Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
This month, May 2011, saw the release of probably the first independent in depth report on the 2010 red shirt protest and military crackdown in Thailand. That it has taken almost a year is a shame as this has allowed much misinformation to flourish in the meantime.
The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours. The reaction from the Thai government has had Deputy Prime Minister Suthep spitting nails, while on the pro-red shirt side we have seen comments alluding to a lack of partiality by the authors, in particular a strong dislike of ex-PM Thaksin tainting their work. This report can be found here.
Titled Descent into Chaos the report starts with the summary, followed by nine chapters of background, more detailed reporting and recommendations. The final section is an appendix with a timeline of Thai political history from the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 until the election of the first Thaksin Shinawatra government in 2001. The appendix is really a good place to start as it gives a succinct general background of Thai politics for both those new to the subject and those who may have forgotten more than they realise.
In no way could the report seriously be called an apology for the Thai government. We can see this in the five key recommendations to the government at the end of the summary. They are listed below:
- Immediately conduct an impartial, transparent, and independent inquiry into the violence of April-May 2010 and ensure all perpetrators of serious human rights abuses are brought to justice regardless of their status and political affiliation.
- Ensure the Thai army and other military branches, Thai police, and other government agencies fully cooperate with all information requests from the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigation, the National Human Rights commission of Thailand, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand, and other official inquiries, including those conducted by parliamentary commissions.
- Immediately make public the names, identifying information, place of origin and other specific information of all persons who have been detained for an offense under the Emergency Decree since April 7, 2010. Ensure that all persons detained by the police and other security forces are held at recognized places of detention and are not subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Immediately make detainees’ whereabouts known to family and legal counsel, allow regular contact with family, and unhindered access to legal counsel of the detainee’s choice.
- Provide prompt, fair, and adequate compensation for the victims, and family members of the victims of human rights violations and the misuse of force by state officials. Provide assistance to families who suffered injury or property loss as a result of the demonstrations and the government crackdown.
- Immediately end all restrictions on media that violate the right to freedom of expression, particularly sweeping censorship of UDD-affiliated media outlets, community radio stations, and websites. Drop all criminal charges filed under the Computer Crimes Act and Penal Code for peaceful expression. End arbitrary use of lese majeste charges to intimidate and prosecute government critics and dissidents.
There are also three key recommendations for those groups outside of the government which includes both the UDD and the PAD. It would be quite hard to prove that they are not rather sensible recommendations. Again they are listed below:
- Take all necessary measures, including frequent public statements, to ensure that all members and supporters do not engage, directly or indirectly, in violent activities on behalf of the group.
- Continually monitor, identify, and disband any armed elements within the group. Report to the authorities any group members who plan violence or unlawfully obtain or use arms.
- Cooperate and participate fully with criminal investigations, and investigations by the National Human Rights Commission and the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand into human rights violations and violence.
To see why the Thai government is angry with the report is quite easy. They are castigated for both the tactics and actions of the army. There is no hiding that at times elements of the army were out of control, and that the use of snipers and ‘free-fire’ zones is not an accepted way of civilized governments handling civilian unrest.
Why the pro-red shirt side is unhappy with the report is more complicated. It would be easy to think they would be delighted in such a castigation of the Abhisit government, but that is not the case. The eleven month gap between the end of the 2010 protest and the report’s release has allowed an alternative history to be written. I think this can be seen most clearly in the Thaksin commissioned Robert Amsterdam report and in the speeches by MP Jataporn.
A few quick comparisons between the HRW and Amsterdam reports can be seen below:
Robert Amsterdam on the 2009 protest
Although the government claimed at the time that the Army had acted in accordance with international standards, and that no one had been killed during the crackdown, witnesses reported that at least six Red Shirts were killed by the Army’s live fire, but their bodies were loaded onto military trucks and quickly carried away, preventing them from being identified. Days later, the bodies of two bound and gagged Red Shirts were fished out of the Chaophraya River, showing evident signs of torture.
(It should be noted that the two bodies fished out of the river were later never really claimed by the UDD. There was a suspicion of gangster related violence.)
HRW on the 2009 protest (note no disappeared bodies in this one)
On April 13, street battles erupted in Bangkok when UDD protesters, who had been blocking main intersections in Din Daeng district with buses and taxis, attacked approaching soldiers with guns, petrol bombs, slingshots, and other home-made weapons. UDD protesters also threatened to explode trucks carrying liquefied petroleum gas near residential areas and hospitals. Soldiers used teargas and live ammunition to disperse protesters and clear blockades. Some soldiers fired assault weapons at protesters. Clashes erupted across Bangkok the next day, when two neighborhood watch group members were killed in a clash with UDD supporters. At least 123 people were injured, including four soldiers. Thousands of protesters then retreated to their main camp outside the Government House on April 14.
(Robert Amsterdam skips two Muslim men killed by red shirts supporters.)
Robert Amsterdam on 10 April 2010
At approximately 19:15, two separate grenades exploded behind the front lines of the Second Cavalry Division on Dinso Road, killing several soldiers. The Second Cavalry Division – which had been firing live rounds above the crowd – immediately lowered their rifles and fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition directly into the unarmed Red Shirt crowd gathered at Democracy Monument. While the source of the grenade fire has never been ascertained, beyond their attribution to “men in black” the government claims to have been affiliated with the Red Shirts, the UDD and others believe that the explosions were likely caused by forces working in concert with the First Region Army, under authorization by General Prayuth, in order to create an excuse for troops to open live fire on the Red Shirt crowd, purportedly in “self defense.”
HRW on 10 April 2010
Olivier Sarbil, a French photojournalist and a former soldier, was behind army lines in Din So Road on April 10 when Black Shirts attacked soldiers with grenades and gunfire:
The army had APCs [armored personnel carriers] in [Din So] street, they had three platoons [of soldiers]. The army was playing some music to try and calm the people down. The Red Shirts were pushing a bit. The army had used teargas but the wind made it go back against them so one platoon fell back [into Din So Street]. Then the soldiers started to shoot in the air, and then they got hit by a grenade. They fell back and had injured [soldiers] with them, so to give cover to their wounded they returned fire. The Black Shirts were ahead of them, attacking. I don’t think the army intended to shoot the Red Shirts, but they had to return fire. The commander [Col. Romklao] was in the front when he was killed–I was too far back to see the Black Shirts, but I could see their fire incoming at us. It only lasted a few minutes, but the soldiers lost all of their armored cars except for one. Then they treated their wounded–they had at least 30 wounded soldiers at the back of the soi [small street]. It all happened very quickly, and I stayed until it cleared up, about 40 minutes. The protesters took some Thai soldiers prisoner and brought them to the stage, there was still some incoming fire and the soldiers returning fire.
The problem for red shirt supporters continues with the report’s description of the final hours of the 2010 protest. There had been some of the UDD leaders like Jataporn making up alternative stories of who damaged and burned what, such as the Central World mall. The report gives them very little comfort putting the blame back on red shirt supporters. I think in many ways their biggest problem is that it pulls no punches regarding the character of Thaksin Shinawatra.
The above problem was from 2006 going to cause embarrassment for those on the left who went from anti-Thaksin to pro-red shirt. There was always little hope of distancing the movement from Thaksin and his finances so they were left supporting a movement to bring back an extremely authoritarian ex-prime minister with a woeful human rights record. The report lists some of this record as HRW was involved at the time.
It will be interesting to see if the Human Rights Watch report is timely or just a little too late. Thaksin is promising to be back in Thailand in November and among other things, to clear up Thailand’s drug problem in a year. We could see the need of another HRW report then following the extra-judiciary killings that took place last time he tackled this issue.
The trouble with pinning Black Shirts with Red Shirts is that why none was killed or captured? If they’re such a pivotal presence in this event, then more effort must be made to go after them.
In the May crackdown, we’ve seen overwhelming numbers of soldiers used in the area. It boggles the mind to how the Blacks were able to get away with everything.
Although if you look at the numbers of military men who was convicted on that event – Zero , it’s not much of a stretch to lump them up with the army instead. They sure got the same treatment!
0
0
Les, you are okay on this for me until you get to comparisons between the two reports. One reason for this is that (i) you don’t always compare like with like, (ii) you miss some very substantial agreements between the two reports and (iii) your critical eye deserts you for a moment in some of the quotes. Some illustrations of these points:
(i) On 2009 and like with like: the HRW report does talk about claims of other deaths, noting that they have not been substantiated (but this is on p. 42). In essence, while not stated in your quote from Amsterdam, he doesn’t do much more than that. The main difference is the statement about the floating bodies (and none of the press reports at the time mention “gangsters”, as you do, but I may have missed it) and that HRW adds a note about reporters being with advancing troops.
(ii) On agreement: Without going into huge detail, I believe that both reports agree on several fundamental points: (a) like you, both condemn the use of free fire zones and calculated assassinations and killings; (b) related, both HRW and Amsterdam conclude that unarmed protesters were likely killed by army snipers with high-velocity and scoped weapons; (c) Both seem to agree that the vast majority of red shirt protesters were unarmed; (d) that soldiers fired directly at protesters and others, causing death and injury; (e) that the deaths/some of the deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram were by shooting by soldiers; (f) security forces did not allow medics and ambulances into the area, possibly leading to the death of some of the already wounded; (g) the government adopted various measures that infringed fundamental human rights; and, we might add (h) following the clearance operation, the government embarked on a vast operation of repression that also infringed human rights.
(iii) Finally, a question is raised from the quote you have from the French journalist. I’ll edit down: “Olivier Sarbil … was behind army lines … when Black Shirts attacked soldiers with grenades and gunfire…”. Sarbil: “Then the soldiers started to shoot in the air, and then they got hit by a grenade. … The Black Shirts were ahead of them, attacking. … I was too far back to see the Black Shirts, but I could see their fire incoming at us. ” I agree that Amsterdam says almost nothing on MIB and it is clear that the army was attacked, but as Sarbil says, he couldn’t see who it was….
One might also go through the HRW report and note things they missed (e.g. violent attacks on red shirts in Pattaya in 2009 and after). My feeling is that a better way to critically read the reports is to use them together and try to see what can be drawn from them. There are at least two other reports coming, one from human rights groups in Thailand and one from Kanit’s committee, so they should add to a body of knowledge that tells us more.
0
0
Is there any mention of the 20 that died from head-shots in the report? Such numbers happened anywhere else should have invoked international outcry. Thailand does enjoy a special place in the world indeed.
0
0
Ralph Krandem – 2
Ralph the devil is always going to be in the details. Let’s start from a point we can probably agree on. The HRW report is at least attempting to be independent while Amsterdam wouldn’t be foolish enough to make that claim. He is after all employed by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Of course if we write a diary over the period of the 2010 protest the major happenings will likely agree whatever side one supports. The bias has to creep in with the details. It seems to me that HRW tries very hard to hold a non-biased view. So looking at the 2009 reporting HRW does point out that claims of more bodies were never substantiated while Amsterdam lets the reports stand.
(The gangster connection with the two bodies fished out of the water was in the press within a day I seem to remember. The talk was of some Bangkapi hoodlums falling out. That doesn’t mean it’s true of course and that they weren’t just regular red shirts, but at the time the UDD leadership didn’t seem to want use them as examples which was a bit suspicious.)
As I say in the post the problem for the red shirt supporters was that they were writing a different history of the 2010 events which clashes with this first independent report. Because it has become such talking point we can use the burning of Central World as an example.
The story of it not being the red shirts must have come straight out a spin doctor’s handbook. That’s not to say it’s impossible it was the army, an insurance job, a serial arsonist or even UFOs. We should all know better than to say ‘impossible’. But whoever did do it is not the whole story unless we say they also burned the cinema, the supermarket, the Rama 4 Lotus Express, the SET bookshop and so on. The CW just becomes a red herring thrown in by the Thaksin’s PR to muddy the water.
Now I was at the SET arson attempt so I can give an eye-witness report of a kind, but can I say for sure there were no agent-provocateurs. No of course not, but it didn’t strike me that there were. That’s the best anyone can do without far more knowledge.
If you listen to Thaksin’s latest interview with the Post you will hear him make a claim that the red shirts were not smart enough to burn CW so it had to be the army. Does that also count for these other buildings.
I think we should welcome the HRW report for what it is, an attempt at an impartial report which will never be in total agreement with ones produced by either Thaksin’s people or the government.
0
0
leeyiankun – 3
Is there any mention of the 20 that died from head-shots in the report?
There is a link to the report in the article, but as I may not have made that very clear here it is again.
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos-0
0
0
The most recent campaign promise by Thaksin’s party (meaning it IS Thaksin’s promise) is AMNESTY. Amnesty for everyone – red, yellow, black, green, brown, or whatever color there is . . . but of course Thaksin gets his amnesty first.
If Red Shirt leader Thaksin himself is not keen, eager and downright indifferent to calls by the families seeking justice/redress for the Red Shirts killed or maimed during the April-May2010 very violent Red protests, because Thaksin’s priority had always been taking care of himself first . . . so what follows next people?
All those Red blood shed, all those Red bones shattered, all the Red sacrifices in response to Thaksin’s calls to his followers for a ‘revolution’ . . .
Die-hard Red Shirts should be asking themselves, does Thaksin Shinawatra truly care for them, or for himself only?
0
0
I thought it was a good post from @LesAbbey. While not always in agreement with your analysis in the comments, this came across as predominantly balanced and informative comment on the HRW report.
And kudos to Mandala for publishing submissions from all sides of the spectrum.
* ‘predominantly’: not sure I’m convinced that the ‘black shirts’ can be emphatically linked with the ‘red shirts’.
0
0
Artisans – 7
…not sure I’m convinced that the ‘black shirts’ can be emphatically linked with the ‘red shirts’.
It’s something that does seem to come up quite often, but it is case where we could apply the law of Occam’s razor. That is at times we do need to start from the most likely explanation.
At best we could put up an argument that the ‘men in black’ were operating outside of any control or knowledge of the UDD leadership, but that is about as far as we can go.
We know they operated with impunity inside the area that the red shirts controlled. The most likely explanation of their actions are that they were in line with what Thaksin wanted. That statements were made from the UDD stage that these men in black were coming was reported shortly before grenades were fired.
0
0
From Reuters on this topic:
A 30-metre (98-ft) corrugated iron wall masks the remnants of a mysterious arson attack a year ago on Southeast Asia’s second-biggest shopping mall, a reminder of Thailand’s struggle to tame a crisis many fear could turn violent again during elections.
Despite an official investigation, it remains unclear who started the massive fire on May 19, 2010, a day when the military used force to break up an encampment next to the shopping plaza where tens of thousands of red-shirted protesters had called for fresh elections.
It is one of many unanswered questions following clashes between protesters and troops from April 10 to May 19 last year that killed 91 people, wounded more than 1,800 and reduced one of Asia’s most dynamic cities to scenes of chaotic street fighting, smouldering fires and 9 p.m. night curfews.
Around 7,000 red shirts rallied on Thursday near the site of the crackdown, waving flags and holding placards calling for justice for those killed.
The burning of Thailand’s busiest shopping plaza was seen by Bangkok’s middle classes as a desperate act of sabotage by an unruly mob hired by an exiled former premier seeking to wrestle back power.
While the government blames the red shirts for the attack on Central World, the sophistication of the destruction and photographs showing armed men in the building before the fire have raised questions of whether the military-backed government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had a hand in the arson.
“If the red shirts set the fire, it would have been much smaller, since they didn’t have the tools or the expertise,” Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted former prime minister and red shirts’ figurehead, told the Post Today newspaper this week.
His sister, Yingluck, leads the opposition in an election scheduled for July 3.
As Thailand braces for elections, investigations into the fire and the 91 deaths have made little headway, offering political ammunition to the opposition Puea Thai Party whose support appears to be gathering momentum.
With rivalry fierce between Thailand’s political camps, many fear the election results will be contested, or powerful forces might seek to manipulate the formation of a new government, which is widely expected to be a coalition.
The biggest risk, analysts say, is that perceived injustices could ignite another round of instability in Southeast Asia’s second-biggest economy, one of the region’s most attractive destinations for foreign tourists and investors.
Police probes and a state investigation into the violence are largely inconclusive, ID:nSGE6B902Q] and tainted by allegations of political interference, while fact-finding panels have failed to unearth what exactly happened.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
The shopping plaza, one of 39 buildings set on fire on May 19, 2010 after the military clashed with protesters, was a perfect target for disenfranchised red shirts disdainful of Thailand’s moneyed, politically powerful elite.
After the fire that gutted the mall’s ‘Zen’ department store, blame immediately fell on the red shirts. But conspiracy theories abound over the motives and identity of the arsonists.
Authorities said calls by protest leaders to “burn” Bangkok prove their guilt, and the black outfits worn by the arsonists caught on camera were consistent with shadowy gunmen allied with the red shirts.
But the opposition and its red shirt allies say the arson was planned by the military and its establishment allies to discredit protesters and win support in Bangkok.
Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for Thaksin, submitted a petition on January 31 to the International Criminal Court in the Hague accusing the Thai government and military of crimes against humanity during the April-May 2010 suppression of the protests.
A document produced by Amsterdam & Peroff LLP as part of the petition quotes an “Anonymous Witness No. 22” — a statement compiled from what the law firm says is the testimony of several military officers — as saying “a team of arsonists contracted by the army” planted “incendiary devices inside Central World.”
“The operation was planned by the army leadership, with the consent and approval of the government leadership, several weeks in advance of May 19,” it said.
The Thai government denied the allegation.
Internet web boards have also posted images showing the saboteurs’ military-issue boots and their use of walkie-talkies similar to those used by the army. The fact that the mall was set on fire long after the military had seized control of the protest site has not been explained.
A study published this month by New York-based Human Rights Watch blames both sides for last year’s violence, criticising the military for “excessive and unnecessary lethal force” and the red shirts for calls to riot and harbouring black-clad militants who fought the army.
“There’s some legal movement against demonstrators but no honest self examination or holding to account by the authorities and officials involved,” said Benjamin Zawacki, a researcher at London-based Amnesty International. “So far, none of the root causes have been addressed.”
An estimated 800 demonstrators were detained under emergency laws and more than 130 are still held, unable to afford bail averaging 500,000 baht. To date, 22 have been convicted of offences while no state officials have faced charges, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee investigating the unrest.
0
0
Ralph Kramden – 9
“The operation was planned by the army leadership, with the consent and approval of the government leadership, several weeks in advance of May 19,” it (Amsterdam’s report) said.
And,
The shopping plaza, one of 39 buildings set on fire on May 19, 2010 after the military clashed with protesters, was a perfect target for disenfranchised red shirts disdainful of Thailand’s moneyed, politically powerful elite.
See Ralph, just say we give Amsterdam the CW, what we do we then do with the other 38 buildings, (that many?). I would still go with HRW’s independent report until there is real proof of it being otherwise. Again Occam’s razor, go with the most likely explanation first. The CW claims out of the Thaksin camp do remind me of the Goebbels quote, ‘tell a lie often (or was it big) enough’.
0
0
Les, as you predicated when the HRW report first came out, there will be little willingness from the UDD apologist brigade to engage any rational discussion. All you are going to get is Spooner’s article on the lack of balance because the report included an honest assessment of the UDD’s leadership in inciting the violence and hooligans that followed that incitement.
If you had published an article condemning the report tas completely unfair to the UDD, the comments here would probably be over 100 by now, rather the 10, seemingly half of them from you.
TH
0
0
LesAbbey
We know they operated with impunity inside the area that the red shirts controlled. The most likely explanation of their actions are that they were in line with what Thaksin wanted.
Yes les but we can’t disregard the theory that the black shirt might be agent provocateur. This tactic has been used with success before in the past, just because HRW didn’t suggest so doesn’t mean it ain’t the case. Those people might be just a renegade ex-military man who have no connection with Thaksin what so ever, there’s so many things that we don’t know. Just because they fired at the military doesn’t indicate that they are working within the red control.
You seems to be talking HRW report like a bible, fine by me, but even HRW had a track record of sometime tilting their report just so they could woo some people is definitely something you should keep in mine.
0
0
LesAbbey, how has the blackshirts benefited the reds? On the crackdown, they were no where to be seen. And the burning, what has the red gained? Aside from the р╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З (Pao bahn Pao Meung) slogan that the PAD & Dems seems to love to spewed.
All if not most points to it being just another scheme of the elite. I suggest you wait until ONE black has been arrested and charged. Then your theory will have some weight.
0
0
It’s refreshing to see a report that does not seek to exonerate one side or another, with most other recounts of events being something of a liar’s contest.
I watched SET burn and the Sirikit subway entry smashed, among other things. Later on the electricity building. As far as those are concerned it was a fairly normal mob reaction IMHO. They weren’t going to go home for a quiet cup of tea and a lie down.
0
0
c11
“Les, as you predicated when the HRW report first came out, there will be little willingness from the UDD apologist brigade to engage any rational discussion.”
Not this again….. So – just who are the “UDD apologist brigade” here? Are these individuals just seen as the equivalent of a soccer-team supporters’ “firm”? It’s really tedious not to say glibly insulting to NM posters to fling these terms around anytime that there’s either a volume of posts tackling someone on the issues point-by-point or now a lack of posts – rather ignoring the fact that most of the points have long been discussed into the ground here. Ralph Kramden posted two very lengthy comments. Should others now re-state the same points from those and from previous posts but re-word them a bit – and maybe add a couple of other minutiae so that the extra posts just look a bit different?
LesAbbey’s views (and slick style) are very well-known through being represented here so often. There’s a limit to how many times people can be bothered to go on repeating the same responses to them.
Lack of renewed/repeated response = “Gotcha”? In Hollywood trial movies, maybe…..
0
0
leeyiankun – 13
LesAbbey, how has the blackshirts benefited the reds?
The difference the armed ‘men in black’ made was the difference between the 2009 and 2010 protest. In 2009 the army had managed to roll up the UDD protest within 24 hours of taking action. So what was the benefit to the red shirts? It was they were still there on April 11th.
So that leaves us with one big question. Do we believe that Thaksin Shinawatra would be willing to sacrifice so many lives to get a political outcome he wanted? You will have to make up your own mind on that I’m afraid.
0
0
I think as soon as ‘UDD apologists brigade’ cease their charade about (hah!) peaceful Red+Black Shirts movement, then we can move forward to the real political issue; e.g.:
Does the Kingdom of Thailand oppress its people ((similar to Libya, Syria or Egypt) with an elitist political system/culture that the recent Y2010 Red Shirts call for radical change BY VIOLENT MEANS (again similar to the recent violent upheavals at Libya, Syria and Egypt) justified?
0
0
In response to No. 3 above. Yes, HRW does mention some of the deaths and the wounds they suffered. It is in a footnote. The implications of putting this in a footnote can be drawn by others.
Les at No. 10: I posted the Reuters report. Your beef is with that author, not me. And Goebbels was also involved in the Reichstag fire perhaps? Wikipedia has a disputed entry on that, nearly 80 years later. I am more than willing to accept that some red shirts burned some buildings in anger and as vengeance. Why would that be difficult to fathom? But, at the same time, given the impressive impunity enjoyed by the armed forces of the Thai state and their long involvement in acts as provocateurs (as Tarrin says at No. 12), few should be surprised to see it working to send clear messages to its own “side.” A bit of fear is a big part of generating support for the established regime.
Is HRW impartial and independent? I posted on this at another thread – the Amsterdam one – my point was made there. On this thread, my position has been to simply assert that the HRW report, like the Amsterdam one, and like those that are promised in the future, need to be read with a critical eye in building a picture of events that will forever remain a partial view of the reality. Hopefully one that is not “bible,” yet more complete.
0
0
Is the HRW report the definitive report we have all been waiting for?
I think not. It seems to me the HRW is most concerned with the human rights abuses perpetrated by the government. So they had to try to perform a balancing act so as not to have the report completely rejected by the government.
The fact that the Military/ Abhisit government are reluctant to initiate a full independent inquiry says a lot to me. Well they are not going to investigate themselves are they?
Les Abbey says Taksin was willing to sacrifice his supporters. Sacrifice to who, the mad dog Military? seems the military was more than willing to oblige.
0
0
Ralph Kramden – 18
I posted the Reuters report. Your beef is with that author, not me.
Ralph I thought I was highlighting the bits of the Amsterdam report used by the Reuters reporter. I didn’t think I gave you the authorship of it. If I suggested that I apologise.
And Goebbels was also involved in the Reichstag fire perhaps?
I was always under the impression that the Nazis did do it. Is there some revisionism in Wikipedia?
You see Ralph when you write like this:
On this thread, my position has been to simply assert that the HRW report, like the Amsterdam one…
You are comparing apples and oranges. Amsterdam’s report is paid for by one of the contestants. HRW’s is not, unless you want to make the criticism that it’s biased because they hate Thaksin too much.
Amsterdam’s report is no more independent than the one the one the government will produce, whichever party wins the election. People like HRW and AI are all we have to go on if we are looking for the unbiased viewpoint.
It is in a footnote. The implications of putting this in a footnote can be drawn by others.
So let’s have a bit of honesty Ralph. Spit it out. Do you think the HRW report is dishonest?
0
0
c17
“Does the Kingdom of Thailand oppress its people ((similar to Libya, Syria or Egypt) with an elitist political system/culture that the recent Y2010 Red Shirts call for radical change BY VIOLENT MEANS (again similar to the recent violent upheavals at Libya, Syria and Egypt) justified?”
(Vichai N – May 21, 2011)
“After 18 days of unrelenting expanding massive Egyptian peaceful protests demanding transformational change, Mubarak (in power for 30 years) resigns, transfers his powers to the military (is that counted as a ‘coup’ gentlemen), and bloodshed on the streets of Cairo was thankfully avoided. But Egypt is a police state and the world was ecstatic at the success of Egypt’s People Power. Conclusion: A successful popular peaceful street protest at Egypt to remove Mubarak.“ *
(Vichai N – Feb 12, 2011)
Ah well, maybe there’s more than one Vichai N out there….. That would explain a lot.
* http://www.newmandala.org/2011/02/09/coup-talk-in-thailand/#comment-748787
0
0
SteveCM – 15
LesAbbey’s views (and slick style)…
That’s a few times I have received praise for my writing style. I think one said I was a master of innuendo. Having left the academic world at rather a young age I’m quite pleased. They are not all from you are they Steve?
If anyone wants to hire me just get in touch. (Robert Amsterdam can you hear me?)
0
0
c22
“That’s a few times I have received praise for my writing style. I think one said I was a master of innuendo.”
I’ll add “vivid imagination” if you think either is praise in this context.
0
0
Only one point to respond to Les, the rest is in my posts on this.
It is in a footnote. … So let’s have a bit of honesty Ralph. Spit it out.
Disrespectful to the dead.
0
0
The difference in the accounts of the Chulalongkorn Hospital raid incident between the HRW report and Amsterdam’s ICJ application is massive. The HRW goes into much detail and spans over 4 pages and includes many witness accounts.
Amsterdam’s report only covers a brief paragraph and concludes that it was just a public relations stunt by the government.
you can view and download Amsterdam’s ICJ application here: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bwldjjr6qDReYzRiNzM1MzQtODZmNi00Y2MxLTkxNmMtYjBjODM1ZTVjZWIz&sort=name&layout=list&num=50&pli=1
0
0
Some see this as a 2 sided affair. Amart vs RedShirts.
However, there are many different and competing sides. Each having their own agenda.
These sides include the military with its different factions. Competition between them etc.
The various gangster godfathers incorportated and running blocks within the Democrat, PT, BJT, CP, SAP etc.
What are the interests of each of these godfather families, think of Banharn Silapha Archa, Somchai Khunpluem, the Thaugsubans, and the Chidchobs. Do they compete? How?
Each family has ‘Soldiers’.
Did these ‘soldiers’ blend into the red shirts, the black shirts, the yellow shirts? Were they among the people who participated in burning Central World?
Who has benefited the most from dealing with protesters being shot with snipers rather than using traditional crowd control techniques of riot control?
Why were protesters killed, yet not one Central World arsonist? Why did they CW arsonists wearing red shirts in some pictures have Thai Flag wrist bands when none were visible in pictures prior to the burning?
Why could photographers take the pictures of Black Shirts, and CW arsonists yet not one was killed?
One year on, so many questions? So few answers.
0
0
Just a correction to my previous post (25): I meant to say ICC (International Criminal Court) instead of ICJ (International Court of Justice).
0
0
I am scratching my head for a long time on this one: Why was Nick Nostitz not among the journalists interviewed and quoted by HRW in their ‘Descent into Chaos’ report?
And this two questions to Nick Nostitz: (1) Is there anything in the HRW account that you specifically agree, and more importantly, disagree with? HRW did portray the Red Shirt leaders as ‘provoking violence (and arson) during their bloody protests. But Nostitz insists that Tida and the Reds are a peaceful lot . . . really Nick?
0
0
And i am scratching my head why i should bother answering your questions, which all contain an impolite snide or insinuation.
Whatever…
The HRW investigators interviewed me, but decided not to include my accounts, especially over the killing zone incident, as the believed another person who wasn’t even there during the incident and at the day, and had very little background knowledge or contacts (we had quite an argument during the interview over this, which pissed me off tremendously, especially as this was only a very short time after this whole mess, when i was psychologically still very stressed).
They also decided to believe the massive discrediting campaign that at the time was launched by the DP government against me, and decided not to listen to the people who supported me (I had quite a nightmarish time the year after the crackdown – the political pressure i was under then was very bad, at some later time i might go into details).
They went with the sexy story over Wat Patum, meaning the simplistic stuff the media came out with at the time, without looking at the enormous complexities of the incident. I have warned them over this, but i and one or two others were the minority voice, and therefore disbelieved. I won’t go presently any deeper into this, other than that there were a few incidents that they should have looked deeper into, instead of going into the seemingly obvious stuff.
I have to point out here though that Sunai Pasuk, contrary what many believe, was not part of the HRW report. I don’t want to go any deeper into this right now and here, other than that if Sunai would have played a larger role the report could have been much better. Sunai is one of the very few people here who are extremely knowledgeable, factual and objective, and do walk neutral ground.
It would also lead to far to discuss the weaknesses and strong points of the report too deeply. It has merit, but also some weaknesses which could have been avoided.
0
0
Impolite insinuations Nick Nostitz? I thought all my questions were direct to the point.
But you do get very evasive on very frequent occassions Nostitz and you had NOT answered the two direct questions I asked which I repeat: (1) Is there anything in the HRW account that you specifically agree, and more importantly, disagree with? HRW did portray the Red Shirt leaders as ‘provoking violence (and arson) during their bloody protests. But Nostitz insists that Tida and the Reds are a peaceful lot . . . really Nick?
0
0
What is so difficult to understand when i say: “I won’t go presently any deeper into this”?!
When *I* am ready you can read what what i have to say about 2010, and which points i insist upon.
Stop pestering me.
0
0
Very interesting title of this thread “HRW fires a few grenades”, don’t you agree Nostitz? You are an evasive explosive grenade yourself Nostitz when pressed. And that explains, among other things, why I think HRW could NOT include Nick Nostitz as a reliable source in their report.
0
0
As in the case of their biased reports on Burma, HRW wrote only what their donors want to hear as they are just a donor stooge.
0
0
Aung Moe has hit the nail on the head. Big organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International seek primarily to maximise their financial bottom lines by pressing their donors’ emotional buttons. The truth comes second, at best. Sorry Les.
As for the men in black, it seems pretty clear that they were an army faction led by the more violent of the officers whose careers had languished, either because they were too close to Thaksin, or because they didn’t crawl low enough to the royalists. Not all of the reds were smart enough to realise that this military faction was always going to be an embarrassment to them and their cause of elected civilian government.
0
0
[…] some of the posts at New Mandala earlier today and noted a brief exchange on an old posting, with an intriguing recent comment from photojournalist Nick […]
0
0
[…] some of the posts at New Mandala earlier today and noted a brief exchange on an old posting, with an intriguing recent comment from photojournalist Nick […]
0
0