Murder charge: DSI to oppose bail for Abhisit, Democrats say

[newcomer71]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

Snipers? Where were the snipers?

Coroners reported all people dead was shoot at short distance and same level, not a sniper job.

yeah, because there was a rumble. they dead guy was shot in a short distance

So I wonder where the snipers came from? Which damage they made?

[tragickingdom]

Mark Abhisit and his boss Suthep are hypocrites. If you hear them complaining about the (non existent) police violence over the last two weeks one cannot do anything else than think that they suffered a concussion and forgot about their own snipers and life firing zones in the middle of Bangkok. It is clearly one set of rules for the majority of this country who votes for PT and one set of rules for the Democrat party (what is in a name?)

[mojorison]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

You're dreaming, sorry.

[tingtongteesood]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

[newcomer71]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

I must agree he's totally biased, just to be clear.

But gosh, he's not a writer!

But as I wrote in many other topics yesterday, can't believe anyone in this country. Both sides are biased and totally "anti". Don't expect truth or balanced report by either of them.

[maapaa]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

Really? Maybe you should read Nick's report before you make spurious accusations: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2013/12/10/ramkhamhaeng-a-view-from-inside-the-stadium/ If Yingluck is charged for this, surely Suthep should be charged for ordering his 'thugs' to attack the red shirts? Both charges equally (in)valid.

Read that article? I copied it ... I might read it later.

But instead of reading something from that German red supporter I could also read a "red" propaganda-flyer or listen to one of their leaders on TV.

[indyuk]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

You certainly do have a black heart my friend. You suggestion that PM Yingluck would actually do such a thing is, in the light of her near perfect record, repulsive.

[Emptyset]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

Nick's account fits with other accounts I've read and he has pictures to back up what he says. What are the students saying that's different? That they were shot at by reds? Yep, that's mentioned in Nick's report. Attacked them in a violent rampage in the morning? Yep, that's mentioned and indeed photographed in Nick's report. What I haven't heard from the student - or rather anti-govt side - is an admission that it was them that attacked the reds first, that some of them were also armed, and that there had been several attacked on isolated red shirts carried out by student groups in the days leading up to the clash.

[virtualtraveller]

This case has had a very significant bearing on the way Yingluck has dealt with this protest. She simply cannot afford a single death from ordering a crackdown else she too goes on trial. In the end she was forced to dissolve the house.

Abhisit could score big here if he got to sit in jail. Would put Thaksin's exile and balls, in true perspective. Incarcerating the leader of the opposition ahead of an election would certainly make front page of the international papers. Make a mockery of Yingluck. Do it Abby, you know this trial will collapse.

[GrantSmith]

Actually a red hack who is despised by the foreign press core. This may be news to you, but it's the job of an investigative journalist to seek and report the actual facts as best he or she can - not to take a pre-formed political position and then bend the "facts" to suit your own agenda. Nostiz is no journalist and deserves no respect.

Why do you think he's despised by the foreign press core? I've not seen one foreign journalist attack him, but have seen many defend him. Jonathan Head was defending him earlier on twitter in fact. Actually a good friend of Nick's whom I was acquainted with (he sadly died last year) told me that although Nick definitely has his red sympathies - and this guy was of the complete opposite opinion of Nick on Thai politics - he trusted his reporting 100%. He'd never fabricate an incident or leave out something major which would affect people's opinions of the situation. I've seen no reason to doubt that. Yes, perhaps the reports are slanted and he does tend to report from the red side, but why not put that together with other testimonies and then you'll come to the truth.

I guess you're one of these people that despises Nick but thinks the words of conspiracy theorist Tony Cartalluci represent reliable, unbiased 'reporting'?

Christ, next you'll be sighting Robert Amsterdam, Andrew Spooner or Andrew MacGregor Marshall as other foreign journalists of "independent" integrity...

This is hilarious. People who believe Yingluck ordered a sniper to execute 'innocent students' criticizing Nick for being biased... on what planet... etc. lol. Too funny.

But yes, I have read it and I see no reason to suspect it's in any way 'fictional'. The only reason I can see people might think that is if they're only capable of conceiving of one side as violent. Maybe some of his justifications for the UDD going to the stadium in the first place can be argued with, but that doesn't affect the actual reporting of events.

Perhaps "fictional" was too strong a word, far fetched? Embellished? Ok, let's go with suspect? No, still strong? Ok, slanted and biased it is then...

I also find it interesting that he hasn't given an account of what actually transpired at the PDRC rally where he was allegedly assaulted. His excuse, given the article, doesn't wash given he portrays himself as a journalist....

[Emptyset]

Christ, next you'll be sighting Robert Amsterdam, Andrew Spooner or Andrew MacGregor Marshall as other foreign journalists of "independent" integrity...

Actually I have already singled out Andrew Spooner on this forum as being nothing more than a shameless propagandist. He actually apparently works for Amsterdam, so it's no surprise. I find the sort of disingenuous nonsense he tries to pass off as fact disgraceful. Putting Nostitz and Marshall into that category is a great mistake and makes me wonder if you've actually read any of their work (at least whilst trying to keep an open mind). AMM may be controversial, but that doesn't mean he isn't 'independent'. He's been very critical of Thaksin, including discussion of Thaksin's use of the 'men in black' during 2010 and his callous disregard for human life.

'The total denial from Thaksin’s camp — including his international legal team led by Robert Amsterdam — that the “black shirt” militia had played any role in the violence, or indeed that it had ever even existed, was simply not credible.'

That's from something he wrote recently. Nostitz has also never denied that militants were involved, indeed he's described his meeting with them in the hours of darkness, here on Thaivisa. Spooner by contrast, accuses anyone who discusses these militants in regard to the 2010 violence of 'making things up' or of being a 'fascist sympathiser', or suggests they have connections with the Democrat party or, failing that, they're simply a 'liar'. Indeed, remarkably similar language to those who dismiss the likes of Nostitz and AMM as biased or paid by Thaksin or whatever it is this week. Lately Spooner's been having a go at Jonathan Head for being a fascist sympathiser by the way, simply because he described being hugged by one of the protesters at the Finance Min.

The idea that the likes of Marshall, Head and Nostitz are paid by Thaksin is nothing but a conspiracy theory not borne out by the evidence. There's no credible basis for such accusations.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Emptyset

[whybother]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

You certainly do have a black heart my friend. You suggestion that PM Yingluck would actually do such a thing is, in the light of her near perfect record, repulsive.

Don't you mean non-existent record ... at anything?

[khunken]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

Nick's account fits with other accounts I've read and he has pictures to back up what he says. What are the students saying that's different? That they were shot at by reds? Yep, that's mentioned in Nick's report. Attacked them in a violent rampage in the morning? Yep, that's mentioned and indeed photographed in Nick's report. What I haven't heard from the student - or rather anti-govt side - is an admission that it was them that attacked the reds first, that some of them were also armed, and that there had been several attacked on isolated red shirts carried out by student groups in the days leading up to the clash.

You've let the cat out of the bag re Nick's 'independent' reporting.

The Bangkok Post's weekend magazine had a lengthy report about the various incidents at Ramkangheng and it is more credible than Mr Nostitz's, who is a photographer. If he stuck to photography he might be worthy of respect but he embellishes everything in writing and leaves inconvenient facts out.

The Post said that the red shirts started the whole thing by entering the university and desecrating an icon of the university, plus they harassed at least one girl from the university. The students then reacted in force and the reds responded with equal force. The rest is arguable depending which side the opinions come from.

Virtually every post Nostitz has made on TV has been pro-red. I'd have some respect for him if he demonstrated some balance but I've yet to see it.

[Emptyset]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

Nick's account fits with other accounts I've read and he has pictures to back up what he says. What are the students saying that's different? That they were shot at by reds? Yep, that's mentioned in Nick's report. Attacked them in a violent rampage in the morning? Yep, that's mentioned and indeed photographed in Nick's report. What I haven't heard from the student - or rather anti-govt side - is an admission that it was them that attacked the reds first, that some of them were also armed, and that there had been several attacked on isolated red shirts carried out by student groups in the days leading up to the clash.

You've let the cat out of the bag re Nick's 'independent' reporting.

The Bangkok Post's weekend magazine had a lengthy report about the various incidents at Ramkangheng and it is more credible than Mr Nostitz's, who is a photographer. If he stuck to photography he might be worthy of respect but he embellishes everything in writing and leaves inconvenient facts out.

The Post said that the red shirts started the whole thing by entering the university and desecrating an icon of the university, plus they harassed at least one girl from the university. The students then reacted in force and the reds responded with equal force. The rest is arguable depending which side the opinions come from.

Virtually every post Nostitz has made on TV has been pro-red. I'd have some respect for him if he demonstrated some balance but I've yet to see it.

The Post's report was from the student side - they were in the university - so put it together with Nick's report and you have a more accurate picture of what was going on with both sides, surely? Yes, the reds desecrated the icon, according to the students. This is not fact. It's their justification. Might well be true but all we have is their word. Why are you accusing Nick of bias, as if the BKK Post reporters are also unbiased, btw? I don't think it's really tenable to criticize one without also criticizing the other. Or, rather than criticizing, maybe it's best to take both with a pinch of salt, then put them together with other accounts you've read, checking one against the other, and eventually hopefully you have a more accurate picture than you would have if you only had one side of the story.

There was another BKK Post story and a witness account in Prachatai that tally pretty much with a lot of what Nick says btw, and I don't really think that there's anything in the BKK Post report that you mention which really contradicts what he says either.

Unlike the BKK Post story about the girl who was harassed - which again may be true, but we only have the students word for it - what Nick says about isolated red shirts being attacked by students in the week leading up to this incident has been filmed, in at least one incident (by a passer-by), and put on youtube. There were also pictures of red shirt stabbed, again, apparently by students. But this to my mind is further evidence that the red shirts shouldn't have held the rally there. That's the one thing about Nick's report that doesn't quite hold up, he should've been more critical of the red shirt leadership for holding the rally there despite the fact that attacks on red shirts had been ongoing during the week before. He also doesn't give a reason as to why he thinks police didn't go to the university early Sunday morning.

There's also some crucial details which aren't made clear by the BKK Post story. The girl was apparently harassed during the days before the incident, not on the day of the incident. So you can't really claim that that was the 'spark' that set things off on the day that students decided to attack completely innocent and harmless old men and women. No, the students had decided to move from their base at Nang Lerng, to RU, on that day, so they could hold a counter-demonstration against the red shirts. I'm sure the organizers didn't intend violence, but when you have many students, including technical school students, getting drunk from early on in the day, there's a sort of inevitability about it.

Nick also says that there were RU students on both sides, and that, of course, many of those who fought on the 'student' side were not actually RU students. If you look at the pictures, there's no reason to disbelieve this. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. Why would RU students all be anti-govt and anti-red shirt?

I think, in what you've written above, you've indicated that you believe there's every reason to take the students' side of things at face value (despite the fact that their attacks on innocent people have been photographed and filmed), and that we should automatically doubt the red shirts' version of events. It's worth bearing in mind - and this is not really aimed at you specifically, it's the same for everyone, including me - that you're judging Nick from your own slanted viewpoint, not from some free floating neutral position. We should doubt the testimonies of all involved equally, and use as many witness accounts and journalistic reports as possible to try to build an accurate picture, not completely discount one account on the basis that just this one guy is particularly biased.

Everyone involved is biased, especially those who were actually fighting on the streets.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Emptyset

[khunken]

Bare in mind that the writer is on the reds side so everything he writes is extremely biased. I have seen accounts from students that say quite the opposite. I am inclined to believe the studenbs more than this douche. Besides, he is 'falang' so 'nobody cares what we think and we have no right to express any opinion' according to a lot of the idiot red shirt followers here....

Nick's account fits with other accounts I've read and he has pictures to back up what he says. What are the students saying that's different? That they were shot at by reds? Yep, that's mentioned in Nick's report. Attacked them in a violent rampage in the morning? Yep, that's mentioned and indeed photographed in Nick's report. What I haven't heard from the student - or rather anti-govt side - is an admission that it was them that attacked the reds first, that some of them were also armed, and that there had been several attacked on isolated red shirts carried out by student groups in the days leading up to the clash.

You've let the cat out of the bag re Nick's 'independent' reporting.

The Bangkok Post's weekend magazine had a lengthy report about the various incidents at Ramkangheng and it is more credible than Mr Nostitz's, who is a photographer. If he stuck to photography he might be worthy of respect but he embellishes everything in writing and leaves inconvenient facts out.

The Post said that the red shirts started the whole thing by entering the university and desecrating an icon of the university, plus they harassed at least one girl from the university. The students then reacted in force and the reds responded with equal force. The rest is arguable depending which side the opinions come from.

Virtually every post Nostitz has made on TV has been pro-red. I'd have some respect for him if he demonstrated some balance but I've yet to see it.

The Post's report was from the student side - they were in the university - so put it together with Nick's report and you have a more accurate picture of what was going on with both sides, surely? Yes, the reds desecrated the icon, according to the students. This is not fact. It's their justification. Might well be true but all we have is their word. Why are you accusing Nick of bias, as if the BKK Post reporters are also unbiased, btw? I don't think it's really tenable to criticize one without also criticizing the other. Or, rather than criticizing, maybe it's best to take both with a pinch of salt, then put them together with other accounts you've read, checking one against the other, and eventually hopefully you have a more accurate picture than you would have if you only had one side of the story.

There was another BKK Post story and a witness account in Prachatai that tally pretty much with a lot of what Nick says btw, and I don't really think that there's anything in the BKK Post report that you mention which really contradicts what he says either.

Unlike the BKK Post story about the girl who was harassed - which again may be true, but we only have the students word for it - what Nick says about isolated red shirts being attacked by students in the week leading up to this incident has been filmed, in at least one incident (by a passer-by), and put on youtube. There were also pictures of red shirt stabbed, again, apparently by students. But this to my mind is further evidence that the red shirts shouldn't have held the rally there. That's the one thing about Nick's report that doesn't quite hold up, he should've been more critical of the red shirt leadership for holding the rally there despite the fact that attacks on red shirts had been ongoing during the week before. He also doesn't give a reason as to why he thinks police didn't go to the university early Sunday morning.

There's also some crucial details which aren't made clear by the BKK Post story. The girl was apparently harassed during the days before the incident, not on the day of the incident. So you can't really claim that that was the 'spark' that set things off on the day that students decided to attack completely innocent and harmless old men and women. No, the students had decided to move from their base at Nang Lerng, to RU, on that day, so they could hold a counter-demonstration against the red shirts. I'm sure the organizers didn't intend violence, but when you have many students, including technical school students, getting drunk from early on in the day, there's a sort of inevitability about it.

Nick also says that there were RU students on both sides, and that, of course, many of those who fought on the 'student' side were not actually RU students. If you look at the pictures, there's no reason to disbelieve this. In fact, it's exactly what you'd expect. Why would RU students all be anti-govt and anti-red shirt?

I think, in what you've written above, you've indicated that you believe there's every reason to take the students' side of things at face value (despite the fact that their attacks on innocent people have been photographed and filmed), and that we should automatically doubt the red shirts' version of events. It's worth bearing in mind - and this is not really aimed at you specifically, it's the same for everyone, including me - that you're judging Nick from your own slanted viewpoint, not from some free floating neutral position. We should doubt the testimonies of all involved equally, and use as many witness accounts and journalistic reports as possible to try to build an accurate picture, not completely discount one account on the basis that just this one guy is particularly biased.

Everyone involved is biased, especially those who were actually fighting on the streets.

No, I haven't taken the students side but I have taken the Bangkok Post's reporters side as they are real journalists and it is rare to read an article (2 actually) of such depth. I have ceased to accept Nostitz's reports because of what I wrote in my previous post.

I do agree with you that not all RU students were on the anti- side & that other protestors came to help the students against the red shirts. I also agree that the red shirts shouldn't have been allowed to gather at the stadium which is in a rather anti-red area.

I don't take any article I read as 'gospel' but I take reports from a source I consider as unreliably biased with a bucket of salt. I don't watch Fox 'news' for the same reason.

[GrantSmith]

Nostitz and Marshall can most certainly be lumped together with Spooner..

Nostitz couldn't portray a neutral line if he was paid to do so by Abhisit or Thaksin..

Marshall can't help himself and his anti-royalist agenda is forever raising its ugly head..

Whilst I haven't read their entire lifes work, one doesn't have to in order to obtain sufficient grounds for which to make an informed decision.

Nostitz should have stuck to being a photographer instead of opining in one of his articles that he was not a rich man in order to garner the sympathy vote (in regards to having camera repaired or acquiring a new - cheaper - camera)when covering the unrest in '09.

Marshall has the ability to be neutral, however, he lets his anti-royalist agenda define who he is.

Perception is reality and all that..

As for keeping an open mind, 2 sides to every story and all that, I don't have an issue with you disagreeing with my opinion, I'd go as far as saying it's your right to do so and I would defend that right. But there's nothing coming from the other side of the fence that would lead me to change my opinion.

More than happy for you to present it if you have it though, knowledge is power and all that.

[GeorgeO]

Yingluck must be shitting bricks, she will face exactly the same premeditated murder charges in a personal capacity for her authorizing and ordering snipers to execute innocent students hiding at Ram Uni last week. Talk about digging a deeper hole for herself.

Really? Maybe you should read Nick's report before you make spurious accusations: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2013/12/10/ramkhamhaeng-a-view-from-inside-the-stadium/ If Yingluck is charged for this, surely Suthep should be charged for ordering his 'thugs' to attack the red shirts? Both charges equally (in)valid.

and of course "Nick" is totally unbiased...!!

[Emptyset]

No, I haven't taken the students side but I have taken the Bangkok Post's reporters side as they are real journalists and it is rare to read an article (2 actually) of such depth. I have ceased to accept Nostitz's reports because of what I wrote in my previous post.

I do agree with you that not all RU students were on the anti- side & that other protestors came to help the students against the red shirts. I also agree that the red shirts shouldn't have been allowed to gather at the stadium which is in a rather anti-red area.

I don't take any article I read as 'gospel' but I take reports from a source I consider as unreliably biased with a bucket of salt. I don't watch Fox 'news' for the same reason.

The Bangkok Post is at least as biased as Nick - although individual reporters will differ in their line, the papers general stance is anti-govt, pro-Democrat. Nick at least admits his sympathies, unlike those who think they're speaking from a position of neutrality. I've noticed this often from anti-govt types. They think they're the reasonable ones, when they actually believe in just as much propaganda as the red shirts. Yes, Fox news viewers stay in a bubble, being fed the information they want to hear, and refusing to engage with any 'difficult' information which challenges their agenda. Sounds pretty familiar...

Anyway, I've just read the Bangkok Post piece again, and I wonder why it quites a student as saying they were 'targets of the red shirts', when there is zero evidence of this, yet it is known that at least one red shirt was stabbed by a student, and then we have the beating and forced stripping of three red shirts leaving the stadium alone (see below), a few nights before the main clash took place. The students were also pictured right outside the stadium the night before (Friday) supposedly taunting the red shirts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F51Z6UyXDfQ

I had known all this before but didn't consider it particularly relevant because we know technical students are violent and we know some of the reds are violent, so it's not too surprising. As I've said, to my mind attacks like these and the provocation by students (it went both ways I realize, red shirts on motorcycles also taunted students on the Saturday afternoon when they attacked the bus etc), are just further reasons why the UDD should've called off the rally in the stadium. I just wonder why the Post chose not to publish details of these attacks (one was reported in Khao Sod), and instead make it look like red shirts were targetting students. I don't really doubt that the girl was harassed, but it seems more serious attacks went unreported. That's questionable.

Anyway, I still maintain the BKK Post report is useful, especially when put together with Nick's report from the red shirt side and other witness accounts (include the BKK Post's first report in which they interviewed witnesses). The Spectrum team was in the university with the students, whereas Nick was with the red shirts - when you put the reports together it seems there was a large body of peaceful students who were trapped inside the university, scared and confused, and also a large body of peaceful red shirts who were forced to stay in the stadium, scared and confused. Then you have two hardcore groups of "students" and red shirts who fought each other, the red shirts eventually coming off worse. So it goes...

Edited December 12, 2013 by Emptyset