Picture by Thilo Thielke (Der Spiegel)
Will the death of independent Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi become one of the numerous mysterious events of modern Thai history, from King Ananda’s death in 1946 to the Saudi Jewel Saga (1989 to today)?
Fabio Polenghi was killed by a bullet on 19 May 2010, just before 11.00 am, as he was running along with other journalists and some Red shirts (the anti-government demonstrators) to escape live rounds fire. On that day, the Thai army, ordered by Abhisit Vejjajiva’s government to “clear” the Rajprasong commercial area of Bangkok occupied for two months by the Reds, was advancing on Rajdamri road and firing indiscriminately, according to eyewitnesses, on demonstrators armed with slingshots and Molotov cocktails. In the course of his run, Fabio was hit by a bullet and collapsed. Carried by colleagues and demonstrators to the Police Hospital, he died later from his wound.
On 21 May, two days after the Fabio’s death, the Police Forensic Institute did a forensic examination. The day after, Fabio Polenghi’s body was cremated in a simple and emotional ceremony attended by his younger sister Isabella, his friends, and his colleagues. Three months later, the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) – the “Thai FBI” – which is in charge of the investigation of Fabio’s killing, still refuses to publish the forensic report. “The investigation is not finished yet”, says Colonel Naras Savestanan, the deputy-director general of DSI. He says he cannot answer basic and crucial questions such as those about the kind of bullet which killed Fabio, the angle and distance of shooting and the location of the killer. Other important questions deal with the location of military sharpshooters who killed many demonstrators on that day as well as the location of the mysterious Black shirts – the armed wing of the Red movement. But also here, the questions find no answers. Or only very vague ones.
The DSI, a special police unit which has been put in charge of the case given its importance and sensitivity, has not yet published any information on the circumstances of the killing after supposedly investigating the case for three months. Why is the DSI, considered by Red shirts as very close to Abhisit’s Democrat party, so embarrassed by this case which has attracted the attention of the foreign media and international organizations like the Committee to Protect journalists (CPJ) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF)? To publish the truth on the circumstances of the photographer’s death would apparently be an issue for the government and the Thai military. General Anupong Paochinda, originally from the 21st Infantry Regiment (Queen’s Guard) has been Army chief since 2007. He was appointed not long after the bloodless and flowery coup of 19 September 2010 which overthrew then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the popular and corrupt former police officer turned telecommunications tycoon turned politician. This October, General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, brothers in arms of Anupong – and the brain behind the crackdown on the Reds in May – will take over from Anupong as Army chief. Thus for at least seven years, the elite unit of the Queen’s Guard will control the most powerful position of the Royal Thai Armed forces.This is something never seen before in the modern military history of the Kingdom. And this situation is creating ferocious feelings of jealousy within the officer corps.
Who killed Fabio Polenghi? A two weeks investigation by colleagues and friends of Fabio has cast some light on the circumstances of his killing. Fabio was killed by a bullet in an area where the Black Shirts were using mostly M 79 RPG – one of which severely wounded Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergrift – and M 16 assault rifles. On 19 May, these Black Shirts were occupying the Rajdamri Skytrain station, roughly 425 meters from the place where Fabio was hit. An M 16 is not very precise beyond a distance of one hundred meters, unless equipped with a sharp shooting vision device. On the other side, on the same day at around 11:00 am, hundreds of soldiers, deployed for the “clearing operation”, were advancing on Rajdamari, coming from the Saladaeng intersection and across Lumphini Park which covers the south-eastern flank of the road.
In parallel, military sharp shooters, positioned on buildings surrounding Rajdamri road, were also shooting at Red shirt demonstrators who were occupying the road. “It is more likely that the Italian journalist has been hit by fire from advancing soldiers at the ground level, on Rajdamri road. I cannot see clearly why sharp shooters would particularly target him”, says a journalist who was on the military side on Rajdamri on 19 May. The type of bullet which killed Fabio, if it is revealed publicly someday, is not the most crucial element as Black shirts and military personnel have used some similar weapons. The most important elements are the entry point of the bullet, the description of the wound and the shooting angle, which could cast some light about the location of the shooter. Without these data, there will be no certainty on the identity of who killed the Italian journalist.
After Fabio was hit on 19 May, man of Asian appearence rushed on the Canon 5 D camera Fabio had dropped when he collapsed. The man took the camera then dragged and helped to carry Fabio out of the fire zone. An investigation among Thai and Foreign journalists shows that this mysterious man is not a journalist, nor a photographer. He could just be a person who seized the opportunity of the chaos created by the shooting to steal a camera worth 4,000 Euros.
Fabio death may be mysterious to foreign journalists but a brainless person could tell immediately that his death was definitely caused by the bullets from the Thai military. A few days after the forensic examination, some Thai newspaper reported that doctors confirmed that the bullets that found in Fabio body were from the Thai army. The order to clear all journalists off the Rajprasong area was a clear signal that the army will terminate anything while they move in. Fabio was just one of many more casualties that day. The fact that his death caused a big bang was only because he was a foreign reporter. Many more red-shirts were shot cold-blooded without any mercy. Many were shot and dragged into army trucks and disappeared forever. With Prayuth as a new army chief, more brutal murders will take place in the near future. Only god can tell what will happen to Thailand under these queen’s guard. But in many other places, no matter how powerful, how brutal those dictators were, democracy and righteousness would always prevail.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
64 
16
It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to figure the army shot him. probably when aiming at reds. But the real killer will never be found, it will be blamed on mysterious reds. Thailand is not where you come expecting justice. Albeit if you grease enough palms they will find some peasant to blame it all on, confession guaranteed.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
53 
10
This a non story. Fabio was at best looking to score the big one, at worst, an idiot. Anybody with a shred of common sense knew that being on the other side of that barricade on that day at that time was the last place you wanted to be. And what color was he wearing? Black? Like so many of these foreign journalists who looked like fools wearing such a color at these protests. He took a risk and lost. It’s awful that he had to die, but it’s his fault not the military’s.
I was around that day too. And I had the sense to simply stay away from that area.
Hot debate. What do you think? Quality comment or not?
8 
86
If the government refused to disclose the original autopsy report, it means that the army shot Mr Fabio. I am deeply sorry for his family but I’m afraid the truth will never be revealed.
Welcome to B.S. Land …
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
48 
6
That’s a lof of ifs and whens. Killed by the army on purpose?! Has NM turned into The Sun?
What if he just happened to be in the line of fire? Like the soldier who died with him? Apparently killed my a grenade?
Please, one would expect more substantiated stuff from this site, but hey you guys are looking for angry traffic. And get it.
Hot debate. What do you think? Quality comment or not?
10 
57
Maratjp should just go by the more appropriate moniker of mara.
Quality comment or not?
14 
3
In United States Marine Corp qualification shooting, hits out to 500 meters and beyond are commonplace.
A lot of Thai soldiers and marines are taught marksmanship by the USMC.
As to who killed Mr. Fabio – flip a coin. There were shooters on both sides.
Quality comment or not?
7 
14
Investigating the deaths of May are important, but to place them on par with Ananda’s death and the Saudi jewel case is hyberbolic and wishful thinking.
Why would the death of a journalist be a bigger case than, say, the gaping holes in the events of October 1976, October 1973, and May 1992, the vanishing of lawyer Somchai, the police ownership of Santika before the fire, or the unclaimed assassinations of Col Romklao and Seh Daeng?
The Ananda and Saudi jewel case potentially indicts current members of the monarchy, the highest and most sacred institution in Thailand, the the keystone to the kingdom’s military-economic-cultural power structure. The Fabio case potentially…what? Confirms what we know, that bullets were flying, that the Thai army showed poor ground management, that journalists were targeted by both guns and Facebook smears?
The suppression of the autopsy strongly suggests it was a sniper, since a ground-level bullet gives the army plausible deniability. But even if it was provably a sniper, does anyone see that as a huge story outside journo circles? “He was in black, there was smoke, reds were armed, errors were inevitable, we regret the death,” says handsome Army spokesmodel.
The Queen’s guard grads and their building military power monopoly is the real story here, but its attachment to the Fabio case is contrived at best.
Quality comment or not?
22 
2
Whoever – 5
You didn’t even read the article didn’t you? that was another journalist that got injured by grenade, Fabio was shot around the chest area on the Red side with another Dutch journalist beside him who got shot in the leg.
Maratjp – 3
What you said is an insult to many journalists out there who risk their life in the god forsaken place like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza just to bring the news to the out side world. Without them we wouldn’t know what the Israeli had done to the Palestinians or what the Iraqis had done to the Kurd. Just because they stand on the different side of the barricade so their life doesn’t deserve some respect?
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
47 
7
People are going to believe what they want to believe. There will never be evidence to prove it one way or the other.
Charles F gets it right in his final sentence.
Now it is just up to how it will be propgandaized and used by the various players with vested interests.
Quality comment or not?
3 
9
I find the attitudes of Charles F and Nobody very disturbing because they encourage a cynical fatalism where people’s deaths just don’t really matter.
What’s more it is not true. Some people no doubt will just pick the villain based on their political leanings and stick with that choice no matter what.
Others sift and weight the evidence and genuinely want to know the truth of the situation.
The government has some evidence and that evidence would help in the forming of more rational, more just conclusions.
And more generally, if the government was interested i n truth, they would encourage freer flows of information.\
Quality comment or not?
26 
1
The fact that there has been 3 months of silence and a refusal to release the autopsy report speaks volumes: he was killed by the Royal Thai Army. Anyone who doesn’t believe that needs to take a refresher course on Thai politics. All of the deaths that occurred on April 10 and May 19 are important, but Fabio’s at least has the Italian embassy making inquiries, and perhaps if HRW and Amnesty International get involved the DSI might be pressured enough to release findings.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
32 
2
There’s nothing mysterious about a photographer getting killed while covering an armed conflict from the front line. He took a significant risk and he ran out of luck.
There’s a good chance that he was was shot by the army. But was it a carefully considered shot deliberately targeting a foreign journalist? I very much doubt it. They had asked the media to leave. The guy was running with a violent mob wearing a *black* t-shirt and gear. He probably crossed the sights of some terrified soldier at the wrong time.
The suggestion that the black shirts couldn’t have been responsible because they’d bottled themselves up together in one conveniently gassable skytrain station and were out of range is ridiculous. According to the army debriefing, black shirt snipers held positions at most of the intersections. They had arranged very good coverage, as you’d expect any sane militants would.
Anyway, I got a chuckle from the reference to “a mysterious man of Asian appearance” who took the camera. At least that was portrayed with only a hint of conspiracy.
Quality comment or not?
11 
31
The apologists for the April/May deaths on this thread are disgusting moral retards.
Why is Fabio’s death being covered up?
a) Cos the army have something to hide.
b) Because when it comes out he was shot with an army sniper’s bullet (ie deliberately targeted) it instantly internationalises Thailand’s domestic conflict – shooting Thai nationals is one thing – assassinating foreigners is another. The rationale it was “cross fire” is absurd and if there was evidence of that, believe me, the Thai authorities would’ve rushed it out instantly. They haven’t. They’ve covered up.
c) Kneejerk reaction – the Thai elite’s entire rationale is about cover up. It forms the cornerstone of their hegemony – the death of Ananda. What is cast-iron is that the elite, in full knowledge of the facts, let 3 innocent people be murdered by the state over Ananda’s death. These people are capable of anything. Fabio is nothing to them. Or, it seems, the disgusting moral retards on this thread who are apologists for the April/May deaths.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
44 
6
The speed of the DSI/government’s accusations of red shirts guilt given the smallest piece of evidence is proof that the government can’t pin this one on them.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
A question. One poster above says: “There were shooters on both sides.” Okay, we have seen many reports that there were black-clad red shirts defending their positions on the day of the crackdown. And, I recall, there were some pictures of people with the odd M16 and handgun. The government displayed some allegedly captured weapons, but these included a bunch of rusting WW@ vintage weapons. Is there any really strong evidence of a red shirt armed force clad in black, fighting on the day of the crackdown? There was talk of it, especially from the government, but there were no deaths on the government side – yes, there was a series of photos of a badly injured soldier, apparently from a grenade. But wouldn’t a well-armed force have caused more casualties? Was there such a force? If there was, is the government covering up their side’s injuries and deaths?
Quality comment or not?
26 
1
Regardless of the other issues, I think no one will claim that Fabio was armed and dangerous and a “threat” to any soldier’s life.
That the Thai Army deployed snipers who fired live sniper rounds at people is clear.
Seh Daeng for instance was not shot by accident. He was precisely targeted by a Thai Army sniper. The bullet was inches away from a New York Times reporter’s head. Whatever the arguments about whether or not the unarmed at that moment Seh Daeng may have “deserved” to be executed without arrest or trial, only a brainwashed moron would accuse the so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” of shooting him.
The accidental targeting of the motorcycle policeman in the “friendly fire” incident north of Bangkok was also the work of Thai Army snipers who had been deployed with live rounds and orders to shoot. A single shot to the policeman’s head killed him. There was even video footage of the Thai Army snipers firing which was briefly broadcast/streamed on Spring TZV and elsewhere before being censored).
Many unarmed demonstrators and some onlookers and even a few people entirely unconnected with the demonstrations were shot with single rounds to the head or chest. To accept the government’s story that all these people were shot as “provocations” by so-called Red-directed “Black Shirts” is not really plausible.
So even if Fabio was standing or running in a dangerous place (as actual reporters are prone to do as opposed to the lightweight reporters working for the Bangkok Post and The Nation), he was an unarmed person shot with a single bullet aimed to kill. And the shooter was a soldier deployed by the Thai Army.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
31 
1
@Dead Journalist: What’s to cover up?
A photographer goes to battlezone and ignores repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave. He runs around with the protesters, some of whom are firing live rounds at armed soldiers, who are nervous as hell because they have been receiving gunfire and *grenades* from militants for 10 days. He wears colours associated with the armed faction and he gets shot dead. Does he not bear some small part of the responsibility for his own death? Do we really need a conspiracy theory to explain this?
It never ceases to amaze me how armchair experts in comfortable locations expect soldiers on the front line to make perfect decisions with perfect aim. How would your decision making capacity be affected by a grenade going off in your vicinity? Or by one of your friends getting shot? Watch some of the video, why are so many troops looking up? Do you really think your personal safety catch would be off?
In all probability the guy was shot by frightened infantry hosing the street to keep heads down. But of course, soldiers have no right to defend themselves from armed militants. Only the right to die.
Quality comment or not?
8 
28
Thank you Simon, you sum it up nicely.
It’s a shitty job by the way, photographer in such a situation. He tried his best and I’m sure he delivered great work till his fatal hour. RIP Fabio.
But to magnify him into a martyr, into a brave victim of an ugly dictatorship, that is a very easy way out. It shows how little is necessary to make believe – to make followers fervently believe something; a something that can look quite different if you openly and honestly embrace all the angles and facts.
We’ll never know what really happened that day. Chances are he was very well shot by an army sniper. Because he looked like a black shirt and was in their area. As Simon said, he was warned. That’s why so many people stayed away. Could the reds or security forces be considerate of his safety? It’s like adding 1 + 1.
Wearing a green or whatever shirt with clear MEDIA or PRESS letters would probably saved his life. We’ll never know. And we’ll never know how all the other victims died. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that the attempt of violent change bears violence.
So many victims, no heros.
Nah, that’s not an apologist’s stance. That’s the simple truth.
Quality comment or not?
18 
26
Men-in-Black didn’t come in black as shown in a few video clips. They were around but not in the hundreds as claimed by the govt. The grenade attack that injured the Dutch reporter and some Thai soldiers was real. Just put yourself in the shoes of those young soldiers. That could be their first real battle. April 10′s incidence of men-in-black was likely in their minds. They didn’t want to die like their fellow soldiers on that fateful night. And, that is understandable. They were shot at and if they fired back indiscrimately. And that is understandable. Fabio was in black pointing his camera with a large len, red shirts were not in red and the ronin didn’t wear black.
Fabio was hit below his bulletproof vest according to the first news report–the stomach.
Red shirts who got killed were among their armed and extremely well-trained comrades were firing their lethal weapons from behind some structures.
Let’s hope the forensic evidence are intact and some foreign and neutral forensic experts are allowed into the investigation. If the existing evidence was in the govt’s favour it would have been revealed right there and then to condemn the red shirt. We have been shown the grenade attacks on the soldiers on the 10th night of April many times. My experience in 1992 military crackdown was complete one side shooting affair.
Fabio was a brave man like Muramoto and the Japanese reporter who was shot in Burma. When the Karen soldiers leaped from the pickup truck we were travelling in, firing their AK 47s at Burmese spies, all the reporters in the truck froze the whole time when the event transpired. It takes great courage to film such frightful moments. Many of the war footages of the Karen revolution done by foreign reporters were the skies and the mud in trenches.
Here in NM we have a battle!
Quality comment or not?
16 
3
Charles F: If the deaths had been split 50/50, “flip a coin” would be a reasonable thing to say. Because the deaths were 100/0, I think the coin that should be flipped has a Royal Thai Army logo on both sides. Try harder next time.
Quality comment or not?
20 
4
Jao,
Your reading comprehension skills need work. I wrote, “As to who killed Mr. Fabio – flip a coin. There were shooters on both sides.”
Meaning the shot could have come from anywhere. The Thai army didn’t have all the firearms; there is ample evidence that some protesters were armed as well.
Try harder next time.
Quality comment or not?
4 
26
Thanks Bangkok Dan, you sum it up nicely -
“We’ll never know what really happened that day.”
But you fail to segue into the next and very obvious statement.
We’ll never know because the Thai state have decided to cover it up.
And, as that’s the case, why in god’s name aren’t you demanding the Thai authorities carry out a transparent investigation into Fabio’s death?
Instead of this call for the most basic form of justice you attempt to blame Fabio for getting shot. You then make several spurious, completely fabricated statements. What next? Will you or Simon (aka StanG) claim Fabio was armed? Were the numerous medical staff targeted and murdered by the Thai army also dangerous militants who shouldn’t have been there? Your rationale is actually terrifying as it removes ALL responsibility for acts of violence – you give the state impunity to kill who it wants without accountability.
Dan, you, like several other ex-pats who supported the incredibly violent crackdown (bizarrely, all in the name of stopping “violence”) are now desperate to shore up their obvious immorality and lack of values. Basically, you’ve been found out – you’ve supported a massacre to protect your expat lifestyle. It’s actually quite disgusting and I find you, on a personal level, quite a sickening and grotesque individual.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
42 
11
Dead Journalist – you’re a romantic. Medical staff massacred by security forces to use your words. We all know who threatened whom. No other government would have acted so patiently in the face of such provocations and aggressions. I muat agree the government makes it too easy for you to continue a one-sided blame game. At least a people and city got their life back. Imagine a PM Chalerm. Now even then you wouldn’t rant. You would remain loyal to the poor suppressed who suffered so much under the old terrible regime. Again, a romantic you are, and a hopeles one.
Quality comment or not?
8 
33
Henry, can you enlighten us with some of your backup evidences? I am not disputing this suspicious as I also believe that the party involved in killing Fabio was the military.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
^@Dead Journalist:
Quite right. Every now and then Bangkok Dan and StanG come out from their own redneck blogs to pontificate and bluster about the rightness of the actions of the present military/palace junta government.
Sickening and grotesque indeed.
Bangkok Dan, in his post (above) seeks to attach cause the the shooting of Fabio in these terms: “Chances are he was very well shot by an army sniper. Because he looked like a black shirt and was in their area.” Not that Dan has any idea at all about the ‘because’ of it at all, he is simply parroting the line that he and his redneck ilk are wont to parrot when springing to the defence of this disgraceful government. Then he goes on to speculate that “Wearing a green or whatever shirt with clear MEDIA or PRESS letters would probably saved his life.” Does he know this? of course he doesn’t, his aim is simply to negate the odious responsibility borne by the Abhisit government for this dreadful massacre, and to peddle the fiction that the army, with orders to shoot-to-kill, did just that, with more than just a hint of suspicion that journalists and photographers were targetted to ensure that ‘unacceptable’ or ‘misleading’ facts about the murderous clean-up should never come to light.
And of course, in the Budget bill now before parliament, we now see the army being rewarded for its murder of Thai citizens, and the significant domination of Queens Guard officers at the top of the corrupt edifice is further enhanced.
For an army that lost a minor skirmish against Laos in the late 1970′s, doubtless, making war on it’s own people is an altogether more attractive and much safer prospect (also less demanding of their levels of training) than actually defending the country against real agressors (of which there are none at all). Which is probably why the role of the army in Thailand is not to defend the country against would-be aggressors, but to rabidly defend the ruling elites from the threat of democracy.
Sickening and grotesque indeed.
Quality comment or not?
34 
10
“BangkokDan”
You said:
“Wearing a green or whatever shirt with clear MEDIA or PRESS letters would probably saved his life.”
Most likely not. Don’t forget – almost in the same spot two other journalists were injured, and both of them did not wear black.
“Charles F”
You said:
“Meaning the shot could have come from anywhere. The Thai army didn’t have all the firearms; there is ample evidence that some protesters were armed as well.”
It was a bit more complicated. There was an brief armed battle in Lumpini Park in the morning when the army took the park. The Red Shirt militants retreated soon.
By the time Fabio was shot it was a rather lopsided situation – there was massive fire from the military into the Red Shirt camp, and at most very little fire from the side of the Red Shirts, if any fire at all. I was behind the military lines, some people said that there was some small arms fired at the military, but it was quite difficult to assess, if that was so, or not.
The main reason i decided that day to stay behind the military was that i thought it was too risky to be on the receiving end of the military bullets. This was a personal decision – primarily i wanted to survive that day, and any photos were secondary. I anyhow got into trouble a bit later, when the militants decided to fire a series of M79 when we reached Sarasin intersection, but after the first granade (most like a training round) exploded a few meters next to us journos i rushed to cover in a small alley. Unfortunately Chandler didn’t, and had to pay dearly for it.
Who killed Fabio? There are more than overwhelming chances and evidence that he indeed was killed by an army bullet, and not by a bullet fired by the militants. I don’t think though that it was a bullet purposely fired at a foreign journalist. Were the soldiers justified with firing massively into the direction of the Red Shirts? I don’t know. It’s difficult to say. It’s not really a clear cut situation.
Was the government justified in ordering a final crackdown that morning? That is where i have more doubts. There were last minute attempts for negotiations, when the night of the 18th the senator visited the Red Shirt camp, and the Red Shirt leaders have made major concessions, and more or less asked for a few more days so they could wind things down. This was not taken up by the government. I tend to believe that the government should have taken this chance – lives could have been saved, and a bit of goodwill could have been created.
Lets not forget here that all the mess was a result of a chain of very wrong calls by both sides over a long period of time. This was a development, not just a series of single and unrelated events. The Red Shirts have made many very bad decisions, but the government has done so as well. There were incidents were the military has made right decisions on the ground, but there were other incidents in which the military has shown tremendous incompetence, and there were incidents were soldiers have clearly not just broken their own rules of engagement, but have committed clear human rights violations. What complicates matters even more is that besides the many peaceful protesters there were armed militants.
This whole thing is not a black and white situation, it is very complex and it needs more time to properly investigate. What makes me angry though, and serves nobody, is when people who were not anywhere near the things are giving blanket statements on what has happened according to their own political convictions.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
41 
1
Simon and BangkokDan: Could you please tell us to what you are referring: “A photographer goes to battlezone and ignores repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave. “As Simon said, he was warned.” What warnings? The rumors (usually spread by Yellow Shirt sympathizers) that Red Shirts were targeting journalists? The general SoE order to clear the area, which was evidently not meant to include journalists, since the army made little or no effort to stop them from entering the perimeter? (Or do you believe journalists should not have been there at all?) Please explain — personally, I’m tired of years of know-nothings trying to turn fiction in fact (in the same manner that some people still insist that PAD guards were not armed). But my mind is open, if you can cite some evidence of your claim.
Quality comment or not?
16 
2
It couldn’t be 50/50. Govt troops were well-armed and was always behind some solid structures too. The daredevil red shirt protesters always ran for cover once the troop opened fire. A crossfire situation could mean Fabio, the daredevil photojournalist embedded in the protesters’ side, was more likely cut down by the soldiers’ bullet. I believe the footage of people dragging his body should be thoroughly investigated and some telling evidence can come from last few frames of his life in his stolen camera.
All the propanganda prior to all these killings, the core red-shirted successfully convinced many red-shirted protesters using oppositions’ audio recordings of Abhisit telling soldiers to kill red-shirted protesters during Songkran 2009′s confrontation. The two men who got killed were defending their home against the Red Shirt mob in Nan Leang area. The 57-time tampered audio recording was played in the parliament and audio experts scientifically proven and the Thai courts ruled the recording was a ‘dud’. I witnessed the highly explosive emotion when the tampered tape were played by various red-shirted orators in the red rallies. Politicians laying down lives of mob for their hidden agenda is not new. Yellow shirts leaders did the same–Udon Thani incident. Red Shirts are many fronts with one objective to topple AV govt. Period. What happened to the mostly women, elderly, children crowd when the Red Shirt leaders called it quit?? They were brought down to Bkk and promised by leaders who would fight with their bare hands if soldiers arrived to end the protest!! My red-shirt friends who by the protest stage were dissappointed by the core red leaders. They were booing and cursing their cowardly leaders. The red shirt leaders were telling the protesters right after the mayhem on April 10 to deny seeing any Men-in-Black. It did not appear to be a cover-up. It was it.
For Fabio and the 90 who got killed in the recent political crisis, their cases are in Khun Na Nakorn and his committee’s hand. It would not be easy. Theories will abound for some cases. Let’s hope the Fabio’s case and other high political value cases get a thorough investigation.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
Whoever: “We all know who threatened whom”
Who did Kamolket Akahad threaten exactly? Shot and killed in Wat Pathum while she was treating someone. By soldiers snipping from the Skytrain track, it seems pretty clear. See here for a summary of the evidence:
http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog/what-happened-at-wat-pathum-wanaram
And note to Bangkok Dan: she was wearing a white shirt with a green cross, signifying she was a medic. But a Press T-shirt would have protected Fabio, right?
Quality comment or not?
15 
0
Whoever.
You replied to me stating – “Medical staff massacred by security forces to use your words”.
No, those are not my words. They are yours.
You also state, in a rather stilted and bizarre way that I am a “romantic”. What exactly am I being romantic about?
Maybe you should ask Nurse Kate’s family whether they were being “romantic” when they buried their daughter after she was murdered by the army at Wat Pathum?
And how you rationalise a call for transparency, accountability and justice as support Chalerm as PM is just laughable.
As for patience – it is the Thai people who are showing that – with an incredibly corrupt and violent elite who’d stop at nothing to maintain their grip on power. A long and sordid history of coup after coup, massacre after massacre, elections subverted and appointees and generals running the show. It’s been going on for decades.
Quality comment or not?
21 
3
Nick Nostitz,
The idea that only those “on the ground” can make judgement calls on an event or series of events or the actions of a state is just nonsense. Why have international courts if that’s the case? How many of us here personally witnessed Sharpville, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Bloody Sunday? Undoubtedly most of us would condemn those people who perpetrated these events even though none of us were actually there.
In fact, those on the ground can often be the worst at making an objective call as they tend to only see one tiny part of the picture and become immersed in the particular energies of the specific location they are in. Wood and trees.
While such individual insight is undoubtedly important it doesn’t convey anymore than partial details. The overall judgement needs to take in all the facts, from all perspectives and also have full access to all the evidence, including that held by the state.
Are there any written records of army orders issued at that time? Is the army conducting internal investigations regarding possible breaches of the rules of engagement? Was each discharge of weapons by the army an accountable act?
If the Thai govt is incapable of acting accountably (which it clearly isn’t) then it is perfectly right and proper as much pressure is put on it as possible to make sure it does.
From what I’ve personally heard from a source I can’t reveal is that the evidence reveals that it is very likely Fabio was deliberately targeted by a Thai army sniper. If that is the case then it is the Thai govt and army’s interest and obligation under international law to clear this up as quickly as possible, arrest the killer, put them on trial and offer justice and transparency.
But we know that such an outcome will never occur.
Fabio’s family will never get justice.
We just have to make sure that he’s not forgotten.
Finally, what is indisputable is that the Thai army were using snipers against unarmed civilians. They were often targeted with head shots. Such a mode of operation can only be described as psychopathic. And if opposing such acts labels me as “politicised” I’m very very happy to be called such.
Quality comment or not?
28 
1
Charles F: It’s not about comprehension. It’s about probability. Suppose we have a coin where Heads= “Killed by the army” and Tails= “Killed by the red shirts.” Also suppose we decide to flip the coin, say, 56 times over the course of a six day period (say, May 13 to May 19). What is the probability we end up with 56 Heads?
The probability is (1/2)^56=.0000000000000000139, less than one in a trillion. What does that tell you? Most probably, we aren’t using a “fair coin,” as the stats geeks call it, but a coin where Heads has a much higher probability of turning up than Tails (if Tails has any chance to show up at all). That’s the coin we should flip in this case.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
I seem to recall that Fabio disclosed something about the army & ambulances a few days before he was killed – can anyone elaborate?
Thanks to Fabio and all the photographers/journalists who risk their live so we can see the truth.
Quality comment or not?
16 
0
Whilst the government has undoubtedly exaggerated the numbers and the role of the “MIB” it was the appearance of this group and its use of deadly force against the army in May that unfortunately raised the stakes of violence. I am sorry for Fabio’s death but, if the sponsors of the MIB had refrained from the use of violence in support of the red cause in May, Fabio and Muramoto would both still be alive today. The red shirt cause would also have been better served if the red shirt leaders had taken a clear stance to disavow the use of violence rather than the ambivalent stance they adopted.
Quality comment or not?
8 
7
“End of Days”:
Yes, of course, on the ground experiences give only a narrow perspective, and one needs more investigations from many perspectives. But – none has come out so far, therefore i would not go to any foregone conclusions here about things.
I am most wary of anonymous internet users citing “sources they cannot reveal” to make a point. Sorry, but that is pure rumor mongering. I deal professionally with sources that i cannot reveal – but all those sources tell me i have to corroborate by other sources (more often than not anonymous as well).
In more than a few cases sources get things wrong, fully, or partially, at times it turns out that they repeat rumors, and at other times people mislead by purpose because of an agenda.
Why would Fabio have been “deliberately” targeted? With him were many other journalists, two of them injured as well. None of them, including Fabio, had any high enough profile that would warrant the military to choose them out for assassination (because that is what “deliberately targeted” means).
Many people have been shot at that day, there were both dead and injured. Jumping to foregone conclusions that Fabio or other journalists were picked out in this situation is just rubbish – the same sort of conspiracy rubbish the government tries to sell the public over the soldier killed in the friendly fire incident at Vibhavadi Rangsit Road.
You have hard evidence that backs up your statements – give it to me. I believe that i have a reputation of not being the most ardent supporter of this government, so you can be sure that i will not whitewash anything that happened. Nevertheless, i am no propagandist either – i work with facts, sources whose statements i can corroborate, and not with rumor mongering.
“Nganadeeleg”:
Not just Fabio revealed something about ambulances, but almost every reporter that worked in the field.
Quality comment or not?
16 
1
If I do remember well, he was there with a friend, a photographer to, I did lost his name a German guy. Fabio told him he will run to the tent marked with the red cross symbol very near to the barricades to get some life picture the army approaching. his friend insisted not to go.
( all this is documented somewhere in Spiegel and elsewhere). I did know Fabio years ago, a funny guy, and allways good for a surprise. All this I do believe as it is typically if you a bitten by the virus to get the best life shot. We all know ( we do not know by whom and why ) paramedics got shot. Imagine Fabio left the tent only one step forward s this was his step to be shot to death. me a photographer worked in Israel, Jemen, Lebanon ,Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Africa, do know that death is often the fraction of a millimeter away, you can hear it, fell it smell it, if you are still alive it is a very strange feeling. Once I had to go for girls and all around were blown only some concrete sheltered me. The bus I was intended to go with was gone totally. Some army guy throw at m a leg and shouted wake up. Take the pickup and drive what you get to Hadassah hospital. I learned definitely to drive, this day , driving like mad max and stopped taking photos in war zones…I don’t regret. Who ever did tis massacre 56 persons, never was known. They claimed only one of three Arab organizations and did the what the ever do throwing bombs to innocent people, destroying their living claiming to have killed some small Soldat of their organization, disgusting but tell me a better way, even their God and mine too gives no answer…
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Thaler – 35
Do you remember what happen in April of 2009?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nick
Just to throw something back at you – you stated in a post above that
“I anyhow got into trouble a bit later, when the militants decided to fire a series of M79 when we reached Sarasin intersection.”
Be good to see your cast iron, verfiable facts for that matter. You actually saw the militants? Did you speak to them and confirm they were militants? What kind of militants were they – Red, Yellow, Army? Did you confirm this at the time? Or did you make an assumption?
Secondly, I’m afraid “deliberately targeted” in this instance means being shot by an army sniper. Snipers don’t take random shots or engage in exchanges of fire. They pick a target and execute. Saying Fabio was deliberately targeted doesn’t imply Fabio was singled out before he was even at the scene and for you to infer that is a distortion.
To be quite frank I don’t really care what you think about the information I put up here. What you think, as you weren’t there when Fabio was shot, is just as irrelevant as what I have to say. I too am interested in the facts. While they don’t exist, due to a Thai authorities cover up, we are left with sources, rumours and conjecture. Also, as a journalist, I’m sure you’ve considered anonymous sources, tip-offs etc on more than one occasion.
As for agendas – well, Nick, everyone has one of those. It just needs a bit of self-awareness to realise that. Yours is to sell your books, no? And to imply the agenda I have is to distort the truth is based on what evidence exactly? Or, once again, did you make an assumption? (I don’t have a problem with that – just throwing it back at you because you “only deal in facts” cos you’re so professional).
Quality comment or not?
5 
4
Thaler,
I always thought the army was the sponsor of the black shirts, just a different faction of the army.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
I do think the what really happened the day he was killed we will never know. As there was no marterial law declared, nobody was responsible, as there was no action………..
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
“End of Days”:
You asked:
“Or did you make an assumption?”
No, I did not assume.
You stated:
“Secondly, I’m afraid “deliberately targeted” in this instance means being shot by an army sniper.”
Even this is an assumption. A sniper is a professional sharpshooter. There is no proof that Fabio was killed by such, or by the massive amounts of bullets fired by the soldiers into the Red Shirt area from the Saladaeng barricade – where i was.
The only thing we know so far is that there is an overwhelming likelihood that he was killed by a bullet fired by the army.
And yes, there are more than a few indications that there the government is not exactly forthcoming with information regarding this case, maybe even doing a “cover up”. Lets wait and see what the government will come up with.
You said:
“Also, as a journalist, I’m sure you’ve considered anonymous sources, tip-offs etc on more than one occasion.”
Yes of course. There is a basic difference though: I stand with my real name and reputation behind my sources that are known to me, and not with an anonymous handle. Over the years i have built a reputation, none of the facts i have presented have been disputed yet. I corroborate, verify and make sure that my sources do not lead me on (there are many of those attempts). If i would not do this, my professional reputation would be destroyed and i would have to face a mountain of legal cases.
Do you corroborate/verify/stand with your real name behind your information?
You asked:
“As for agendas – well, Nick, everyone has one of those. It just needs a bit of self-awareness to realise that. Yours is to sell your books, no? And to imply the agenda I have is to distort the truth is based on what evidence exactly?”
I do not know you, therefore i do not know what your agenda may be.
“Selling” my books is not my agenda, by the way, that is the agenda of my publisher. If that would be my agenda i would do more profitable books. My agenda is researching and making books that satisfy me. If others like them, and buy them, then this is just means that i did a good job.
Quality comment or not?
19 
0
Words I wouldn’t use to denounce my ex-wife, if I’d be divorced. But the choice of words reflects the anger. Running out of clear reasons and arguments blind hate must do.
Am just a family guy who tries to make a living here. Who tried to go play football with his son during the mayhem. The red rage orchestrated by a egotistic red elite didn’t make life easier for us. It’s better again, as it’s better for millions of Thai people.
If you have some spare time, read this:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf
And I quote commenter Surie from my unimportant silly little blog:
There goes your argument for the insanity.
Long live the anonymous PC warriors who know it all.
A Don Quichotte’s task really to post such stuff on this forum, but been there, saw the tunnel-vision mentality. There’s a much broader, richer world out there. And not as black and white as you wish.
Oh, and don’t let me mention the T-word. Some would say that’s the one who got them all killed.
Peace be with you.
Quality comment or not?
5 
19
Bangkok Dan
Anger? Yeah, you’d know about that. Your anger during the Red Shirt protests was revoltingly self-evident by your continual applauding of the incredibly violent government actions. If you consider a few angry words on a blog as equal to that then I’d suggest you lack any sense of perspective whatsoever. Sorry you and your kid couldn’t play football but entirely innocent people, like Fabio, were getting their brains blown out. Your selfishness is utterly grotesque.
Any idiot knows this isn’t about economic equality (though that is a factor) – it is only about political equality. That a poor farmer may have to take shit for 3yrs 364days out of every 4yrs but on one day in that time frame his vote makes him an equal to the most venal Thai hiso. But that’s being taken away.
The T word? You mean Thanarat? Or Thanom? Or Tinsulanonda? Those 3 Ts have done more to damage Thai democracy than 100 Thaksins.
Quality comment or not?
20 
4
Nick
What I’ve been told is that the type of wound and the trajectory and elevation indicate sniper – if it was a sniper then Fabio was deliberately targeted and not caught in random crossfire. If it was random crossfire why wasn’t the report released? Wounds from short-range random crossfire could easily be attributed to any source. Wounds from a high velocity bullet fired from distance are entirely different.
Seems like you dodged a couple of my points particularly confirming your “they were militants” line. Yes, you make assumptions – everyone does. Without assumptions the carefully calibrated semantics of meaning would collapse. In this instance you made an assumption that someone firing grenades were Red Shirts – who told you this? You’ve still not confirmed your source or the facts of the matter.
I choose to post anonymously for security reasons – if you haven’t figured out why people might do so in Thailand then, errr, maybe you’ve missed a detail or two?
To be honest, I consider a lot of mainstream Westerns journalism in Thailand as being completely compromised – LM, family ties, Napas-led pogroms, death threats etc etc – means that many journalists, particulary freelancers who are not backed by big media corps such as Rueters, BBC et al are incredibly exposed. This exposure then causes a huge amount of self-censorship – I wonder how these same journalists would report the crisis if they had complete freedom from these intrusions?
So, I’ll remain underground and get to say what I want, when I want without recourse to government attack.
And I’ll do anything I possibly can, from the confines I have to work in, to make sure this govt is held to account. That’s my agenda.
Quality comment or not?
10 
2
BangkokDan -43
I think you misunderstood the whole conflict. Its not only about the gap between rich and poor but rather the crash of ideology, the injustice in the jurisdiction and simply the crash of the progressive and conservative. If you look at maslow’s theory poor people actually demand more when they are wealthier, such as political recognition and so on. Matter of fact I know many red shirt who got asset in the billion (and they are not part of Thaksin and his network). So when you give Gini cof. It’s actually reaffirmed that this is not the crash of poor stupid people from the up country and the over sea graduated Bangkok elites but rather something more complex than that.
Quality comment or not?
16 
2
I have no idea why BangkokDan throws in the world inequality data in his “argument” about sanity/insanity. However, readers should look at the inequality data in the UNDP report. It begins on p. 195 of the report.
I think I am right in saying that Thailand is ranked at 87 on the HDI index. Of the countries ranked above it for HDI , Thailand’s Gini is exceeded only by 15 countries. All of those are in Latin America and Caribbean, except for Turkey and Hong Kong. Below Thailand, the same pattern holds until HDI rank 125, where only the Philippines and Botswana fall outside the Latin America and Caribbean countries.
Quality comment or not?
12 
2
@Superanonymous: “Simon and BangkokDan: Could you please tell us to what you are referring: “A photographer goes to battlezone and ignores repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave. “As Simon said, he was warned.” What warnings?”
The government issued multiple public warnings via radio, television, loudspeaker. The warnings were broadcast in Thai and English. There was an explicit appeal for media to leave. The government was also in direct touch with major media firms, some of whom did pull their journalists. The final push was not an ambush, everyone knew it was going to happen.
I’m quite surprised to be asked about this, but I guess its an example of where people who aren’t based in Bangkok are at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of access to information. If you don’t believe me, I’m sure you can verify this via Google if you wish.
Quality comment or not?
2 
11
Yes, Bangkok Dan, you are also an anonymous PC, and dare I say, opinionated “warrior”, though I feel a little queasy to read about your all knowing opinions outside the realm of your blog.
Quality comment or not?
22 
2
@ Bangkok Dan, Simon, et other enfranchised expats living off the Thai sap, I quote Maureen Dowd’s quote in the NYT regarding the nervous breakdown in the herd mentality: As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Quality comment or not?
18 
1
Simon: “At the same time, the government has won some praise from the press for allowing journalists access to the political unrest, including the military’s armed suppression of the protests, while the emergency decree was in effect. “The Thai government must be credited for not blocking the way of journalists covering recent events,” said Marawan (sic-s.) Macan-Markar, president of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. “There were no limits on embedding, no policies, and no efforts to stop you from reporting.”
-That’s from a Committee to Protect Journalists report by Shawn Crispin, who is certainly not a Red Shirt sympathizer. (http://cpj.org/reports/2010/07/in-thailand-unrest-journalists-under-fire.php)
A major report by Reporters Without Borders has this, from an interview with Masaru Goto, who was near Polenghi when he was shot:
“Do you think Fabio was targeted as a journalist?
A rumour had been circulating since mid-May that an unidentified sniper, perhaps an army sniper or a UDD one, was going to kill a journalist. Some people might have had an interest in exacerbating the crisis. By killing a journalist, you would increase the level of disorder. But I have no evidence that this rumour was based on any facts. The Thai Journalists Association had recommended not going to certain places that were considered too dangerous.” (http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/REPORT_RSF_THAILAND_Eng.pdf
So, we have two named sources from reports specifically concerned with this issue, neither of which supports the assertion that there were “repeated and unambiguous warnings to leave.” What you have offered is known as hearsay .
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
And me idiot thought it’s mainly about inequality.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
@ Nick Nostitz
The Red Shirts have made many very bad decisions, but the government has done so as well.
It looked like the Government side and the Security forces got nothing right during April and their mistakes were obvious.
Starting with repeatedly getting affected by their own clumsy teargas handling, the April 10 disaster, Arisaman abseiling, and as you mentioned killing their own man on the highway.
So could you please elaborate a little on the “bad decisions” by the Red leaders in your opinion. I don’t think you talk about the blood splashing or the Chula hospital seach.
Watching their live transmission on stage it looked like they were well organized and hat things under control until close to the end.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Tukkae – 54
I don’t think you talk about the blood splashing or the Chula hospital seach.
What puzzled me the most is that the red has been using the hospital’s toilets for the whole month for the incident. The red were literally use the hospital as their bath room then suddenly they make an issue of it. Chula Hospital record of playing politic is nothing short or extraordinary, they were the first to refuse (although change later on) to treat the injured polices during the 2008 crash.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
@ Tarrin
take a look at the initial TV report about the Reds in the hospital, especially Minute 1 – 3 when the Reds were shown on their way through different floors of the building.
It looks not like a major affair, nothing about harrassing patients or staff and reporting was calm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLq-3HtyZKs
So it looks like propaganda was stepping in short after.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Thanks Nick:
“The main reason I decided that day to stay behind the military was that I thought it was too risky to be on the receiving end of the military bullets. This was a personal decision – primarily I wanted to survive that day, and any photos were secondary.”
My sentiments exactly. Testimony from journalists in the Reporters Without Borders report corroborates my perspective of the violence at the protests. They knew the risks.
Not only was Fabio wearing black, but he was wearing a motorcycle helmet, and had this black pouch strapped to him. His helmet, a classic signifier of a Red Shirt protestor, probably drew the attention of the soldiers if he was indeed singled out.
He knew the risks and paid the price. And yes, journalists were warned to get out of Ratchaprasong.
This blaming soldiers as ruthless murderers is a hysterical response from people who were not there.
The same could be said for the Japanese cameraman who, evidently thought nothing of going behind soldiers with no protective gear, behind the APC’s on Dinsa, after hours of helicopters dropping tear gas, after sunset. This is not courage, it’s stupidity, especially because now he has orphaned kids who will now have no father. Reckless.
I was there too and had the common sense to know that it was simply too dangerous. And if I were a professional journalist I certainly would have had a helmet, a bulletproof vest, and I would most certainly have been crouching down behind cement barriers and the like.
This is not a video game. Soldiers have weapons and they are dangerous. Yet the military showed remarkable restraint so much so that I questioned on this blog their motives. If you were not there you get a sensationalized perspective of events and then fill in the gaps with your ideology.
And I’m not saying this because I am against the Red Shirts. I support the Red Shirts and their political struggle. I just think that we can’t criticize the other side for perpetuating myths and fabricating information when we ourselves do the same thing.
Quality comment or not?
5 
10
@Maratjp, taking risks is what real journalists do, unlike what most of us armchair mouthpieces spout from our uninformed comfort zones. To give credit to a violent and cruel government’s action to dispel un-lethally-armed protesters is in itself a questionable prejudice. There will soon come the day when those whose bloody hands will meet their quarry whilst they continue to manipulate the law and justify their killings on those forewarned – those same warnings will undoubtedly be reckoned with and heeded in the reverse and in a justified revenge.
Quality comment or not?
15 
2
Whoopla (59),
Were you playing The Internationale in the background while you wrote that?
“a violent and cruel government’s action to dispel un-lethally-armed protesters” could just about describe any government faced with riots, demonstrations and general lawlessness.
By the way, it’s been proven repeatedly that some of the protesters were armed, and shooting at the police and army. Tell me which country would allow its police and military to be attacked without resisting, or replying in kind.
Would you have cheered them on if the Red Shirts had been slaughtering soldiers and police in the streets?
Quality comment or not?
1 
13
Fabio was murdered by the Thai state and they’ve now attempted to cover it up.
The journalists and others posting here as apologists are actually quite pathetic and are certainly representative of most of the journalists and expats I’ve encountered in Thailand.
I can imagine the same people reporting Bloody Sunday or Sharpeville – hiding behind objectivity as a repugnant regime kills their own citizens.
Sometimes things are just wrong and a stand needs to be taken.
The Thai elite have been drenched in blood for generations such is their desire to hang onto power.
Quality comment or not?
12 
3
Charles F – 61
In other country there’s standard set of action that the government has to take before start dispersing the protest from warning to using water gun and so on but I don’t believe any country allow an entire infantry division full of APCs, tanks, and other types of small arms to be use to disperse the protest. Maybe Nick can tell you what actually happened during the fateful day he was being shot at.
You speak as if the red can fight the Army face to face, if that’s the case then we would have seen a civil war already.
Maratjp – 58
If you keep insisting that the Army is doing the right thing then obviously you are falling for the same trick they used in 1976 when TU was being assault by the border petrol polices. Do you want to same tragedy to repeat itself again and again?
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
@Charles F
Actually I was listening to the resistance songs of the Italian Partigiani, who had no choice but to take decisive steps to rid their people of its poisonous fascist rulers. Inevitably this improvement didn’t come about by them acquiescing to the corrupt and incumbent elite’s heavy boot in their face. In this parallell universe it would be indeed utopic to hope that the inevitable change coming to Thailand should be blood free. Hopefully some education and savvy use of technology will ameliorate the pain of that transition. Conversely, a small dose of corruption-free and non-despotic leadership for the grass roots might also help. With regards to inspirational music, at least the Internationale aspired to truly “noble” ideals.
Quality comment or not?
14 
1
Whoopla: You are correct in that journalists are paid to take risks. But they are not paid to then accuse soldiers of systematically targeting them when they get killed.
“To give credit to a violent and cruel government’s action to dispel un-lethally-armed protesters is in itself a questionable prejudice.”
The government’s action was not violent and cruel. There were armed protestors who lobbed grenades at them. Up until that point the soldiers fell back, shot blanks, shot in the air, and threw tear gas at protesters. Protests are protests but where in the world can you shut down an entire business district of a major city endlessly and get away with it? Every protest has limits. In my own country there are things you can and cannot do in a protest. The protesters didn’t leave and they openly challenged soldiers. And this was after days, weeks, months.
Dead Journalists: “Fabio was murdered by the Thai state and they’ve now attempted to cover it up.”
No. Fabio was killed because he wore black and wore a motorcycle helmet and failed to heed the advice of common sense and even his friend Gina Mariah who told him “not to go.” He rolled the dice and lost.
Dead Journalists: “The journalists and others posting here as apologists are actually quite pathetic and are certainly representative of most of the journalists and expats I’ve encountered in Thailand.”
I do agree that most expats in Thailand are pathetic. However, I don’t think that my eyewitness account of nearly two months of being part of these protests should be so easily dismissed.
Tarrin: “In other country there’s standard set of action that the government has to take before start dispersing the protest from warning to using water gun and so on but I don’t believe any country allow an entire infantry division full of APCs, tanks, and other types of small arms to be use to disperse the protest.”
The Thai military did use these rules of engagement as I have mentioned before: shooting blanks, shooting in the air, tear gas, falling back, music, talking on a microphone etc. An “entire infantry division”? 20k troops? There weren’t that many. Tanks? There were no tanks, just APC’s and not many of those. You must be joking when you mentioned that countries have never used such military force to quell protests. Take a gander at the 20th century.
Tarrin: You mention 1976. 2010 and 1976 are completely different. Burning corpses? Free fire at students as they staged a sit in? Lynching?
Please listen to the comments of those of us WHO WERE THERE. And listen to the journalists who were shot in the RWB report.
The real violence in Thailand is much more insidious than what happened on April 10 and May 19.
Quality comment or not?
2 
13
@Maratjp
“The real violence in Thailand is much more insidious than what happened on April 10 and May 19.” // I agree, the real violence thrives under the false testimonials perpetrated by those with biased political leanings and vested business interests; the real damage is done when the owners of the guns and those hired to fire them continue to use their power indiscriminately in the name of overwhelming an opposing and dissenting voice.
Maratjp , I was there also, and witnessing snipers on roofs killing un armed civilians didn’t make me feel there was an equal repartee of force at play. The casualty statistics the govt is too embarrassed to reveal speaks volumes against your fallacious arguments.
Quality comment or not?
18 
4
Maratjp don’t waste your energy trying to convince useful intellectuals … Next they’ll say is that Thaksin saved Thai democracy. Mostly angry bitter men in their 40s to 60s dominate this pseodo-intellectual ghetto forum here. They’re aggressive, they’re full of hate, they’re textbook red. Nobody really needs them, but also your kindness and reasoning trying to present them simple facts should have limits.
Quality comment or not?
6 
16
As a 57-year-old pseudo-intellectual male who is employed as an academic, I find Whoever’s comments above particularly hateful, and I think he should be banned from further commentary on this ghetto forum. Note my presumption that we are dealing with an angry, full-of-hate male, probably of the ex-pat Pattaya or Bangkok variety who happens to personally benefit from the gross inequalities of the current status quo. I concur with Whoopla’s comment #66 and his assessment that the Abhisit government, propped up by the Royal Thai Army, is guilty of committing nearly all of the killings in April and May. There are no “simple facts” that will obfuscate this conclusion.
Quality comment or not?
17 
5
I think it’s disgusting that Arthurson wants someone banned for daring to disagree with him. This is supposed to be an open forum for an exchange of ideas and opinions.
Quality comment or not?
6 
6
Maratjp – 65
“The Thai military did use these rules of engagement as I have mentioned before: shooting blanks, shooting in the air, tear gas, falling back, music, talking on a microphone etc. An “entire infantry division”? 20k troops? There weren’t that many. Tanks? There were no tanks, just APC’s and not many of those. You must be joking when you mentioned that countries have never used such military force to quell protests. Take a gander at the 20th century.”
Dropping tear gas from the chopper is not one of the rule of engagement, that’s for sure. Moreover, there’s not a single rules of engagement that said lethal weapon is fine.
20k is about a size of an infantry division noted that about 30% of that are in supporting role so the real fighting force might be around 14k-15k. However, this government was reporting in bringing in most of the troop from the 1st Region Army and part of 2nd (according to Peter Warr in one of newmandala interview) what we know is that the 1st, 2nd, 7th Calvary (noted that this unites are equipped with armored regiment), part of police border petrol unites and local police force from other region of the country (my friends are police officers in the NE and they have to be in BKK as well) took part directly or indirectly in the operation which made the number of the troops deploy either to blockade, assault, and mop-up to hover somewhere between 40k-50k at a given time. Well, I see country like China that use military to massacre their citizen but whose care right? they are bloody communist. Has it ever be done before? yes, many times no doubt, but should it be encourage? of cause not.
Please listen to the comments of those of us WHO WERE THERE. And listen to the journalists who were shot in the RWB report.
Again, I have explained this to you before but it seems like you didn’t read or simply forgot. I’ve posted sometime ago that my office is only 5 min walk from the rally site and my condo is 10 min walks away from Ratchaprasong intersection. I WAS THERE.
Quality comment or not?
14 
2
I’m happy to see Maratjp’s reminder (#65) to read the Reporters Without Borders report. This particular part (not necessarily representative of the rest) didn’t get much attention:
“Did you feel you were targeted?”
“I can say I was deliberately targeted. When the soldiers attacked, I was too far from the group of demonstrators for one to be able to claim it was accidental. The soldiers probably did not want me to take photos.”
“Did your newspaper publish the photos you took of the incident?”
“They were used in the daily, but without the captions that readers needed to be able to understand who fired.”
(interview with Chaiwat Pumpuang, Nation photographer)
Quality comment or not?
20 
0
Disagreement is OK, the name calling is not. I have noticed a tendency of those apologists for the Thai government to quickly descend into a base rudeness filled with vitriol and personal attack. Yes, sometimes those of us who are deeply critical of the government lose our temper as well. St. Paul said, “Be angry, but do not sin,” which is good advice but difficult to follow. There is a similar amount of ranting occurring currently in the Bangkok Post between the anti-America polemicist Guy Baker and his detractors, in which he invited his opponents to settle their differences with him in a back alley in Klong Toey, presumably with a baseball bat. In response, Khun Songdej Praditsmanont quoted Eric Hoffer, who said: “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
Nick, Have you been questionned by the DSI about the events you reported and the pictures you took?
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
“bibi”:
No, the DSI has so far not questioned me. I was questioned by the police station responsible for the investigations in that area.
“Maratjp”:
It is a very complicated issue, especially the behavior of many of my colleagues. Personally, on the risk of taking a lot of shit, i believe that some of my colleagues have taken many unnecessary risks while covering this mess, some out of recklessness, some out of inexperience. There were many occasions where i have seen colleagues photographing and filming while bullets were flying around, where i decided to stay under cover.
That the military in many instances may have used far too severe violence, IMO, is one issue, but how we behave while covering this is a completely different issue. I believe that it is our main task to survive in order to tell the story. We are neither supposed to be “heroes” nor some sort of “fighters”.
We have to make on the spot decisions trying to minimize the risk, according to the danger, and according to our level of experience. There were many times where i have held back, but some of my my in combat situations more experienced colleagues haven’t.
I have several days teamed up with James Nachtway, of whom i was able to learn a lot. But i did not imitate him – i simply do not have his decades of experience in combat situations. He can do things i cannot, and i am aware of those limitations.
I do not want to politicize the death and injuries of my colleagues. Neither will i turn into an activist for any side. I just try to find out what happened, i try to collect facts and evidence, so i can put this into a proper context. That is all i can do, that is all i have done all along these past years, that is all i am supposed to do.
“tukkae”:
Yes, i do not talk about the bloodletting – i personally think that this was actually quite a fascinating protest action, on many levels. The Chula incursion was badly handled, and resulted in very bad PR, which should have been foreseen. And so were several other actions. Many actions, especially during the Pan Fa era, were brilliant, such as pushing out the military from schools and temples, or the very successful marches throughout Bangkok.
The maybe biggest mistake, IMO, of the Red Shirts were to occupy Rajprasong indefinitely, and to wall themselves in behind these barricades. The have lost the initiative, the have lost the mobility they had during the Pan Fa era, and things went downhill, leading to the inevitable end.
But, it always takes two to tango: the mistakes of the Red Shirts do not excuse the mistakes of the government and the military.
I am working hard on piecing the puzzle together. It will take some more time before i can write about all this. When i have collected enough facts and evidence, interviewed as many actors and witnesses as i can, and feel comfortable enough that i have a good enough account doing justice to these events, i will publish my results.
Quality comment or not?
15 
0
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
I can’t respond to every comment because I simply don’t have enough time.
Athurson @73: “Perhaps those who are quick to engage in rudeness fear the fundamental weakness of their arguments.”
I agree, but it’s not just “apologists for the government” here. Found among us are “rednecks,” “disgusting moral retards,” “utterly grotesque” selfish people, “apologists,” and one “disgusting” sick and “grotesque” expat who supports massacres to protect his expat lifestyle. These comments come from Red Shirt supporters on this comment blog. Inevitably this sort of language appears on web boards just like we see it in bathroom stalls. Actually I found some of it amusing.
Regarding the Reporters Without Borders report:
Out of all the reporters mentioned in the Reporters Without Borders report two spoke of being targeted. Chandler Vandergrift offered contradictory testimony first saying that the grenade that hit him could not possibly have been directed only at him and then said that the international media were being targeted. Chaiwat Pumpuang believed he was targeted but he also said that he was shot at while approaching soldiers with about 50 demonstrators.
I agree with Pumpuang, he was targeted. He was walking where he was not supposed to, and it was abundantly clear that he was not supposed to be walking there and he did it anyway. Does he bear any responsibility for his actions?
The rest of the testimony corroborates my position that there was no vast government-military conspiracy to target journalists. More than one journalist mention things like not wearing bullet proof vests or helmets and that they were aware of the risks involved. Brad Cox admitted that Polenghi could have been mistaken for a MIB because he was wearing dark clothes. The Thai Journalists Association warned journalists to avoid certain areas. The Reuters editor-in-chief admitted that journalism can be dangerous. Nelson Rand’s testimony in particular supports my view that journalists should take responsibility for their actions as he repeated the fact that he was aware of the risks. A foreign bureau chief said that anyone in the Red Shirt zone risked being killed or wounded and also mentioned the fact that many of these journalists were not used to covering war zones.
Tarrin: My point is that this crackdown on protestors was not Tiananmen Square redux. I kept waiting for Armageddon and it simply never came.
Nick: Thanks for taking the time to contextualize this event. The best journalism about these protests in my opinion was the journalism that wasn’t sensationalized, but reporting more in depth providing background.
Do us all a favor when the next round of violent protests appear: Tell your colleagues that soldiers with weapons are dangerous.
Quality comment or not?
4 
6
Why is there not as much coverage here on Hiro Muramoto, a Japanese cameraman for Reuters, death – as there is for this Italian ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“Do us all a favor when the next round of violent protests appear: Tell your colleagues that soldiers with weapons are dangerous.” Well that’s certainly true for Thai soldiers under orders to shoot to kill.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
To Chris Beale :
One reason is that from the beggining Hiroyuki’s family asked that nothing about the forensic study is made public.
Another reason is that a group of people, who were with Fabio on the 19th of May decided to try to put some light on the circonstances of his death. These people had first hand knowledge of the situation in which Fabio was killed, but most of them were not near Hiroyuki when he was killed on the 10th of April.
But the interest of the medias is growing also on Hiroyuki’s case, both from Thai and International medias. See the cover story of Matichon Weely this week : Who killed Hiroyuki ?
Last thing is that Shawn Crispin has extensively investigated the circumstances of Hiro’s death and reported his findings in a recent Committee to Protect Journalists Report.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
I’d be interested to know what was said in Matichon about Hiroyuki.
I was there in the same area as Hiroyuki at Democracy Monument and Dinsa for the greater part of the afternoon and into the early evening on April 10th. Early that day on Phadung Krung Kasem, a street connected to Ratchadamnoen, I was with protesters as they breached perimeter after perimeter of the soldiers after soldiers threw tear gas, shot blanks/shot in the air, and then fell back. Eventually the protesters overran the soldiers and I heard there were “tanks” down the street. What I saw were three APCs at the end of Dinsa facing towards Democracy Monument with soldiers at a standoff with protesters. Later helicopters dropped tear gas. This is where Hiroyuki was and I know that he was probably thinking that there was little real danger as soldiers up until that point had not shot at protesters.
A BBC cameraman that I met later on during the protests in May mentioned that he knew Hiroyuki and he said that Hiroyuki was not experienced in covering war zones. But you wouldn’t need a lot of experience with war to know that something ugly was going to go down that night. I was convinced that the government was going to make their move that night or early morning with a blitzkrieg. I got that eerie feeling in my stomach so I went home.
Turns out that these MIB had thrown a grenade at soldiers and that’s when it all became lethal. By this time Hiroyuki was 50 meters give or take, on Dinsa well behind those APCs. He got caught out in the open with, I’m assuming, no helmet or bulletproof vest, with bullets flying everywhere.
When I learned that he had been killed I asked myself why he was where he was, at night, that unprotected.
It’s an utter lack of common sense. A horrific naivete of the world.
And no man with a wife and kids should ever take such risks.
Quality comment or not?
1 
9
maratjp: Obviously there are philosophical differences about the role of reporters that can’t be resolved. But for the record, I’d like to clarify that in your comment #65 you are making a generalization when you say: “The government’s action was not violent and cruel. There were armed protestors who lobbed grenades at them. Up until that point the soldiers fell back, shot blanks, shot in the air, and threw tear gas at protesters…”
Referring again to Chaiwat’s account in the RSF report: “Tell us how you came to be injured?
I was on Rajaprarob Road at around 3 pm on 15 April covering a Red Shirt demonstration. I was with about 50 demonstrators who tried to approach the soldiers. The Red Shirts were using tyres as protection but they were not armed.
The soldiers suddenly fired live rounds! At first I thought they were warning shots. But they kept firing incessantly with their automatic weapons. I began running for a place to hide but I was hit when I was just a few centimetres from reaching shelter. A bone in my right leg shattered and I fell to the ground. I could no longer move and the soldiers were still shooting….”
I’m not suggesting any conspiracy, just a complicated situation. I am a bit puzzled by your blaming-the-victim position, though. Consider that it seems likely that on April 10, Col. Romklao suffered mortal injuries because, as I understand it, he took off his helmet just before the grenade came in. I don’t recall many comments about that saying “This is not courage, it’s stupidity…”
Anyway, a reminder to readers that the whole RSF report is posted at: http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/REPORT_RSF_THAILAND_Eng.pdf
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
“superanonymous”:
I would suggest not to use the RSF “report” as prime source material. This “report” has been hurried and is badly if at all investigated.
It contains some good interviews, some lesser than good interviews, a few factual mistakes, gross simplifications, and many accusations full of hearsay that have done a lot of damage.
And generally speaking here, i have many problems with the lack of self criticism of the media itself. While reporting we, as a professional group, have done many mistakes. Many members of the media have put themselves at unnecessary risk while covering the mess. Many of us have put others at risk as well, such as hords of cameramen and photographers blocking the way to ambulances while taking images of injured being carried to safety.
There were times i was ashamed to be part of this profession. Many of us are caring people who try to do a good job. But when conflicts such as this one make the world news, they also attract some very disgusting people whose only care is making money out of the misery of others.
I have to cringe when we are put on this pedestal of something close to heroism. We clearly don not belong there.
Personally speaking, i am so glad that the fighting is over, for now. Obviously because people do not get killed and injured, but also because nowadays i can take my images undisturbed by this rat pack. Most of the time now i am the only professional photographer at Red Shirt events, and the images i take there make me a lot happier than when i have to take photos of dead and injured people.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
Nick N: To some extent I share your wariness about RSF, but the value of it here is that it does serve as some kind of starting point, which can be checked or built upon, since the interviews are with named sources with first-hand involvement. This is in contrast to the “everybody knows” kind of assertions in comments by people such as Simon and Bangkok Dan, which are next to worthless for establishing any kind of factual record.
As a bit of a footnote, I find your criticism that “Many members of the media have put themselves at unnecessary risk while covering the mess” interesting, because it is kind of the mirror image of the criticism of CNN’s Dan Rivers for (supposedly) covering the trouble from the safety of his terrace. Oh dear, what’s a reporter to do?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
“superanonymous”:
There is calculated risk and recklessness…
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
superanonymous:
You are interpreting events from reports and you are drawing conclusions that are incorrect. Soldiers maintained a base of fire at Rajaprarop and Sri Auyuttaya thus controlling eventually all of Rajaprarop from the Din Daeng intersection all the way to Auyuttaya. They kept people off of Rajaprarop down to Petchburi, or close to Petchburi. Red shirts were kept at bay at Petchburi but then had another tire barricade down Rajaprarop closer to the soldiers, but still quite far away. This journalist wasn’t walking towards soldiers with tires hanging around his neck; he was moving from one barricade to another. Or at least that’s what I assume from what I saw there. Soldiers fired from, what? A thousand meters? They were clearing the street, sending a message that they didn’t want you on that street. This journalist was part of a blob of people soldiers saw behind their sandbags and these soldiers simply pulled the trigger to clear them out. This is not complicated.
Col. Romklao: Don’t equate this colonel with these journalists I speak of. He was a professional soldier with protective gear holding a weapon among other soldiers holding a weapon standing among APCs facing for the most part unarmed protesters. He didn’t see this para military coming either.
Blame the victim? No. I have always referred to specific actions in specific circumstances.
Nick: Amen brother! I guess you can get away with your opinion about how disgraceful many of the photojournalists have been covering this protest. I knew if I said such things I’d be attacked.
I was also appalled at what I saw as I stood there among international photojournalists blowing into Bangkok for the week to build careers exploiting the suffering of Thai people. I thought to myself that none of these photojournalists know anything about Thailand and could care less about the struggle of these rural people. They treated them like objects with their cameras and it was always about getting the most extreme picture possible and then hoping for glory on the front cover of The New York Times.
I remember seeing one guy riding in off of Rama IV into an alley with a big motorcross bike with some bandana around his neck and then getting off with this pompous attitude. Wonderful crowd these people.
What we all get is sensationalism or recycled summaries of the “background” of Thai politics and this does little to inform the reader.
Superanonymous: regarding Dan Rivers-unecessary risk: There is a vast middle ground where great reporting and great photojournalism can occur where journalists need not be reckless. Most of these protests were not spent shooting at things. Most of the protests were about speeches, and simply listening to speeches, and eating, and walking around and chatting. But it’s the bullet ridden protester off to the ambulance that gets published. This sh*t journalism and obscures a much larger, nuanced narrative about class, poverty, free speech, and history among other things.
At least Nick is taking the time to actually tell a story with his pictures to provide more context and not just another sound bite. And Nick, I hope you also include a bit of the view from the young soldiers who were thrust into this crap. They are victims too. I looked at the protesters and these soldiers as one and the same.
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
“Maratjp”:
“And Nick, I hope you also include a bit of the view from the young soldiers who were thrust into this crap. They are victims too. I looked at the protesters and these soldiers as one and the same.”
I definitely will do that, both in text and images.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Maratjp – 85
I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t say all that if you are on the receiving end.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Maratjp: In all sincerity, I don’t really see your point, which seems pretty reductionist. If journalists followed what appear to be your guidelines – stay within government lines, or at least safely out of the way – we would have no photos of the men in black on April 10, or of the people tossing firebombs into CentralWorld. The existence of such photos (and video) adds useful – nay, essential – information about the whole affair. If these folks were not out there doing it (and taking the same risks as the people who were hurt or killed), then they wouldn’t exist. Getting ticked off about someone’s sense, or lack thereof, for wearing a bandanna strikes me as churlish — it has nothing to do with their work, really.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Tarrin: I was nearly on the receiving end at Din Daeng and Ratchaprarop when I heard a “ping” on metal right behind me as I rode by. Quite frightening. If I had been hit I would have blamed myself for taking the risk.
Superanonymous: I’ve never had a problem with great photos that photojournalists take like the one Agnes Dherbeys took on April 10th. My problem was with this “journalists were targeted” baloney because Fabio Polenghi and Hiro Muramoto were killed when in fact they had made very irresponsible choices.
And where do we draw the line on what is ethical in photojournalism? I got a much different perspective being there watching the action. That one shot by Agnes of that man in black on April 10th was a fantastic photo and it communicated so much information. But what do I think about a certain well known photographer, who shall remain nameless, that I see giddy with joy running in my direction dodging people right before an ambulance drives by? He was giddy because he ran up and probably just stuck his camera inside the ambulance and snapped away. He got his pound of flesh. A man covered in blood with holes in him was just objectified to the world. The photographer sends it off to an agency anxious to see what his “catch” brings him. And then off to the next war zone.
How would you feel if you saw this?
And this is what I was getting at with this bandana. It’s trivializing human suffering and this makes me sick.
Reminds me of the Kevin Carter photo of the vulture and the child.
I’d be interested to hear what professional photojournalists think of all of this. Do photojournalists have lines they simply won’t cross?
Quality comment or not?
3 
2
Maratjp 89
I think I understand your point now. I don’t think the soldiers were targeting journalist in particular as you suggested, from many video posted I’m almost sure that they were shooting at everything that moved that’s why we see most (maybe all of) people who got killed/injured were unarmed and not a single “terrorists” casualty.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Maratjp, re your #89: If that is your basic point, we are not really in much disagreement. It just seemed to me you were wielding a pretty broad brush, for example when referring to Hiroyuki Muramoto carrying out his job in dangerous circumstances, you said ‘This is not courage, it’s stupidity…” If Agnes Dherbeys had been killed, you could easily have said the same about her, since being around armed men in black who would be the obvious targets for soldiers is not exactly a risk-free proposition. But we can agree, yes, that it’s not black-and-white?
Re your #85, “Or at least that’s what I assume from what I saw there. Soldiers fired from, what? A thousand meters? They were clearing the street, sending a message that they didn’t want you on that street.” If that account is anything like accurate, I find that astonishing: firing live rounds a kilometer down a major city street at a crowd of people no one has claimed was armed (and slingshots at that distance probably don’t represent much of a threat, if there were any). If those were the circumstances, I don’t see how any blame could accrue to the wounded Nation photographer, but I would think it shows close to criminal irresponsibility on the part of the soldiers. Clear the streets, fine, but that is not the way to do it.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
“Maratjp”:
“Do photojournalists have lines they simply won’t cross?”
These are individual choices, i guess. I have set myself certain lines i try not to cross, but much depends on particular situations as well.
One of my main guidelines is that i try not to endanger people. That means practically that, for example, in cases when people tend to act for the camera in dangerous situations i take my camera down to discourage them from putting themselves at risk for some photos. When injured are transported i try to stand not in the way, snap images while people carrying the injured are passing me by, and when people are treated i work around them, not to get in the way of the EMS personnel.
I also strongly believe that it is our main job to survive to tell the story, and that we have to minimize and calculate the risks we are taking. I am not a combat photographer – i do not jet from one conflict to the next. I am more interested how conflicts begin and develop than in the actual conflict itself. When i see a conflict zone of a conflict that began long before i arrived on the scene, i generally feel completely misplaced, as i don’t understand anything. And i do not like this feeling at all. I always end up feeling like a vulture.
I do not need a conflict to take meaningful images, i still love and use my analog cameras, both 35mm and 120mm. I just use them for different subject matters which allow to work more creatively than in this Red/Yellow conflict, where i decided to work purely documentarian.
I am also more foremost a human and not just a camera, therefore many times i take my camera down when i see that my help is needed.
It is inevitable that we make mistakes at times, we are just human. But i try not to make too many mistakes.
Nevertheless, every photojournalist is different, there are many approaches, an endless multitude of styles. I, for example, do not mind showing horrible scenes when i need to, because i believe that they have to be seen unmasked in order to understand the ugly realities of life. There are others who believe that depicting such scenes crosses lines, and they will not do so.
I also question myself constantly – is what i am doing still OK, can i still live with myself. I want my work to be useful and educating (that is one of the reasons why i also began to write). Very importantly – i cannot allow myself to turn numb to the suffering of others – it would defeat the purpose of my work.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
Nick – the thought occurs to me that you have not one, but TWO new books developing here :
Book One – is latest update about the Red, Yellow, etc. struggle.
I.e a follow-on to your excellent first book.
(My good journalist friend here in Oz still has n’t returned it to me, after nearly a year : he loves it so much !!).
Book Two – is your highly professional approach to journalism : you’ve got a veritable compendium here on NM post alone, to publish something truly great about honest reporting in conflict situations, in a very different culture from the West.
Congratulations for your excellence – on both.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Tarrin: Yes, you are correct here. Soldiers shot at groups of people, not specifically targeting journalists, from the way I saw things. (Of course does any one have absolute evidence that a soldier at a given time might have been pissed off and simply shot a journalist? No. But in general I think it’s easy to conclude that soldiers were doing that.) Yes, these protests should not be reduced to simple black and whites.
Superanonymous: If Agnes would have been killed I would have thought that she took a risk and lost. I guess I have been so harsh on Muramoto and Polenghi because I know pretty much what they were doing and where they were doing it and I felt how obvious it was that it was dangerous. I don’t know exactly where Agnes was so I feel more distant from her. Yeah, it does sound awfully callous describing these journalists as “stupid.” But if I have pissed off or aroused the emotions of any photojournalists who come across this blog than I will have served these journalists in the long run hopefully raising awareness of safety. Hopefully photojournalists will police themselves better and simply tell others when certain actions are just too dangerous.
Regarding the clearing of streets: Everything is about context. In 99% of situations using lethal force would be considered criminal. But these protests, though they may have started out peaceful and organized, changed after the grenade on April 10. At that point it ceased to be simply a citizen demonstration. It became a protest with a para military arm that was willing to use lethal force against soldiers. So now we have protesters who are not afraid to simply walk up to soldiers and breach their lines along with a faction within this group who will think nothing of shooting bullets or grenades at soldiers. It’s like my mother screaming at me and trying to hit me but really not catching up to me to actually hit me and then her saying, “You just wait ’till your father gets home.” Well, Dad did come home and he took out the belt and I got the message loud and clear. And that was the end of it.
So when soldiers set up sandbags and basically said, “Get off this street; we don’t want you here. And if you don’t get the message perhaps my shooting in your direction will help you understand.”
I understand this because I was basically hit as a child!
Would would happen back in my own country? Perhaps I’m biased because I am from the US and we have policeman who have guns and will use them, especially if you are shooting at them. The National Guard have been called in before and have threatened to kill on the spot looters and the like. This is nothing new for me. I lived in Chicago for twelve years and these soldiers here looked quaint compared to the police there.
Nick: “I do not need a conflict to take meaningful images.” Great statement.
The truth is I guess there isn’t one simple answer. I never saw a photo of a dead US soldier in Iraq until recently and I felt that it was so powerful. We do need to see the horror. I guess because I had not any pictures of a dead US soldier in Iraq that it was so horrifying, so powerful.
For those photojournalists who are conscientious about what they are doing, I guess I can say that I could only imagine how difficult their choices must be.
In the end we consumers must reward reporting that is more contextual and less sensationalist and then more photojournalists will be scrambling to get images that tell the story behind the story.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
I basically agree with all the points of Marajtp.
I am a journalist, but not a photo-journalist. Still i feel it is my duty to be a witness in all situations, including dangerous ones.
In East Timor in 1999, i was in Dili when pro Indonesian militias were randomly shooting in the streets. Being there, close to the fire, allowed me to write a report about the complete breakdown of Law and Order after the independence referendum.
On 19th of May, i saw on Twitter at 4.20 am that “Tanks were positionned in Saladaeng”, indicating a possible military operation to clear Rajprasong. Of course, i rushed there, otherwise, i would better do another job.
I stayed in Rajprasong, on the “Red side” until 4.30 pm, roughly a 12 hours stint.
There, i have witnessed numerous things, that i could not have if i would hv been on the other side. After Sae Daeng assassination, my determination was already clear : if there is a military clearing operation, then i should go on the “Red side”, not on the military side. Why ?
Because, i felt it was more important to witness what was happening on the “people side”, because what was happening on the side entitled with, as Max Weber said, “the legitimate use of violence” would be reported anyway by the State medias and many others.
On the “Red side”, i saw amazing scenes. During heavy fire on Rajdamri, when everybody was taking cover, a monk was quietly sitting on a bench, completely impervious to the external chaos.
At the beginning of the afternoon, after Nathawut’s surrender speech (one of the great speech of the Red campaign), some black shirts put fire to the staircase of Rajdamri BTS station. Then, street traders came and extinguish the fire with buckets of water.
During the shooting, a bit close to the stage, one old man asked me where i was from. When i said i was French, he began to tell me about a trip in Paris he did ten years ago, and how he enjoyed it.
Do you imagine this in any other country ?
Many things are escaping our Foreigner’s grasp, but we can at least feel them. There is also a “spiritual” or animistic dimension in this political crisis, which is, i think, quite meaningful to Thai (see Wassana’s book).
This quiet monk, a bit after the shooting, came to me and put a paper in my hand. Then he quietly walk away, his bag on his shoulder and his umbrella in his hand.
I looked at the paper (which i still preciously keep). On one side, he had drawn a cartoon, a small smiling character with the word “Mr News”. On the other side, he just wrote “UN”.
I understood more about the Reds and their outlook from this tiny piece of paper than from months of newspapers reading.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
I just spent the evening with Max in Chiang Mai — the sad occasion of the death of a close mutual friend.
I have read the article carefully and all of the 95 comments.
Some striking omissions. No one mentions anywhere that the police were nowhere in sight during the whole period. A number observe how extraordinary it was that only 91 died in such a lengthy and explosive situation in the streets of such a huge city, but nobody observed how much more extraordinary this was in the context of the total absence of a police force!
Why the police force was NOT there is a topic in itself, and if one could answer that question clearly all the pieces of the puzzle might fall into place.
Some commentators hinted that the conflict was not really color coded at all, but few went so far as to suggest that the opposing parties in the conflict were about evenly represented on BOTH SIDES. Plenty of the soldiers were “tomatoes,” green on the outside but red within — and of course there were plenty of highly trained military personnel who were sniping from the Red side, goodness knows to what end — and some were in Black and some were in Green!
In other words, those two journalists were caught in a cross-fire that no reporter could ever have covered ‘correctly’, as the protagonists were hidden on both sides, and constantly changing their colors like chameleons. Because the objective was something quite other.
Think through this one: nobody is even sure whose side Seh Daeng was actually on, what’s more who had the more urgent motive to silence him!
Finally, it’s important to observe that only two outcomes could have handed victory to the Red Shirts, and an immediate election was certainly not one of them. The Red Shirt leaders were very aware of this, which explains why they dithered. An election would have been much too slow, much too uncertain, and functionally irrelevant to the true goal. Because the Red Shirt masterminds weren’t interested in a Parliamentary solution at all but in a fundamental resetting of Thailand’ historical clock.
(Cambodia?)
The result which could have brought victory was simply a Coup on the one hand or a Civil War on the other — both of which would have set Thailand back to Year One!
So how does a respectable Government prevent a Coup in such a situation, what’s more an Army??? And who doesn’t want a Civil War, think about that? Who doesn’t want the country to go up in smoke, hospitals closed down, schools gutted, husbands castrated and wives raped all the way up and down the line?
Yes, who stops a Civil War in general, and for what reason? Who does that?
Answer that question, and then get back to the question of who shot Fabio.
Christopher
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
Two points on Christopher’s comment.
The police was actually there. But playing what role ? This is a difficult one to answer.
At 4 pm, i decided i had to leave Wat Pathum Wanaram, as the shooting and explosions were becoming more intense.
The only way out was through the Royal Police HQ. Plenty of journalists and demonstrators were already inside the HQ. But when we arrived – a group of five reporters – the gate was locked and a policeman told us that he did not have the key.
So we jumped the gate.
Once inside, it was an amazing scene. Hundreds of Reds demonstrators, people clad in black clothes were inside, mixing with police officers.
I am not someone who generally speaking like the police, but this time, for the first time in 20 years in Thailand, i felt some gratefulness towards the police.
They were effectively protecting us from the soldiers, especially the special forces on the BTS tracks.
The “Apaitan area” was NOT Wat Pathum Wanaram, but the Police HQ. And some people died because they believed they would be protected in the Temple. The killing of the young voluntary medic and the five others in front of the temple and in the front part of the temple is the most serious single incident of the 19th of May.
The government knows this. And that is why very few detailed reports were published in the Thai press, with exception of the Bangkok Post, Khao Sot, Matichon and Thai Rath. And of course, no TV ever played the clearest footage of the killing in the temple, especially the murder of the young female medic. The death of this young medic is a bomb for a government which used the “Chula’s hospital brutal invasion by the Red Germs” – as Thongchai Winichakul has written – to create hatred among the Bangkok middle class against the demonstrators.
The powerful symbol of the weeping nurse….
The young medic did not weep, she rushed to attend the wounded in the front part of the temple and was shot.
Second point.
It is interesting that Christopher mentioned about the lack of interest of the Red leaders for an election.
It is difficult to answer this question, but we have to notice that the side who broke the negociations is the government side, not the red side. A compromise was in view when Abhisit asked Sukhumband to withdraw. And then the military operation began immediately with the shooting of Seh Daeng.
But remembering Jaran Ditapichai press conference at the beginning of March, before the start of the demonstration on the 12th of April, i was struck by Jaran’s straightforwardness.
He said : we will bring one million people in the streets of Bangkok and the government will have either to accept our demands or suppress it.
It was in a way a blackmail operation : the use of street power to force a diktat on the government. A pure strategy of provocation by exposing a large number of people to a brutal repression.
But at the beginning of June, i think that some of the Red leaders were quite happy about the prospect of an election in mid november. It was obviously the case of Veera Musikapong, Kokeaw Pikulthong and Jaran Ditapichai. But the hardliners : Jatuporn and Dr Weng were not interested. I would like to know the exact position at that time of Nathawut Saikua, who seems to be the most charismatic Red leaders.
Quality comment or not?
10 
1
Arno D. – 97
I think many would like to know the exact disagreements between Veera and the other first generation leaders and what convinced him not to return to the protest before its fatal ending.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Thanks for all that, Arno — you must have been up later even than me!
Of course my comments were provocative, because I was asking questions that a.) almost certainly couldn’t be answered, and b.) if they could be answered would indicate I hadn’t asked the right question in the first place.
What upset me almost more than the violence in the streets of Bangkok last April and May were the absurd platitudes and inanities uttered by the likes of Rachel Harvey, Alastair Leithead and Dan Rivers for the various media businesses who pay them on both sides of the Atlantic.
The goggles of goodness on your eyes and the CNN Masterpiece-Theatre-News-Byte mealy in your mouth. With servants like that, is it any wonder the world is controlled by a handful cynics?
Who shot the journalists is complicated by the fact that almost all the key players on both sides had very good reasons to do so, just as almost everybody had some very good reasons to eliminate Seh Daeng.
Or to hood the surveillance cameras.
Or to shoot the young nurse at Wat Pathum Wanaram.
(Or do whatever with Viktor Bout!)
~
The one thing for certain is that whatever happened at Rajaprasong was more about back-room power than justice for the farmer —the struggle for equality was staged outside under banners in English while the leaders stage-managed the real event in the language of their own private interests in a shipping container behind it.
REALPOLITIK the play is called, co-authored by everyone with a finger in the pie.
Christopher
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
Christopher Woodman – 97,99
I’m not too surprised why you asked those question and the way your response, the whole thing is so gray that we might never get the answer after 20 years. Maybe you should study more about the aftermath of 6 Oct 76 and see how both actually move in quite similar fashion media censorship, propaganda, and political struggle . However, we dont have communist now and the number population involved is much larger, there were no water melon, pineapple, or tomato like 30 years ago.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Good points, Tarrin.
Just at the moment we’re grieving in Chiang Mai for our dear friend and mentor, Sam Kalayanee, who succumbed to cancer with great dignity and courage at the age of 50 just four days ago. None of us were ready to lose him, yet he was getting ready to leave us, and all his dreams as well.
Sam’s courage and privacy were the qualities we all loved most in him, weren’t they? So why are we surprised his passing is so hard to grasp?
My gut feeling is that the Red Shirt protests in April and May hastened Sam’s demise, and that there’s something very important for us to learn from that. “I’m a Communist,” he said many times to me, looking me straight in the eye as he always did through those glasses, waiting, waiting, waiting to see whether I could deal with what he meant. And I’m 20 years his senior, and an American!
This is what I say. As we grow older, and I mean even just to Sam’s age, a paltry 50, we’ve got to realize that our ideals are not what it’s about at all, but rather our shit detectors. We’ve got to grasp the shit in the ideas we die for — we have to accept that ideas can also be great burdens, and great deceptions too when they fall into the hands of great manipulators.
Life isn’t about political solutions but about tolerance and patience, about making the best out of what we’ve got already — por phiang. Kuhn Vera knows that, I suspect, but Maw Weng almost certainly doesn’t — to answer your good question, LesAbbey. Kuhn Vera knows por phiang — Maw Weng only what he knows in his head is even better than what he’s got, and is willing to die fighting for to the bitter end.
And we end up with the meaningless, sad, unfathomable debacle of Rajaprasong.
Sam’s life was undermined in April and May as he watched the protests on TV non-stop, he told me that, not working at all, not even corresponding with the people he loved most, or picking up the phone. The contradictions he saw on TV cheapened his dreams, he felt, and he emerged worn out and empty.
And that’s what made the noble Red Shirt movement so vulnerable to abuse too, of course, and why it was shunted down the siding where it founders even now.
You good and well-informed people on this site rail against the Army and the Elite and Oxford, and you talk about a Massacre. Imagine if the movement had succeeded, and Thailand were reduced to such chaos and disorder all you could do is start again from scratch? Every sin absolved, every crime written off? Imagine that historically. Imagine all the places that has happened in real history, and ask if you want to be there too!
Christopher
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
Christopher says “Life isn’t about political solutions but about tolerance and patience, about making the best out of what we’ve got already”
JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
“Why the police force was NOT there is a topic in itself, and if one could answer that question clearly all the pieces of the puzzle might fall into place”
Christopher’s question also provides a lot of the answers.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Christopher Woodman – 101
You good and well-informed people on this site rail against the Army and the Elite and Oxford, and you talk about a Massacre. Imagine if the movement had succeeded, and Thailand were reduced to such chaos and disorder all you could do is start again from scratch? Every sin absolved, every crime written off? Imagine that historically. Imagine all the places that has happened in real history, and ask if you want to be there too!
The only thing that the movement is succeed (I assumed you are talking about the Ratchaprasong rally) then the most we have is an election and a draged on the change we suppose to have. Furthermore, I might also asked you to study about government order number 66/23 and its implication and how that brought about the peaceful reconciliation between the ex-survivor of 6 Oct massacre and how the 66/23 never actually complete its task, however, the 66/23 did do one thing that you mentioned it wrote off every crime and every sin absolved.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
A cynic might say the police force was not there precisely to assist the army, i.e. to present the target as unencumbered by the limits of law and order as possible.
Another cynic might say the police force assumed Priewpan Damapong would be the next Chief of Police, and nobody wanted to jeopardize their jobs by being seen trying to restore law and order.
Another cynic might say that law and order isn’t what the police do anyway.
To the first cynic one might say — do you mean to tarnish the reputation of the army once and for all, or to help the army get the job done more quickly?
Fabio Polenghi was caught in the cross-fire of that dilemma.
To the second cynic one might reply — the absence of the police made it much more likely an election wouldn’t be held at all, didn’t it? Or do you mean that an election wouldn’t need to be held as there would be no sate left to govern?
Another terrible cross-fire.
To the third cynic — to stir the pot really hard you have to make things even worse, or break it.
~
Yes, that’s right. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” And of course it’s equally true that those who make violent revolution, make peaceful revolution much more difficult.
The irony is that the Thai people as a whole are for the first time in the history of the nation seriously engaged with politics. Before it was only the elite!
This isn’t 1976, Tarrin, because then there were only students and a few teachers. It’s 2010, Thailand is the most democratic nation in Southeast Asia, and as a result of that good fortune a fully-fledged peaceful revolution is visibly in progress.
Christopher
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
There are several very clear photos here of the man who it seems stole Fabio’s camera as he lay dead or dying.
http://www.fabiopolenghi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:who-is-this-man&catid=2:news&Itemid=2
I haven’t seen these photos before or seen them on this site. It would be nice to think that they could lead to some justice for him.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sorry, I was completely wrong in my previous post. These pictures were published here http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2857 in October last year. I just hadn’t seen them. But obviously they need wider publication because the truth is still elusive. And still needs to be known if any real reconciliation can happen.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Tom
Those photos have been around for a while – the most effective place to publish them would be Thai Rath, Khao Sod or one of the big Thai dailies.
Another alternative would be distribute via the Red Shirts own networks.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0