The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Thaihome

Actually Siam Voices and BP both but the word bullets in brackets, which I guess you just forgot to do.

All the quotes cited in both articles are to Thai versions which BP makes the point that he and Saksith made the posts separately but at the same time. Which I assume is saying they translated it separately.

Would be interested to hear from other Thai speakers if what Suthep actually was saying was that the people ran into the bullets or was he saying the people ran into areas where bullets were being shot.

ะวิ่งเข้ามาใส่


TH

DrB0b

I didn't see anything in that article specifically mentioning bullets. It says "...dtaai phrawa wing khao maa sai". That seems to mean to me that "they died because they ran in". I interpret that as meaning that the Soldiers fired because they were charged by the crowds. While I don't agree that that's what happened it does make far more sense of the statement by Suthep. "ran into areas where the bullets were being shot" doesn't make much sense, it still begs the question of who was being shot at and why would people run into a hail of bullets anyway?

__________________

SteveCM

Not unusually, you "guess" wrong. I "forgot to do" nothing. The Siam Voices post I quoted in #493 is exactly as it appeared when I posted the excerpt from it. Follow the included link to it and you will find that Saksith has himself since further updated his original post and has added a comment about his translation.

Got any more inventive mud you want to sling?

Thaihome

I can’t seem to find where Saksith says he updated the OP, but I will take your word he has done so since it now shows:


I apologize if I incorrectly accused you of editing what was posted. Much more likely that Saksith came back and put the brackets in once he was called on it. Also very much like him to not acknowledge that.

Indeed Saksith has posted about his [mis]translation and has explained:
"…So, in this context I think it is clear and legit that he said that the victims were running into the line of fire and thus into the bullets"

Would seem that Saksith’s lack of English skills is showing as there is a big difference between saying they “ran into bullets” and “running into the line of fire”.

The comments here have mainly been derisive of the phrase “ran into bullets” when it appears that is not what he said. I doubt that many of comments here would be the same if it had been posted that Suthep said they ran into a crossfire.

I still find it interesting the BP posted the same translation on his blog but claims he did it separately from Saksith but some how came up with the same words, which b0b and others I have discussed this with says are not correct and misleading.
TH

StrontiumDog

Seems to be quite a lot of misleading stuff on blogs of late...the propaganda war is in full effect, still I am also surprised BP would get this wrong.

It is good to know that Suthep wont be getting the "faux pas of the year" award just yet. It is only March though...plenty of time

__________________
"Slavery is the daughter of darkness; an ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction; ambition and intrigue take advantage of the credulity and inexperience of men who have no political, economic or civil knowledge. They mistake pure illusion for reality, license for freedom, treason for patriotism, vengeance for justice."-Simón Bolívar

StrontiumDog

^ on this...Terryfrd works for the Bangkok Post....

terryfrd Terry Fredrickson

[at]Saksith Take it frm an Eng. teacher, nothing wrong w. your skills. Our ppl say quote went unnoticed. Want more info on context.Are checking

SteveCM

"UPDATE 2:" strikes me as quite a reliable indicator *

Apology accepted - and there's no "if" about it.

It would be "interesting" if he had posted the same translation - but he didn't. Hence my introduction of it as
Just in passing, you've achieved your 15 seconds of Twitter fame:

Saksith Saksith Saiyasombut
Also, some farang expat forum attest me "lack of English skills" teakdoor.com/thailand-and-a… pff!
1 hour ago


Hence the answering tweet from the acknowledged English/Thai linguist that SD has already posted:
On whether Saksith's - and presumably Bangkok Pundit's - was a mis-translation (should I make a point of putting the "mis" in [ ]'s?), judging by comments on Twitter as well as on the original post the jury still seems to be out. I look forward to seeing the result of Terry Frederickson's checking as and when it appears.

For the record, I take facts and evidence - and therefore accurate quoting of either - very seriously. Editing original material so as to alter its meaning is to me a complete non-starter. As a rule, I'm even extremely reluctant to highlight sections of original text so as to draw attention to them; the more correct course is usually to make reference to the section(s) in a follow-on post - but that can end up taking too much space for the purpose.



* Since your posts, there has been this exchange on Twitter:

bangkokpundit bangkokpundit [at]
[at]Saksith FYI, for the BP post "but they died as they ran into [bullets]"...
1 hour ago


Saksith Saksith Saiyasombut [at]
.[at]bangkokpundit I adapted that too at some point
1 hour ago

and this note (in reference to "[the bullets]" added to Saksith's post:

*Note: For the sake of transparency it should be noted that the brackets were added at a later time.

SteveCM

Just received the following e-mail from Bangkok Pundit:


Steve,

Am not a member of Teakdoor so can you please post the following:

"Will let Saksith speak for himself.

1. To DrB0b. You stated that instead of "but they died as they ran into [bullets]" that it should be "but they died as they ran into [areas where the bullets were being shot]". Well, would disagree. And one reason that the post was delayed - and that Saksith's post appeared first - was that wanted to ask for the opinions of a translate what was the word after sai or ใส่ and they said bullets unprompted. Thai is often vague and extra words are need to be added when translating into English. The way Suthep has structured his sentence with the use of sai or ใส่ means it is not referring to a place, but to an object/thing. If it was referring to a place, it would have been something like "วิ่งเข้ามาเอง". Given this, what is the object? Given the context, bullets is the only logical fit.

2. To ThaiHome. You stated that "I still find it interesting the BP posted the same translation on his blog but claims he did it separately from Saksith but some how came up with the same words, which b0b and others I have discussed this with says are not correct and misleading". KrisKoles posted the link to an ASTV story on twitter with Kris' own translation. Both posts give a h/t to Kris. We actually word the translation differently, but well there are only so many ways to translate a single sentence. Had no idea Saksith would write a post, but well given the inflammatory nature of what Suthep am not surprised".

BP

..................


Note: I actually omitted the "h/t to Kris" ("h/t" being "hat tip") from both versions because its mention appeared to me to be just blogger's courtesy and extraneous to the content. With hindsight, as alluded to by BP, it does have at least some minor relevance as being a common factor of two separate blog posts - and BP's version appeared long after I posted Saksith's. While I always link to the source so that it can be seen in its entirety, I will include any "h/t" in future quoting.

SteveCM

DrB0b

I would require more context, everybody I ask has a different interrpretation of what he said.
I'd also like to point out that the words after "sai" are "Nai Suthep glao", "said Mr Suthep" nothing else. Anybody can fill in what they like between sai and nai. I loathe Suthep and I believe strongly that the army murdered those people but I also feel that it's very important that we tell the truth about what people are saying, if we translate in line with our own prejudices then we can easily be seen as liars.

I'm aware of how sai works in Thai and the Army is also a thing.

I understand that we farangs have a strong urge to treat this whole thing as a comedy but it's not. It's deadly, in every sense of the word, serious.

Suthep is hateful, there's no denying that, but we shouldn't allow our revulsion to lead to mis-interpretation or mis-translation.

SteveCM

For example?

Mr Lick

Having fired an SA80 rifle (5.56 tracer ammunition) with SUSAT optical sight attached for a number of years i can understand some of Sutheps rantings. Indeed what he mentions, in his usual inept manner, did cross my mind when the number of wounded to fatalities were announced following the clearing of the city in May 2010.

From 300 metres most competent people familiar with the weapon would be able to score 50 hits from 50 rounds in an area the size of a banjo on a static target.

I have never fired an AK-47 or M-16 but would be surprised if those weapons with an appropriate quality optical sight attached would not produce similar results given that they are military approved assault rifles.

The muzzle velocity of an SA80 is just under 1000 metres per second, similar to the M-16 whereas the AK47 has a MV of around 700 M/S. I have no idea where/what distance the Army snipers were positioned from their targets on the day, however, the effective range of the AK47 is around 400 metres compared with 550 metres (point target) of the M-16.
Additional factors which would also come into play when selecting targets is that a fired round will start to fall after a certain distance and the flight may also may be affected by side winds.

Hazz mentioned earlier a story concerning snipers in Bosnia who would aim slightly forward of a moving target to ensure a direct hit and this appears to be logical although again i am unsure as to what particular distance was involved.

1000 metres per second would seem pretty damn swift although when firing a tracer round the bullet is clearly visible over a distance of 300 metres for longer than one would think. Certainly a window large enough for a human to alter his original position prior to the round striking. 0.3 of a second, try it, one might be surprised. 1 foot possibly 2, is possible, especially in a situation where demonstators were in action, firing missiles. This could explain some of the rounds striking main organs and not limbs.

If indeed the Army snipers were only targeting limbs, given that their human targets were moving and the distance of fire involved, fatalities were inevitable.

Suthep's rather clumsy explanation does little to enhance his reputation although any competent military advisor familiar with small arms fire would/should have been aware of the risks given the range of fire.

I'm surprised (not) that it has taken almost 9 months for the government/army think tank to come up with this submission.

Butterfly

^ good post, hopefully the brain dead red supporters Stevie and DrB will take notice

Tom Sawyer

B0b and Steve - please..

We're all impressed with your knowledge of history and laws and your language skills. But let's not lose sight of the main point. The army, under control of the 'government' (they can't have it both ways), fired on and killed mostly unarmed civilian protesters.

Let's refocus. You're delighting the opposition

__________________
My mind is not for rent to any God or Government, There's no hope for your discontent - the changes are permanent!

StrontiumDog

News Headlines

Thai Official Says Protesters Ran Into Bullets

Published: Tuesday, 8 Mar 2011 | 10:50 PM ET

LONDON, March 8, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- In a March 8 interview with ASTV, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban made statements regarding the killings of pro-democracy protesters in April and May of 2010. He said, "We never wanted to kill civilians or use police/army force to crack down on the demonstration, but they were killed because they ran into it." Robert Amsterdam, founding partner of Amsterdam & Peroff LLP, a lawyer acting on behalf of members of the Red Shirt movement, issued the following response to Suthep's comments.

"We take the rather bold position that in fact 91 Thai citizens did not 'run into' the bullets that killed them, but rather that these bullets were indiscriminately fired into crowds of unarmed demonstrators who had no route to safety by the Royal Thai Army and police," Amsterdam said. "When a government considers the act of protesting for democratic rights the same as a suicide, then how can the victims expect any justice from their courts? Let no one doubt the urgent need for an independent inquiry into the Bangkok massacres, especially following these inexcusable and abominable statements from the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand." Amsterdam continued, "Almost a year after these mass killings of protesters, the government has still not completed any investigation nor held any official responsible. Instead, the architects of the violence were handed promotions.

It's time for Suthep to put down the Gaddafi book of public relations, and begin answering long-standing questions about the events of April and May." Deputy Prime Minister Suthep, who is responsible for national security, is one of the officials included along with Prime Minister Abhisit facing a no-confidence vote tabled by opposition parties in parliament. The debate will take place this week, and is expected to raise a number of allegations contained in the Red Shirts' application before the International Criminal Court (ICC), filed January 31st.

A copy of the ICC application and accompanying materials is available on Robert Amsterdam Thailand.

SOURCE Amsterdam & Peroff LLP

Same report, one with added bits available here too...

http://www.stockmarketsreview.com/news/115879/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...117625568.html

StrontiumDog

^ It's going global... included the entire report just because...

StrontiumDog

I sought out the advice of a Thai friend who is pretty much fluent in English, she agrees that the last section วิ่งเข้ามาใส่ translates as ran into, with the implied meaning of bullets/army (the protesters dying being mentioned just before this), but she was clear that bullets weren't explicitly mentioned (I also showed her the longer version, so she would get a feel for the context).

My friend says the phrase implies a physical 'run into' and often has a negative use. I asked her if it could mean encounter or meet (as in the English, "I ran into an old friend the other day") and she said in this context it does not. I checked with her several times and she was certain it meant a physical running into, thus the meaning for her was that the red shirts ran into the bullets being fired by the army....the suggestion is that it was the red shirts fault for dying she says. She was sure of this. The army were just firing their guns....

The phrase วิ่งเข้ามาใส่ (transliteration; wing khao maa Sai) can be used when 2 people quite literally run into each other she said, as in physically bump into one another, but not in a positive way usually.

Worth noting that her initial response was to laugh at the ridiculousness of this statement. After that she sat down and said, "why would he say that...?"

I explained.

Anyway, the award for faux pas of the year may yet go to Suthep..!

That's all I've got. I've tried Might be wrong, might be right, but it doesn't matter anymore I guess, as it has gone all over as is.

SteveCM

The "opposition" being ThaiHome with his evidence-free/false accusations? Sorry, I'll take time and space to dismantle those as and when I see the need. Presumably you don't mean Butterfly with his inane noises-off.....

I agree that the main point is as you describe - but simply re-hammering it over and over doesn't move it forward. Nor is it a distraction to recognise Suthep as a key and responsible part of that controlling government; likewise the sheer Gadaffi-like cynicism of what he said (with or without "[the bullets]" - see comment below) is a key component of what's wrong and I don't see how one can sensibly ignore it. In any case, this element of the whole sorry saga will go wherever it's due to go whatever we say or don't say here.

Finally, combining both the language issue and your main point, see this detailed comment by Thai101 added to Saksith's post:


I agree that Saksith's interpretation is reasonable. The inclusion of the quote in Thai as well as the use of brackets makes it difficult to claim the translation is misleading. The Thai is right there to be read, after all.

That said, I'll provide a different theory, for the sake of argument.

What or who exactly is the object of the verb phrase วิ่งเข้ามาใส่?

Suthep may have meant: วิ่งเข้ามาใส่[เจ้าหน้าที่ทหาร] "ran at [the soldiers]", which implies that the protesters charged the soldiers, leaving the soldiers no choice but to fire on the protesters. IF this were actually what happened, from a law enforcement standpoint this might actually be a reasonable defense. For instance, say an American police officer drew his weapon on a suspect, if the suspect charged the officer and there was cause to believe suspect was dangerous, the officer might very well shoot the suspect. An investigation would necessarily ensue, but this kind of thing happens not infrequently.

HOWEVER--all the photographs, video footage, firsthand accounts, leaked documents, and other evidence we've seen about what happened during those days indicates that this is not what happened in the vast majority of gunshot deaths. So this interpretation is no better than the first.

The way I see it, there are primarily two idiomatic ways to interpret what Suthep said:

"Protesters got caught in the crossfire" (a lie that implies security forces had some valid cause to be using live bullets in the first place, which they did not, and civilians got in the way by accident)

"Protesters charged at the soldiers" (a lie that implies security forces had no choice but to shoot because of perceived threat, whether real or imagined)

I think Saksith's interpretation is still the more likely one, but I thought I'd present this as an alternative.

sabang

War crimes were obviously committed- the real question as it pertains to this thread is whether the PM was complicit, informed, or even in charge.
The answer? I do not know.

SteveCM

^^^
SD, I appreciate you posting that. I say "appreciate" because (forgive me if I'm wrong) I rather think you'd have preferred it if she had come out with a different interpretation and reaction

FWIW, it matches almost exactly my own experience with three English-speaking Thai friends today - none of whom, frankly, gives a flying f**k about politics.


^
Sabang, I agree. And I don't know either.

StrontiumDog

I'm only interested in the truth SteveCM. I don't have a side and don't care for those who have taken one. If something is wrong, then it is wrong. I'm interested in responsibility being taken and closure for those who lost loved ones.

If you think about it, I wouldn't have posted that or sought the advice of my Thai friend at all, if I had some hidden agenda or had taken a side. I did so because I wanted to find out the truth. I could've avoided posting that quite easily (ah, the beauty of irrefutable logic).

I have, and will continue to be, critical of all sides. You have apparently missed my numerous posts criticising all and sundry.

I don't see a 'better' side in this ridiculousness. For some reason many others do.....

sabang

Then I refer you to 1976, 1992 & now 2010.
You will get no answers from the government.
Surely that is obvious. We needs look elsewhere.

SteveCM

Point taken. As I said, forgive me if I'm wrong.

Likewise. Certainly, I focus my attention on the current government in particular and the enabling system as a whole - those being for me the key elements that need to be radically changed for the "better".

hazz

Irrespective of what might have been lost or gained in translation. Its clear that unless you the deputy PM's mom, his statement can only be interpreted as dismissive, thoughtless and uncaring, which would fit his personality.

I recon hes still a stromg contender to the TD biggest foot in mouth Award 2011, sponsored by edwina currie.

On a serious note, you have got to feel for the thai voter; all the parties are clearly irredeemably corrupt and uninterested in making thailand a better place. Even if you go for the least worse option you will have problems working out who to vote for; its not a choice I would want to be making.

harrybarracuda

Given that the average Thai voter makes their decision based on what they can get out of it, Thailand really is a place where the electorate are probably as corruptible as the leadership. Just dealing in different numbers. I should add: in the short term.

Thaihome

Update #2 – Appears that Saksith added the note after our exchange on the brackets. Saksith tweeted (man, I hate that word) 13 hours ago: “Therefore I think it is legit to translate it that way, tho' I acknowledge I should have put 'bullets' in brackets right from the beginning”.

When bloggers go back and change their posts and then later add more to cover their ass, there is going to be the appearance of edits by the re-poster due to timing issues.


Stevie, I have apologized for accusing you taking out the brackets, you can accept it or not, I really don’t give a fuck.

My first post on this was to ask if others agreed with the insertion of the word “bullets” following the “ran into”. It is at least agreed he did not use the word “bullets”, but what exactly he meant is still being discussed. So far, it would seem that people who are of the opinion, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary in most cases, that the Army maliciously fired on groups of unarmed peaceful protestersin what they characterize as nothing more then murder, seem to be the ones that agree. Others with more objective opinions seem to be less agreeable to the word “bullets” and have offered other versions, such as “ran towards the soldiers or “ran into the live fire zone”. It certainly has created a bit of a cyber storm and to me it just shows how translations are subject to translator’s political bias.

The main point of my posts has been somewhat lost in all this. My point was that Saksith’s use of the phrase “ran into bullets” has elicited a number of derisive posts based on the ridiculousness of the phrase.

As I said earlier, if Saksith had used the phrase “ran into the crossfire” in the headline (which he would never do for reasons explained later) then little would have come out of the whole thing. But instead he used the phrase “ran into bullets”. His own latter comment says “So, in this context I think it is clear and legit that he said that the victims were running into the line of fire and thus into the bullets”. I questioned how running into the line of fire is the same as saying running into bullets. The two are not the same thing and suggested his English skills may have something to do with that. That of course started a whole new mini-storm with the Thailand English teachers joining in the fray with the seemingly saying there the same. I still maintain they are not the same and the post above show many people don’t think so either.

Then we get Stevies e-mail from Bangkok Pundit where he attributes to b0b my suggestion that maybe the context was “but they died as they ran into [areas where the bullets were being shot]" which in fact b0b said didn’t make sense to him and it seemed more like “fired because they were charged by the crowds”. I wonder if BP actually read the thread or was it being quoted in an e-mail and he mistakenly thought b0b had said what I actually posted. Doesn’t actually matter much, just found it interesting that BP was sending an e-mail to responding to specific members here. Though I have myself sent e-mail to bloggers asking for clarification, they were of a general nature and did not mention specific members or quote thier posts. This is an escalation of the member discussions here I am not sure I like.

I do agree the translations on Saksith and BP’s post are slightly different, but both BP and Saksith used the specific phrase “ran into [bullets]”. The appropriateness of that still seems to be subject to discussion. If the phrase actually came from KrisKoles then both are guilty of jumping on the bandwagon to ridicule Suthep based on a divisive translation.

Then we get a article from CNBC where they say the quote comes from a March 8, 2001 interview Suthep did with ASTV (completely inaccurate, it was a speech on March 5th at what was basically a pep rally for Democrat MP’s) and they go one to use the same words that Saksith, and BP used without any checking to see if that translation may have been influenced by the political bias of the translators and then followed it with a response from Amsterdam. No attempt made to contact Suthep or any government agency for clarification, just print what Amsterdam issued. No attempt to explain what Amsterdam’s actual position is other then to say “acting on behalf of members of the Red Shirt movement”. Just a bit of omission there wouldn’t you say?


Then we have the remarkable comment by the well known objective observer Thai101.

....
The way I see it, there are primarily two idiomatic ways to interpret what Suthep said:

"Protesters got caught in the crossfire" (a lie that implies security forces had some valid cause to be using live bullets in the first place, which they did not, and civilians got in the way by accident)

"Protesters charged at the soldiers" (a lie that implies security forces had no choice but to shoot because of perceived threat, whether real or imagined)


Amazing that Thai101 has not seen any video or photographic evidence of the protestors charging the army, nor any evidence of any crossfire, which would means the Army was being shot at or subject to grenade attacks, to say nothing of large homemade rockets and petrol bombs.

There is an ample evidence, video, photographic, and eye witness of what really happened, but the Thai101’s (and many here) of the cyber world do not say that, instead creating a whole different reality. Most of those people did not actually witness any of the events. People that were living in the Rama IV and Ding Deang areas at the time tend to have much different opinions then the Thai10's.

All the storm surrounding this whole post comes from the fact that there is large, vocal group of bloggers, tweeters, and members here that will go to great length to be sure to portray the circumstances surrounding the riots on April 10th and May 14th to 19th as the Army shooting peaceful, unarmed protestors that were in no way a threat to anyone.

There is no way Saksith would ever make a post with the headline “Thai deputy PM: Protesters died because they ran into the crossfie” because that would be admitting there was a crossfire and all that implies.
TH