers were firing without orders, or that rogue units of soldiers were acting without orders from the PM. It is also possible given the long history of such things globally, that soldiers were paid off by the UDD, or were pro hitmen in army fatigues, trying to create martyrs and political upheaval. This kind of thing has gone on since ancient times. You immediately refuse to consider anything of the sort, which is your right, but you go on to flame me for holding these beliefs, which is not your right. I have conceded that none of us know exactly what happened, and that the soldiers you saw could have been stressed-out and over reacting, or defending themselves, they could have been bribed, or that they could have been foreign mercenary shooters dressed in army fatigues. I lean towards the latter, as I see the UDD refusal of early elections and refusal to leave the capital after months, as a deliberate attempt to start a wider revolt, and what better way to do that than to see civilians dying and to have reporters taking the UDD side.

Abhisit could have sent in police and troops after 1-7 days of protests, and said "you've had your protest, go home" and ordered shootings if they didn't go home. But he let them protest for months, and gave them supplies and aid, despite them being armed and threatening to torch the capital. So I don't see Abhisit giving trigger-happy orders at all. Obviously if soldiers shoot without orders that is different.

I will let you have the last word, and I will post no more here, I've said what I think and I'd be very surprised if this official story was true, as it benefits neither the then PM Abhisit nor the military. But the seige/massacre certainly benefitted PTP, so I am looking at them.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Yunla

[nicknostitz]

Re; your graphic details about people dying, this is as some other posters have commented, more a case of you relating your personal trauma, than it is evidence of anything. You were clearly upset by the sight of blood and death, and it has affected your judgment on the wider topic.

It is not "dishonest" of me to have an opinion on this story, and to have subscribed to a theory based on the evidence and my own opinions. I was not attacking the courts either, I was just pointing out that when a regime (PTP) is in power, and there are trials held which affect the legitimacy of that regime, and you factor in state level bribes and macrocorruption are commonplace and the defacto leader of the regime has a history of killing 2000~ innocent Thais from poor backgrounds, and PTP have also released home-addresses of judges families to groups of redshirts during the height of the Charter problems (which shows how they strongarm the legal institutions), and as a social scientist I have to factor those things in.

I have already said it is possible that some soldiers were firing without orders, or that rogue units of soldiers were acting without orders from the PM. It is also possible given the long history of such things globally, that soldiers were paid off by the UDD, or were pro hitmen in army fatigues, trying to create martyrs and political upheaval. This kind of thing has gone on since ancient times. You immediately refuse to consider anything of the sort, which is your right, but you go on to flame me for holding these beliefs, which is not your right. I have conceded that none of us know exactly what happened, and that the soldiers you saw could have been stressed-out and over reacting, or defending themselves, they could have been bribed, or that they could have been foreign mercenary shooters dressed in army fatigues. I lean towards the latter, as I see the UDD refusal of early elections and refusal to leave the capital after months, as a deliberate attempt to start a wider revolt, and what better way to do that than to see civilians dying and to have reporters taking the UDD side.

Abhisit could have sent in police and troops after 1-7 days of protests, and said "you've had your protest, go home" and ordered shootings if they didn't go home. But he let them protest for months, and gave them supplies and aid, despite them being armed and threatening to torch the capital. So I don't see Abhisit giving trigger-happy orders at all. Obviously if soldiers shoot without orders that is different.

I will let you have the last word, and I will post no more here, I've said what I think and I'd be very surprised if this official story was true, as it benefits neither the then PM Abhisit nor the military. But the seige/massacre certainly benefitted PTP, so I am looking at them.

None of "us" know what happened?!

Well, you quite possibly won't know what took place, given that you were in a temple while these events took place. As a "social scientist" you should know that any sort of research should contain study of and access to source material and key actors. Your opinions are just that - opinions, and not very well educated ones. Where is your data, where are your interviews with key actors that could substantiate any of your opinions?

The soldiers i saw could have just been stressed out?

Well, in a proper army, when soldiers commit crimes they will be taken to a military court and punished, and them being "stressed out" will be taken in consideration during sentencing as mitigating circumstances. In a proper army, these soldiers will be investigated by military investigators, and not, as here, protected. You have seen that in several cases in the US army as regarding to crimes committed by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. But here in 2010 we have had a different problem as killings of unarmed protesters were not just actions of single soldiers, but quite obviously systematic, as we have seen the exact same modus operandi on all front lines over almost one week.

While you come up here with the drug war killings (in which the military also played a role, by the way - directly involved in border areas, and supportive with their intelligence apparatus in all other scenarios. But that's another topic...), we could also mention a rather long history of the Thai military killing protesters - as happened in Oct. 14, 1973, Oct. 6, 1976, and in May 1992.

During the court inquests prosecutors presented video and photographic evidence, the results of forensic investigations, and heard witnesses - protesters, journalists, politicians and soldiers, and have based their verdicts on that. The trials were open to the public (and i attended several of these trials). In two of the incidents the verdict was not clear regarding the cause of death, as prosecutors could not present enough evidence to convince the courts that soldiers did indeed kill two people beyond any doubt, while in the remaining trials the evidence was quite overwhelming against the soldiers.

The soldiers' testimony during those trials was rather comical, went direct against all evidence, and this was also pointed out by judges in the reading of the verdict.

And you throw in another fallacy, of course. While it is true that one of the Red Shirt leaders has published phone numbers of constitution court judges on a Red Shirt stage - what took place in the aftermath (you forgot to mention that...) is actually proof that the courts are not intimidated by the government. The result of that not very intelligent announcement was that the Red Shirt leader - Jeng Dorkjik - had his bail withdrawn, and had to spend several months in prison, and was only released after he apologized to the courts. The laws regarding contempt of court are here in Thailand quite serious, and that also includes accusing the courts of being corrupt. Therefore i would suggest to be very careful when you accuse the courts of being corrupt (eg. "factor in state level bribes and macrocorruption").

What you call your theories, i can only label as figments of your imagination and wishful thinking. None of what you speculate here you can substantiate with a single shred of evidence other than by specious arguments, and incomplete and misunderstood historical events that are quite unrelated to the matter at hand.

[jaidam]

Re; your graphic details about people dying, this is as some other posters have commented, more a case of you relating your personal trauma, than it is evidence of anything. You were clearly upset by the sight of blood and death, and it has affected your judgment on the wider topic.

It is not "dishonest" of me to have an opinion on this story, and to have subscribed to a theory based on the evidence and my own opinions. I was not attacking the courts either, I was just pointing out that when a regime (PTP) is in power, and there are trials held which affect the legitimacy of that regime, and you factor in state level bribes and macrocorruption are commonplace and the defacto leader of the regime has a history of killing 2000~ innocent Thais from poor backgrounds, and PTP have also released home-addresses of judges families to groups of redshirts during the height of the Charter problems (which shows how they strongarm the legal institutions), and as a social scientist I have to factor those things in.

I have already said it is possible that some soldiers were firing without orders, or that rogue units of soldiers were acting without orders from the PM. It is also possible given the long history of such things globally, that soldiers were paid off by the UDD, or were pro hitmen in army fatigues, trying to create martyrs and political upheaval. This kind of thing has gone on since ancient times. You immediately refuse to consider anything of the sort, which is your right, but you go on to flame me for holding these beliefs, which is not your right. I have conceded that none of us know exactly what happened, and that the soldiers you saw could have been stressed-out and over reacting, or defending themselves, they could have been bribed, or that they could have been foreign mercenary shooters dressed in army fatigues. I lean towards the latter, as I see the UDD refusal of early elections and refusal to leave the capital after months, as a deliberate attempt to start a wider revolt, and what better way to do that than to see civilians dying and to have reporters taking the UDD side.

Abhisit could have sent in police and troops after 1-7 days of protests, and said "you've had your protest, go home" and ordered shootings if they didn't go home. But he let them protest for months, and gave them supplies and aid, despite them being armed and threatening to torch the capital. So I don't see Abhisit giving trigger-happy orders at all. Obviously if soldiers shoot without orders that is different.

I will let you have the last word, and I will post no more here, I've said what I think and I'd be very surprised if this official story was true, as it benefits neither the then PM Abhisit nor the military. But the seige/massacre certainly benefitted PTP, so I am looking at them.

None of "us" know what happened?!

Well, you quite possibly won't know what took place, given that you were in a temple while these events took place. As a "social scientist" you should know that any sort of research should contain study of and access to source material and key actors. Your opinions are just that - opinions, and not very well educated ones. Where is your data, where are your interviews with key actors that could substantiate any of your opinions?

The soldiers i saw could have just been stressed out?

Well, in a proper army, when soldiers commit crimes they will be taken to a military court and punished, and them being "stressed out" will be taken in consideration during sentencing as mitigating circumstances. In a proper army, these soldiers will be investigated by military investigators, and not, as here, protected. You have seen that in several cases in the US army as regarding to crimes committed by soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. But here in 2010 we have had a different problem as killings of unarmed protesters were not just actions of single soldiers, but quite obviously systematic, as we have seen the exact same modus operandi on all front lines over almost one week.

While you come up here with the drug war killings (in which the military also played a role, by the way - directly involved in border areas, and supportive with their intelligence apparatus in all other scenarios. But that's another topic...), we could also mention a rather long history of the Thai military killing protesters - as happened in Oct. 14, 1973, Oct. 6, 1976, and in May 1992.

During the court inquests prosecutors presented video and photographic evidence, the results of forensic investigations, and heard witnesses - protesters, journalists, politicians and soldiers, and have based their verdicts on that. The trials were open to the public (and i attended several of these trials). In two of the incidents the verdict was not clear regarding the cause of death, as prosecutors could not present enough evidence to convince the courts that soldiers did indeed kill two people beyond any doubt, while in the remaining trials the evidence was quite overwhelming against the soldiers.

The soldiers' testimony during those trials was rather comical, went direct against all evidence, and this was also pointed out by judges in the reading of the verdict.

And you throw in another fallacy, of course. While it is true that one of the Red Shirt leaders has published phone numbers of constitution court judges on a Red Shirt stage - what took place in the aftermath (you forgot to mention that...) is actually proof that the courts are not intimidated by the government. The result of that not very intelligent announcement was that the Red Shirt leader - Jeng Dorkjik - had his bail withdrawn, and had to spend several months in prison, and was only released after he apologized to the courts. The laws regarding contempt of court are here in Thailand quite serious, and that also includes accusing the courts of being corrupt. Therefore i would suggest to be very careful when you accuse the courts of being corrupt (eg. "factor in state level bribes and macrocorruption").

What you call your theories, i can only label as figments of your imagination and wishful thinking. None of what you speculate here you can substantiate with a single shred of evidence other than by specious arguments, and incomplete and misunderstood historical events that are quite unrelated to the matter at hand.

With all your pro-establishment/red elite gushing, I didn't notice you once address the most important factor, the root cause of the terrorism, violence and insurrection which was of course Thaksin's asset seizure of the 46 billion that he was deemed to have stolen from the Thai people(unless you truly believe that thousands descended on Bkk years after the coup by coincidence days after your hero's asset seizure). To neglect the reason that thousands of people were causing mayhem in Bangkok and around the country makes your posts nonsensical in the extreme. Until you start considering the paymasters role in all of these events you are casting blame in totally the wrong direction. The army(snipers included) were merely cleaning up His mess.

Recent court rulings such as the one where they acquitted the lovely chap that admitted firing RPG's at the emerald buddha in order to cause fear and confusion should give a clue into what is happening here. Its all just basic logic, and to try painting a picture that it's a complicated complex situation with invisible hands left right and center leads me to suspect that you refuse to see the obvious.

[nicknostitz]

With all your pro-establishment/red elite gushing, I didn't notice you once address the most important factor, the root cause of the terrorism, violence and insurrection which was of course Thaksin's asset seizure of the 46 billion that he was deemed to have stolen from the Thai people(unless you truly believe that thousands descended on Bkk years after the coup by coincidence days after your hero's asset seizure). To neglect the reason that thousands of people were causing mayhem in Bangkok and around the country makes your posts nonsensical in the extreme. Until you start considering the paymasters role in all of these events you are casting blame in totally the wrong direction. The army(snipers included) were merely cleaning up His mess.

Recent court rulings such as the one where they acquitted the lovely chap that admitted firing RPG's at the emerald buddha in order to cause fear and confusion should give a clue into what is happening here. Its all just basic logic, and to try painting a picture that it's a complicated complex situation with invisible hands left right and center leads me to suspect that you refuse to see the obvious.

Another opinion that is based on extremely biased and selective interpretation of facts right out of the text book of the Democrat Party, completely neglecting the true course of events.

The 2010 protests were clearly not related to the asset seizure, but in context to the same demands the UDD held since Abhisit became PM - to dissolve parliament and to hold new elections, and following their 2009 protests. The protests were first announced a few months after the 2009 crackdown, in August 2009. The first set date was for November 28, 2009, but then cancelled as it was too close to the King's birthday. After that the UDD leadership discussed the next date, and after deliberations it was decided to hold the protest after the the asset case, as not to appear trying to pressure the courts in regards to the asset seizure case.

As to the court ruling in the case of Bundit Sitthithum, he is out on bail after the appeal court has reversed the original verdict for lack of evidence, and the prosecution has appealed now as as well. You may not be familiar with court procedures, but this is quite normal. Court decisions are not based on what we believe to be true, but have to be based on the principle of "in dubio pro reo".

That is why in two of the 2010 inquests the cause of death was ruled inconclusive, as the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that soldiers or anybody else was responsible.

By the way - i am quite amused: now, in 2013, i am suddenly accused of a "pro-elite establishment" position, while in the years of 2008 to 2011 i was accused of being a communist/fascist revolutionary. Very funny...

Edited September 29, 2013 by nicknostitz

[longway]

With all your pro-establishment/red elite gushing, I didn't notice you once address the most important factor, the root cause of the terrorism, violence and insurrection which was of course Thaksin's asset seizure of the 46 billion that he was deemed to have stolen from the Thai people(unless you truly believe that thousands descended on Bkk years after the coup by coincidence days after your hero's asset seizure). To neglect the reason that thousands of people were causing mayhem in Bangkok and around the country makes your posts nonsensical in the extreme. Until you start considering the paymasters role in all of these events you are casting blame in totally the wrong direction. The army(snipers included) were merely cleaning up His mess.

Recent court rulings such as the one where they acquitted the lovely chap that admitted firing RPG's at the emerald buddha in order to cause fear and confusion should give a clue into what is happening here. Its all just basic logic, and to try painting a picture that it's a complicated complex situation with invisible hands left right and center leads me to suspect that you refuse to see the obvious.

Another opinion that is based on extremely biased and selective interpretation of facts right out of the text book of the Democrat Party, completely neglecting the true course of events.

The 2010 protests were clearly not related to the asset seizure, but in context to the same demands the UDD held since Abhisit became PM - to dissolve parliament and to hold new elections, and following their 2009 protests. The protests were first announced a few months after the 2009 crackdown, in August 2009. The first set date was for November 28, 2009, but then cancelled as it was too close to the King's birthday. After that the UDD leadership discussed the next date, and after deliberations it was decided to hold the protest after the the asset case, as not to appear trying to pressure the courts in regards to the asset seizure case.

As to the court ruling in the case of Bundit Sitthithum, he is out on bail after the appeal court has reversed the original verdict for lack of evidence, and the prosecution has appealed now as as well. You may not be familiar with court procedures, but this is quite normal. Court decisions are not based on what we believe to be true, but have to be based on the principle of "in dubio pro reo".

That is why in two of the 2010 inquests the cause of death was ruled inconclusive, as the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that soldiers or anybody else was responsible.

By the way - i am quite amused: now, in 2013, i am suddenly accused of a "pro-elite establishment" position, while in the years of 2008 to 2011 i was accused of being a communist/fascist revolutionary. Very funny...

BS. There was a wikileaks cable from the US embassy and it clearly stated that Thaksin made the decision on when the protest took place.

Thaksin or the Red Shirt leadership may be responsible for having prolonged the protests, but the cannot be held responsible for lack of discipline and the brutality of the soldiers. That is on the DP government and the military leadership.

No they were not responsible, but they were counting on it. Anyway these days the PT and the UDD now seem to believe only the DP is repsonsible, the army was only following orders.

Edited September 29, 2013 by longway

[nicknostitz]

BS. There was a wikileaks cable from the US embassy and it clearly stated that Thaksin made the decision on when the protest took place.

Thaksin or the Red Shirt leadership may be responsible for having prolonged the protests, but the cannot be held responsible for lack of discipline and the brutality of the soldiers. That is on the DP government and the military leadership.

No they were not responsible, but they were counting on it. Anyway these days the PT and the UDD now seem to believe only the DP is repsonsible, the army was only following orders.

Wikileaks cables are not necessarily an authoritative source. They contain private conversations between embassy staff and various sources, and summarized these conversations. What is even more problematic is that many of these conversations were edited, according to at times personal preferences, before they were sent out.

While it is quite possibly true that Thaksin was deeply involved in the decision making processes, the course of events i have described is what took place, as during the time from August 2009 to the final start of the protests i have had many conversations and interviews with UDD leaders regarding the timing of that protest, and related problems as i have described in my first post.

Here, for example, a short article of mine published at November 16, 2009, about the first Khao Yai concert of the Red Shirts in which i start with the exact words of:

"The Red Shirts held their fundraising concert at Khao Yai on Saturday, November 15, preparing for their big push to oust the government."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/11/16/saturday-red-sunday-yellow-the-temperature-rises-again/

You can quite clearly see that the decision to hold a large scale protest was made long before the asset seizure judgement, and is therefore not related. The date original was cancelled, as it was too close to the King's birthday.

As i am neither a member nor a spokesperson for the UDD, i am quite free in my own analyses on who has to take responsibility for what. As i said - misdeeds of the military is on both the then DP led government and the military leadership. There are legal and illegal orders - if soldiers follow illegal orders, they will have to take responsibility.

[longway]

^ I remember it quite distinctly, it was a communique from the US embassy AFAICR and it was published on NM. It stated that (and I am only quoting from memory)

`There was little doubt who was the real boss` (of the UDD) and they were referring to Thaksin as it was a communication from him that led to the decision to commence the protest by the UDD `leadership`.

You also commented on that commnique, you complained your views were left out and so some of the views espoused on it were flawed, but you certainly did not say that they were wrong about that part.

They may not be the authoritive source, but there is no reason to disbelieve them, as they seemed to be speaking from first hand knowledge or from a direct eyewitness report of the meeting where the decision was made to commence protests.

Just because there was `fund raising` prior to the court judgement does not in anyway preclude that protest being directly linked to thaksin`s seized assets. There is no logic to that position. The UDD was and is intimately linked to thaksin, whatever the internal politics and personal egos involved.

The PT and UDD has benefitted greatly from the 2010 protests and the deaths that occurred, and in return cheques have been given out and a little circus about the ICC was created and a lot of rice was bought and the little guys forgotten unless its of propaganda value, just the same old same old in Thailand.

Edited September 29, 2013 by longway

[nicknostitz]

^ I remember it quite distinctly, it was a communique from the US embassy AFAICR and it was published on NM. It stated that (and I am only quoting from memory)

`There was little doubt who was the real boss` (of the UDD) and they were referring to Thaksin as it was a communication from him that led to the decision to commence the protest by the UDD `leadership`.

You also commented on that commnique, you complained your views were left out and so some of the views espoused on it were flawed, but you certainly did not say that they were wrong about that part.

They may not be the authoritive source, but there is no reason to disbelieve them, as they seemed to be speaking from first hand knowledge or from a direct eyewitness report of the meeting where the decision was made to commence protests.

Just because there was `fund raising` prior to the court judgement does not in anyway preclude that protest being directly linked to thaksin`s seized assets. There is no logic to that position. The UDD was and is intimately linked to thaksin, whatever the internal politics and personal egos involved.

The PT and UDD has benefitted greatly from the 2010 protests and the deaths that occurred, and in return cheques have been given out and a little circus about the ICC was created and a lot of rice was bought and the little guys forgotten unless its of propaganda value, just the same old same old in Thailand.

There was not just fundraising efforts (which began already in August 2009), but already a set date, which was cancelled as it was too close to the King's birthday.

Naturally i do not dispute that Thaksin is closely linked to the UDD. Nevertheless - the assumption that he is the sole decision maker and the Red Shirts simply mindless executioners of his will is false. Their internal mechanics are far more complex, and several conflicts between Red Shirts and Thaksin are proof of that (such as in 2012 over the reconciliation bill, where Thaksin was forced to apologize publicly to the Red Shirts for his comments at the May 19, 2012, stage).

What you just dismiss as "personal egos" does not stand up to scrutiny. If you also go into the personal background of many UDD leaders, you can see that they have been involved in the struggle for democratization in Thailand for decades, when Thaksin was still a student in the cadet school. Over the decades they have made many personal sacrifices (and mistakes, naturally, as they are just human).

And as to the communique - you lost me there. Do you have any link?

It is quite a cynical accusation regarding the PT and the UDD having "benefitted" from the 2010 protests, and may have organized the deaths themselves - which is the view that Suthep propagates: that the protesters were supposedly killed by the "men in black", and not by soldiers. Unfortunately for you (and Suthep), there is no evidence whatsoever existing that supports that view, but countless videos, photos and witness accounts that do prove that soldiers have killed the protesters. The only thing that is undoubtedly true is that under the Red Shirts were groups of armed militants operating who have shot soldiers.

The DP continued to be in government for more than one year after the 2010 incident, and had all the resources of the state available to substantiate their accusation, but could not come up with anything other than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Therefore - it would be time to slowly digest that you might have been wrong all along, and to consider the available hard evidence, and what it points to: soldiers did indeed kill unarmed protesters.

Edited September 29, 2013 by nicknostitz

[MrSlatersParrot]

Get a clue.

Your post was inappropriate and overly graphic. This isn't the ogrish website.

It was very justifiably deleted by moderators for that reason.

I agreed with the moderation and those highlighting a rather disturbed thought process that somehow thought it was ok to post such trash.

Oh Pleeze

Go look up!

Post #78

Posted 2013-09-22 20:11:41

WAZA:

"Show us this copius amount of evidence that the RTA shot any unarmed people in the head."

Edited by waza, 2013-09-22 20:14:24.

I posted in response to Waza and the images were Censored.

Most of the long term readers on Thai Visa have seen these images before as they were in abundance on TV at the time after they took place.

It's not ogrish it's the reality.

Check the subject matter again at the top of the page.

I can however understand the moderators not wishing to see a flood of images all over again.

It must be comforting to know that outrageous speculative claims can be made in the full knowledge that they can't be automatically de-bunked.

Of course those pictures of the dead only prove they were shot with great accuracy in their heads and not obviously by whom but it's not hard to guess.

Most of the thai media has never shown any of this material but it is still all over the internet if you care to look.

The international press were condemned at the time. I wonder why?

The soldiers denials in the cases so far have been laughable.

In the face of overwhelming evidence their explanations like the "blanks" excuse are laughable.

Question is will there be any justice for the victims?

[nicknostitz]

Question is will there be any justice for the victims?

I believe that the extend of the justice will be the verdict of the court inquests into the deaths of the protesters. I have doubts that soldiers, especially the high ranked officers will ever be tried. The trial against Suthep and Abhisit (as the trial against the Red Shirt leadership) will most likely take in excess of ten years. Much can and will happen until that time frame is over.

On the positive side - already the verdicts of the court inquests is far more than what the victims of '73, '76 and '92 ever got (i left out the drug war killings and other incident to remain with the matter of political protests here).

[longway]

^ I remember it quite distinctly, it was a communique from the US embassy AFAICR and it was published on NM. It stated that (and I am only quoting from memory)

`There was little doubt who was the real boss` (of the UDD) and they were referring to Thaksin as it was a communication from him that led to the decision to commence the protest by the UDD `leadership`.

You also commented on that commnique, you complained your views were left out and so some of the views espoused on it were flawed, but you certainly did not say that they were wrong about that part.

They may not be the authoritive source, but there is no reason to disbelieve them, as they seemed to be speaking from first hand knowledge or from a direct eyewitness report of the meeting where the decision was made to commence protests.

Just because there was `fund raising` prior to the court judgement does not in anyway preclude that protest being directly linked to thaksin`s seized assets. There is no logic to that position. The UDD was and is intimately linked to thaksin, whatever the internal politics and personal egos involved.

The PT and UDD has benefitted greatly from the 2010 protests and the deaths that occurred, and in return cheques have been given out and a little circus about the ICC was created and a lot of rice was bought and the little guys forgotten unless its of propaganda value, just the same old same old in Thailand.

There was not just fundraising efforts (which began already in August 2009), but already a set date, which was cancelled as it was too close to the King's birthday.

Naturally i do not dispute that Thaksin is closely linked to the UDD. Nevertheless - the assumption that he is the sole decision maker and the Red Shirts simply mindless executioners of his will is false. Their internal mechanics are far more complex, and several conflicts between Red Shirts and Thaksin are proof of that (such as in 2012 over the reconciliation bill, where Thaksin was forced to apologize publicly to the Red Shirts for his comments at the May 19, 2012, stage).

What you just dismiss as "personal egos" does not stand up to scrutiny. If you also go into the personal background of many UDD leaders, you can see that they have been involved in the struggle for democratization in Thailand for decades, when Thaksin was still a student in the cadet school. Over the decades they have made many personal sacrifices (and mistakes, naturally, as they are just human).

And as to the communique - you lost me there. Do you have any link?

It is quite a cynical accusation regarding the PT and the UDD having "benefitted" from the 2010 protests, and may have organized the deaths themselves - which is the view that Suthep propagates: that the protesters were supposedly killed by the "men in black", and not by soldiers. Unfortunately for you (and Suthep), there is no evidence whatsoever existing that supports that view, but countless videos, photos and witness accounts that do prove that soldiers have killed the protesters. The only thing that is undoubtedly true is that under the Red Shirts were groups of armed militants operating who have shot soldiers.

The DP continued to be in government for more than one year after the 2010 incident, and had all the resources of the state available to substantiate their accusation, but could not come up with anything other than unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Therefore - it would be time to slowly digest that you might have been wrong all along, and to consider the available hard evidence, and what it points to: soldiers did indeed kill unarmed protesters.

Before anything, I have never thought that soliders did not kill unarmed protestors and it was pretty obvious from the beginning that they had, I regards Suthep as garbage in the same way I regard Jatuporn as garbage.

What I do believe is that the PT an UDD deliberately set up a situation where the army would have to be called in and counted on their brutaulity, incompetnece and ill discipline for a large amount of bloodshed and they used armed militia throughout the protest and clear out operations to ensure this goal was met.

What has changed in my view is that that were very likely far fewer of the armed militia than I first thought.

I think its untenable to hold a position where Thaksin who has undelinable and close links with the UDD and who would have arranged the funding for the protest and was intimately linked with Seh daeng and try to deny a link between the protest and the asset seizure case. To be frank its ludicrous.

You are misrepresenting a view that Thaksin exerts a controlling influence over the UDD with them being `mindless executioners of his will` - that is simply a strawman.

I think personal egos play a massive role in the politics of the UDD, and the history between some of the leadership of the UDD and the military leadership are very much part of the story here. I think the UDD is primarily exists to manage red shirts rather than represent them.

If I can find the communique (I am not sure ho else to call it) I will put the link here. It was a analysis of the Thai situation from the US embassy and it was on New mandala and in fact you commented on that analysis and pointed out that you had been invited to speak to one of their representatives, but your views were not used.

Edited September 30, 2013 by longway

[nicknostitz]

Before anything, I have never thought that soliders did not kill unarmed protestors and it was pretty obvious from the beginning that they had, I regards Suthep as garbage in the same way I regard Jatuporn as garbage.

What I do believe is that the PT an UDD deliberately set up a situation where the army would have to be called in and counted on their brutaulity, incompetnece and ill discipline for a large amount of bloodshed and they used armed militia throughout the protest and clear out operations to ensure this goal was met.

What has changed in my view is that that were very likely far fewer of the armed militia than I first thought.

I think its untenable to hold a position where Thaksin who has undelinable and close links with the UDD and who would have arranged the funding for the protest and was intimately linked with Seh daeng and try to deny a link between the protest and the asset seizure case. To be frank its ludicrous.

You are misrepresenting a view that Thaksin exerts a controlling influence over the UDD with them being `mindless executioners of his will` - that is simply a strawman.

I think personal egos play a massive role in the politics of the UDD, and the history between some of the leadership of the UDD and the military leadership are very much part of the story here. I think the UDD is primarily exists to manage red shirts rather than represent them.

If I can find the communique (I am not sure ho else to call it) I will put the link here. It was a analysis of the Thai situation from the US embassy and it was on New mandala and in fact you commented on that analysis and pointed out that you had been invited to speak to one of their representatives, but your views were not used.

Your basic theory of the UDD having deliberately set up a situation counting on the army's violent dispersal, and having used an armed militia sounds very good, but is specious as it neglects quite a few factors that do speak against such a simple explanation. This is not, and never was, a zero sum game, but a multi-layered and highly complex conflict with roots going back decades.

The space here in this discussion is a bit too small to go into any detail, as would would be necessary. So i only want to raise a few points here.

First of all, the UDD and the Red Shirts are far less a cohesive body than you assume here. Sae Daeng may have been linked to Thaksin (and his visit to Dubai does also not prove that Thaksin was aware of any details over armed militants - Dubai was far more an open house to many Red Shirts, their sympathizers, and other actors than people often assume), but was never part of the UDD, but his own agent. He has never been on any UDD stage, and in all the years i have observed hundreds of protests i have only seen him one single time behind a UDD stage. Sae Daeng despised the majority of the UDD leaders, and they did not like him either. Initially, back in 2008, when he first appeared on the scene, many thought that he was an agent provocateur from the military. On the day of his death i spoke with him, and helped to translate for two Italian journalists. During this interview he, in his usual style, expressed his strong dislike towards Veera, Nattawut and Jatuporn. In previous interviews he said that he cannot get along with people such as Tida, Weng or Jalan due to their past in the CPT. Whatever else Sae Daeng was - he was a straight talker, especially when it came towards his likes or dislikes.

Secondly, the after the 2009 crackdown founded UDD schools had as a major point of their curriculum how to peacefully resist, not to give the military a chance to crackdown violently as in 2009 (i have countless times talked about this with both founders and participants of those schools, and observed some of them as well - they were, and still are open and transparent). These strategies worked for the first month, until April 10 took place. The UDD went on a gamble there, that the government will buckle under the pressure of hundred thousands of protesters. This did not work out. And from then on things turned bad, including increasing infighting under the UDD leadership factions, especially the "politician's" faction and the "hardcore" faction. Of essential importance is also that you have had a mass of protesters that was enraged about April 10, and could not be controlled (or "managed") anymore especially by the moderate leaders. The mood of common protesters was far more influential in decision making processes by the leadership than many assume.

In May things went completely out of hand, and in the last week the stage could not control anything anymore other than the immediate stage environment. The front lines were not under UDD control. Proof of that fact is that the UDD tried to get protesters away from the frontlines, by building small stages behind the lines - one at Samliem Din Daeng under control of Sombat, and one at Bongai behind the expressway under Prateep. The protesters at the front lines said to me that they do not care about these stages, and will not listen to them, and will not retreat.

This was not a planned operation, as many here assume. It was chaos. I am not saying that the UDD is faultless, and has not made essential mistakes that have contributed to the escalation. On the opposite - the three most essential mistakes, IMO, were the permanent occupation of Rajaprasong, allowing Arisaman, who is notorious for his emotional style, to lead the protest at Parliament on April 7, and the final rejection of the negotiated solution. But this does not mean that this is what the UDD has planned from the start - too many factors (out which i have very briefly outlined only a few here) speak against this theory.

One of the major problems here is the media. Over the years hardly any article has been written over the structures and the development of the UDD and the Red Shirts, and their internal mechanics. Hardly any article has been written outlining the political demands of the UDD, and the other Red Shirt groups. The vast majority of people still equate the UDD with the Red Shirt movement, which is far from the truth, and has never been correct. The UDD has only been, from the start in 2006/2007, the biggest mass organization, but several Red Shirt groups never joined the UDD. Their relationship with Thaksin was always rather complex. The first leaders of the anti-coup protests, out of which the UDD developed, have been actually Thaksin opponents. Dr. Weng, for example, was briefly part of the PAD in 2006, until he left because of the PAD's insistence of rallying on article 7.

If you look a bit closer, you will find out that reality is far more complex than any attempt of a simple explanation that fits in a small response on an internet forum.

[longway]

^ Thanks for such a detailed response, but a couple of things - you are wrong when you assume that I believe that the UDD is a cohesive body. Second I dont think that the UDD as a whole set up the situation, but some elements just allowed things to happen, other elements worked deliberately to provoke it and others to try and prevent it.

As for your notion about Seh Daeng just happening to turn up in in Dubai as a casual house guest - I am not surprised Seh Daeng did not like Thida et al he was at one point in hunter killer teams sent out to assinate people like her, he was a sniper by training. he was very much one of the original `men in black. A man of action like him would naturally have a disdain for politicos, it means nothing.

The protest tactics was dictated by events during the protests naturally and there was very likely changing and evolving ideas on how to proceed with different factions pulling in different directions, this is normal for any kind of organisation the UDD is not some kind of special snowflake in this regard.

There are 2 aspects to the protests that I want to distill:

They were linked to Thaksin`s asset seizure case, to try to deny is beyond ludicrous.

The UDD leadership did come to an agreement with Abhisit, but with SD and Jatuporns help a hardline stance was taken. How this change came about and its motives are a matter of speculation, but its not unreasonable to think that the person directing this change was thaksin and it was a deliberate step to ensure that bloodshed would occur as this would be in his benefit.

There may of been all kinds of competing factors, but I dont think the above two concepts are in any way specious or unreasonable.

Edited September 30, 2013 by longway

[metisdead]

Click HERE to return to the opening post, re-read and get back on topic.

[nicknostitz]

^ Thanks for such a detailed response, but a couple of things - you are wrong when you assume that I believe that the UDD is a cohesive body. Second I dont think that the UDD as a whole set up the situation, but some elements just allowed things to happen, other elements worked deliberately to provoke it and others to try and prevent it.

As for your notion about Seh Daeng just happening to turn up in in Dubai as a casual house guest - I am not surprised Seh Daeng did not like Thida et al he was at one point in hunter killer teams sent out to assinate people like her, he was a sniper by training. he was very much one of the original `men in black. A man of action like him would naturally have a disdain for politicos, it means nothing.

The protest tactics was dictated by events during the protests naturally and there was very likely changing and evolving ideas on how to proceed with different factions pulling in different directions, this is normal for any kind of organisation the UDD is not some kind of special snowflake in this regard.

There are 2 aspects to the protests that I want to distill:

They were linked to Thaksin`s asset seizure case, to try to deny is beyond ludicrous.

The UDD leadership did come to an agreement with Abhisit, but with SD and Jatuporns help a hardline stance was taken. How this change came about and its motives are a matter of speculation, but its not unreasonable to think that the person directing this change was thaksin and it was a deliberate step to ensure that bloodshed would occur as this would be in his benefit.

There may of been all kinds of competing factors, but I dont think the above two concepts are in any way specious or unreasonable.

I agree that we should return to the topic, i just hope to be allowed one last comment, as related to the link to the asset seizure case.

The only link that is there is that the date of protests were delayed for several weeks up to two months, from the original time frame. They would have happened anyhow as they were not concerned with Thaksin's assets, but to structural changes in the Thai state, especially the military's role in the establishment of the Abhisit government, a continuous interference in politics since the military decided to turn against the Thaksin government in 2006.

Which hopefully can bring us around to the original topic - the video of the soldiers firing at protesters, and the ludicrous testimony at the inquest. It should be rather obvious that these soldiers did not just testify as individuals, but were briefed by the military's legal team on how they are supposed to testify. Which also should lead us to question the military's loyalty to due legal process (and democracy, etc), as similarly ridiculous testimonies have been given by soldiers in every single inquest so far.

Is the military protecting itself more than following the law?