' Bullets Came From Thai Military Side': Witness To The Death Of Italian Journalist 2010

[jayboy]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him.

If you do your post is a very good and valid one.

If you don't (as usual) it is a worthless post no substance pure conjecture.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

The fact remains your initial comment about the death of this journalist was morally repulsive.

[tgeezer]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

I dont think i have ever denied there were MIB that were armed, and unfortunetly people on both sides were injured and killed, civilian, military and all. I was simply stating that on TVF it is strange to see why some impartial evidence is accepted as gospel truth and others has its authenticity questioned just because it does not tie in with what you want to believe.

The evidence given by the reporter who was shot in the back is not in dispute, why should it be? He, like the Italian who got killed were there to report on a street party held by representatives of the oppressed mass of the Thai population which quite unreasonably the government had decided to shut down, an action approved of by the majority of other oppressed citizenry who were directly affected by it.

It's only an inquest, it will be used as a tool by the red shirts to vilify the government of the time and to divert attention from their criminal actions in pursuit of their just grievances, and as such he will not have died in vain. RIP.

[rubl]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

[Buchholz]

nothing funny about a reporter getting shot, whats funny is Robby seems to feel that the government can send its goons to shoot up the street with no accountability. it is even funnier that anyone things that these government agents were only defending themselves and not actively shooting protesters, reporters, and anyone else they saw as a threat to the political advancement of Abhsist.

even if your right and they were protecting themselves, do they not need to be accountable for their actions? should legitimate investigations not be done? Is it not in the best interest of the public, after all that is who they work for, to make sure that these people were not acting out of other motivations? Shooting into crowds of your own citizens is a serious matter and not often justified (or ever in my opinion). Your implication that we should simply forget about the dozens of people that lost their lives is preposterous.

The army shooting anyone they saw as a threat to the political advancement of Abhisit? And I thought I heard it all

Welcome to TV where history is rewritten today.

.

+ 1

.

[jayboy]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I don't believe so and if that is your impression it was not my intention to imply it.In any case I thought most reasonable people accepted there were guns used on both sides.

[rubl]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I don't believe so and if that is your impression it was not my intention to imply it.In any case I thought most reasonable people accepted there were guns used on both sides.

Fair.

BTW reasonable people acknowledge the protesters used guns. It goes a bit too far to say they also accept it.

[waza]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Yes I agree its pityfull that total disclosure isnt allowed in this emotive case, but thats red justice for you..........

Elisabetta flew in from Italy to be at the hearing and was upset that two other witnesses, including one foreign national who videotaped the moment when Polenghi fell, were not allowed to testify after judges said their testimony was redundant to the trial.

Edited March 16, 2013 by waza

[waza]

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

I agree but how do you delibrately target a reporter who dresses like the armed protestor, in amongst those armed protestors and isnt wearing anything to identify him as a reported in a free fire zone? I am not being insensitive or ignorant I think its using common sense. I understand he wanted to relate to the armed protestors to gain their trust and show comradery but it obviously made him a target. What is also obvious is these armed protestor, one clevery dressed as a reporter, showed no duty of care for him, their first reaction when he was shot was to steal his camera.

Edited March 16, 2013 by waza

[SteveB2]

At the time of the shooting there was an attempt to overthrow the state going on. Armed thugs were indiscriminately launching grenades and shooting off guns at civilians, a bunch of reds had dragged a soldier from a vehicle and murdered him, terrorist scum were shooting at the army. The situation was tense and nervy. Should the army have taken more care about why and at whom they shot? Certainly. Should this man have been amongst the reds/black shirt poseurs? He felt the story was worth the risk. I'm sorry he died this way, but when you have nervous/ angry soldiers facing people who hate them bad things can and do happen.

I was in Bangkok for just one day trying to do business while all this chaos was going on; What a disaster, it was crazy dangerous everywhere near the protest site, and traffic was snarled up all over Bangkok.

Bluespunk was right about the grenades - some evil punks had indeed got hold of an M79 and were lobbing 40mm anti personnel/flecette rounds around with lethal results.

The military had shown amazing restraint and discipline considering what was going on, the hits and abuse they were taking, and how well they were equiped to hand out immediate on the spot justice of their own.

The attached image shows things from the Thai military side with a journalist and soldiers caught up in the action. [ Warning - Graphic Image ]

[hellodolly]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

[Robby nz]

We know that the camera of one of the reporters was stolen but was the other camera stolen as well?

If not there would surely be photos on there of events leading up to the shooting and possibly photos from other sources as well.

We have already seen one video of after one of the shootings, are there any others?

Was also wondering if anyone from the Army was called to give evidence and if not why not?

[khunken]

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since
the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers
have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them
in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a
distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists
being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is
not about making political points which is all you are apparently
seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the
truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a
rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less
frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the
role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply
responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck
Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and
wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

[jayboy]

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

[jayboy]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

[khunken]

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

What does this say?: There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side

Yes, the objective is to find the truth but denying that you said the above is not truthful.

[Pimay1]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

[Pimay1]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

See comment on usual suspects above.By definition journalism in a conflict situation is dangerous.Who are you to judge whether common sense in that specific situation was applied or not?

Entering into a live fire zone by one's on volition knowing there is a chance one will get shot is in my opinion not applying common sense.

[jayboy]

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

What does this say?: There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side

Yes, the objective is to find the truth but denying that you said the above is not truthful.

But I did say it so why on earth should I deny it? It's no more than the truth which no sane person would question.I did say " from whatever side"

Why are the usual suspects so very thick?

Despite your slur, this 'thick' one can spot a lie from a mile away. Your arrogance is never far below the surface, is it? If you think you can squirm out of this by semantics, you are mistaken.

Any chance of you clearly stating what the "lie" is?

[jayboy]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

See comment on usual suspects above.By definition journalism in a conflict situation is dangerous.Who are you to judge whether common sense in that specific situation was applied or not?

Entering into a live fire zone by one's on volition knowing there is a chance one will get shot is in my opinion not applying common sense.

Then with that ludicrous statement you insult the memory of thousands of brave journalists who have lost their lives over the years.Shame on you.

[khunken]

jayboy, on 16 Mar 2013 -

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since

the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers

have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them

in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is

not about making political points which is all you are apparently

seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the

truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a

rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less

frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the

role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply

responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck

Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and

wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

This is the most morally reprehensible piece of posting in this thread. You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you said 'deliberate'.

Your credibility is zero.

Yes, the army probably shot the journalists & considering the distance from where the army were & where the journalists were, it is doubtful in the extreme that they could be identified as journalists.

Where I have I accused anybody of shooting journalists? The objective is to find the truth isn't it or is that "morally reprehensible" as well?

What does this say?: There is however a

distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists

being deliberately targetted from whatever side

Yes, the objective is to find the truth but denying that you said the above is not truthful.

But I did say it so why on earth should I deny it? It's no more than the truth which no sane person would question.I did say " from whatever side"

Why are the usual suspects so very thick?

Despite your slur, this 'thick' one can spot a lie from a mile away. Your arrogance is never far below the surface, is it? If you think you can squirm out of this by semantics, you are mistaken.

Any chance of you clearly stating what the "lie" is?

I've already pointed it out. Who is being 'thick' now?

[waza]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

See comment on usual suspects above.By definition journalism in a conflict situation is dangerous.Who are you to judge whether common sense in that specific situation was applied or not?

Entering into a live fire zone by one's on volition knowing there is a chance one will get shot is in my opinion not applying common sense.

Then with that ludicrous statement you insult the memory of thousands of brave journalists who have lost their lives over the years.Shame on you.

Actually I think journalists would agree whole heartedly with primary 1.

However, I found this interesting.............."Video footage Cox subsequently took of journalists and protesters who carried Polenghi's body out of the road and onto a motorcycle bound for a nearby local hospital appeared to show a bullet had entered Polenghi's body under his left armpit and exited through his side.

"So the redundant footed showed he was shot in his side not his back unlike the acceptable witness that said,

"Maas was on site on May 19 nearly three years ago as the army moved in and he told the court that he was also shot in the back as he tried to flee".

The other journalist who testimony was declared redundant had this to say...........

"Cox said Polenghi followed a few steps behind. While running down the road, Cox felt a sudden, sharp pain in the side of his leg. It turned out that a bullet had grazed his knee, causing minor injury......."My feeling at the time was that we were shot at the exact same time, perhaps even with the same bullet,"

A quote from his sister said,

"Polenghi's family expressed concerns about the government's opaque investigation into the death. His sister, Elisabetta Polenghi, noted that many of his belongings, including his camera and telephone, were missing........here was no known footage of the shooting itself. One video clip showed that an unidentified man wearing a silver helmet was the first to reach Polenghi after he was shot. The brief footage showed him feeling around Polenghi's chest and briefly jostling with his camera, while another unidentified man wearing a yellow helmet knelt and took a photograph."

One wonders that if like Jayboy stated someone was deliberately targeting journalist why weren't these two shot as well

Edited March 16, 2013 by waza

[jayboy]

I've already pointed it out. Who is being 'thick' now?

If you can't or won't explain what I am being accused of lying about, nothing more to discuss.But for the record:

This was your accusation -

"You accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists when

deliberation wasn't even suggested in the Op. Then you deny that you

said 'deliberate'."

I explained carefully in response I did not accuse the army of deliberately targetting journalists.The construct of "deliberate targetting" (I made it clear from whatever side) was in distinction to deaths incurred in the general fog of war.We don't know for sure under what set of circumstances the journalist died, nor which group was responsible.

The truth has yet to be resolved.I have no idea why you and other usual suspects reacted so childishly and aggressively to what was actually a non controversial proposition.

[Pimay1]

Again intellectual limitations and ignorance of context compounded by a rabid partisanship undermine the relevance of your posts.The less frenzied will have will noted I made a general proposition about the role of journalists in conflict, and was careful not to imply responsibility on any party for the tragic death concerned.The Rory Peck Awards recognise the bravery and inspiration of journalists killed and wounded on assigment, and I hope this case will be considered.

With lots of people believing that the protesters were unarmed and obviously the army was armed you take sides by writing

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

I think he is losing it. I posted

"

And you have proof positive the shot was deliberately fired at the reporter not at the fellow standing by him."

And he found that to be "morally repulsive" His normal method of being dead wrong and avoiding it completely. If Thaksin was reading Thai Visa he would be proud of the boy.

He is just further proof that red shirts take no blame they believe every thing they did was rite. Or they are the ones on the pay roll.

I like that I did not say the boy was on the payroll. Just mentioned that some of the followers of the paymaster are on the payroll. I believe I am learning things from the boy.

No you have continued to demonstrate you are rather slow to grasp the point.

What I found and still find morally repulsive was your statement:

"Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?"

- because this condones violence against journalists in conflict situations.It's not a political point, just common humanity.

The rest of your abysmal post needs no further comment from me.

Common humanity, nice buzz words. How about common sense. If I know that there is a minefield in front of me and I willingly go into this area and get blown up then I have to bear the responsibility.

See comment on usual suspects above.By definition journalism in a conflict situation is dangerous.Who are you to judge whether common sense in that specific situation was applied or not?

Entering into a live fire zone by one's on volition knowing there is a chance one will get shot is in my opinion not applying common sense.

Then with that ludicrous statement you insult the memory of thousands of brave journalists who have lost their lives over the years.Shame on you.

If that is what you think then up to you. I realize many journalists have lost their lives over the years. It was their decision to go to the danger zones knowing full well the risks. I am not justifying their deaths at all. I am saying they knew there was a chance they would die and they made the decision to take that chance. By their decision they have to take some responsibility for what happened. I was in the same position in 2001. I decided to take the risk knowing full well the dangers. Thankfully I survived but if I had not then I would have shared the responsibility of my actions.

[yourauntbob]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Edited March 16, 2013 by yourauntbob

[metisdead]

Posts with messed up quotes have been removed. Hopefully an upgrade for this bug will be available soon.

[waza]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

[philw]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

How come none ( MIB) have been caught, charged or arrested ????

30,000 + plus troops in a couple of square kilometres even failed to nail whoever set the fires.

How can that be ?? ( clue, kansas is to the west..)

Please do keep on flogging the same dead horse of the MIB and the massively armed aliens who provoked the army....

Fact is most of the people shot ( murdered ) by the RTA were unarmed Thai civilians.

Like it or not, that is the fact.

An enquiry and apportionment of responsibility is a necessity for the country to go forwards.

[coolheadz]

Must have pretty amazing eyesight to see exactly where those speeding bullets came from.

When your shot in the back its pretty easy to figure out what direction it came from

It depends on what direction the victim was facing at the time he was shot.

[hellodolly]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

How come none ( MIB) have been caught, charged or arrested ????

30,000 + plus troops in a couple of square kilometres even failed to nail whoever set the fires.

How can that be ?? ( clue, kansas is to the west..)

Please do keep on flogging the same dead horse of the MIB and the massively armed aliens who provoked the army....

Fact is most of the people shot ( murdered ) by the RTA were unarmed Thai civilians.

Like it or not, that is the fact.

An enquiry and apportionment of responsibility is a necessity for the country to go forwards.

Nice try. fact is most of the soldiers in war are not in the front lines fighting. Keep on inferring false hoods and no one will say you said that.

They were every much a part of it as the armed members who were shooting and killing honest people doing the job they were hired to do.

Be precise and tell us all what Thaksin hired the red shirts to do and called in encouragement for them. Or follow your usual pattern and disappear. Your choice. No I am not interested in other things at the moment. So stick to the question.

Edited March 16, 2013 by hellodolly

[philw]

Democracy monument was the first time that shots were fired, i dont see any MIB or weapons among the protesters. Who was antagonizing who in the beginning? The military shooting while having no threat to them.

Its a bit off topic but you are wrong there is footage on you tube of a blackshirt firing a grenade into the army position

How come none ( MIB) have been caught, charged or arrested ????

30,000 + plus troops in a couple of square kilometres even failed to nail whoever set the fires.

How can that be ?? ( clue, kansas is to the west..)

Please do keep on flogging the same dead horse of the MIB and the massively armed aliens who provoked the army....

Fact is most of the people shot ( murdered ) by the RTA were unarmed Thai civilians.

Like it or not, that is the fact.

An enquiry and apportionment of responsibility is a necessity for the country to go forwards.

Nice try. fact is most of the soldiers in war are not in the front lines fighting. Keep on inferring false hoods and no one will say you said that.

They were every much a part of it as the armed members who were shooting and killing honest people doing the job they were hired to do.

Be precise and tell us all what Thaksin hired the red shirts to do and called in encouragement for them. Or follow your usual pattern and disappear. Your choice. No I am not interested in other things at the moment. So stick to the question.

Doll off dolly........

"The front lines fighting ' ????

It wasn't quite the Somme.

Answer the real question, why have there been so few , if ANY, arrests of the armed the armed insurrectionists / terrorists / red shirted gun toting loonies ???

500 heavily armed MIB ???

My Mother's the Pope............

Terrorist arsonists who created such mayhem, boiled down to two kids arrested and not convicted for shoplifting..................

People like you are fast to call others in the pay of Thaksin and frankly it just shows your disingenuity.

The Army shot and accountability is required.

From the top to the bottom.

Would you agree ???