Commission Says 'men In Black' May Have Got Cooperation From Red Shirts

phiphidon · September 14, 2012

YOU....

if you don't wish to follow proper protocol and netiquette.... go elsewhere.

.

< childish name-calling snipped >

You could of course just not get overly pedantic about others style of posting/ quoting or not read the posts if you find it so deeply offensive...

If it breaks the forum rules (improper quoting), it is not just a "style of posting" to be ignored. Particularly, for me, when it involves posts about me.

What is with you guys that you insist on dragging these simple facts, that all posters are expected to comply with, out into some wholly unnecessary snarky discourse?

The netiquette are just common sense, such as the above post. These protocols aren't unreasonable.

Common sense tells you not to just type any text and throw it into a non-annotated quote box and say so and so said this.

At the end of the day, you and every other member agreed to comply with them when you joined.

.

If you want netiquette tets go for it. Are you stating for the record that the quotes that I said were yours, from the same thread, are not?

Before you answer they are from this thread http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/518677-men-in-black-are-policemen-chalerm-claims/#entry4908402 Post's 2 and 15. There that'll give you time to go back and delete them.

phiphidon · September 14, 2012

Sorry you felt the need to rant about the use of one word "bystanders"; with reasonable reading comprehension skills you might actually have taken it in the correct context that is was used in ie. they were present but not participating in armed terrorism.

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Well thats plainly not true otherwise all those red shirts that were jailed for breaking the emergency decree would also be guilty of terrorism and that was not the case was it?

jonclark · September 14, 2012

Inciting violence is one thing, shooting groups of unarmed civilians is another.

Ok let's hear from you now: who were these unared civilians. Were they indeed unarmed, were they just civilians or were they part of the red shirts? Were they aware of the war zone they created or were they just waiting for the bus when they got shot. You have a mouthful today, touching a degree of sheer arrogance, so now inform us.

The problem here is that the MIB mingled with the innocent protesters, in effect creating a human shield. It was not the fault of the protesters, that their grievances were hijacked. by an armed element. However had the army taken no live fire action and allowed the armed groups to continue firing on the soldiers as passive targets, for how long would that remain a viable alternative.

The MIB mingled and created a human shield, they hid behind the innocence of the protesters rather than face the army in a straight fight. Imagine if the army has done the same thing and shot at the red shirts before hiding behind a line of high school students to avoid being shot themselves. The admonishment would have been total.

The innocence of the vast majority of protesters was the MIB biggest weapon and when it failed, they fled leaving the old, the weak and injured to face the consequences at ratchaprasong and the army to take the blame.

Pure cowardice.

philw · September 14, 2012

Inciting violence is one thing, shooting groups of unarmed civilians is another.

Ok let's hear from you now: who were these unared civilians. Were they indeed unarmed, were they just civilians or were they part of the red shirts? Were they aware of the war zone they created or were they just waiting for the bus when they got shot. You have a mouthful today, touching a degree of sheer arrogance, so now inform us.

Suggest you talk to the relatives of the dead nurses, journalists, taxi drivers, old guy shot in head eating noodles, families of 2,500 injured and then reflect a bit............

It was a generally peaceful demonstration until the state of emergency was declared by AV and he ( presumably ) authorised the input of 30,000 troops and their gungho officers wanting to put the peasants back in their place.

Calling them "terrorists" was quite a mistake in my opinion and with luck, he and his subordinates ( and the generals he answers to ) will eventually be brought before a Thai court.

ramrod711 · September 14, 2012

"the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up."

I suppose that by definition of "unknown assailant," it means that it is quite possible that the protester was killed by the as yet unobserved MIB?

Who puts a time on their arrival? And what was their purpose if not igniting violence?

Using your rational it's equally possible that the unknown assailant was in fact a ninja pygmy with a grudge to bear against those taller than him and a particular hatred for the colour red... it's just not very likely is it?

It's far more plausible that they were shot by one of the thousands of armed soldiers that were readily observed by everyone in the area, armed to the teeth for what? Crowd control of unarmed, peaceful protesters?

Does it not occur to you that just perhaps the MIBs were called in because of incidents like this, for the protection of the protesters and to create a visible deterrent to the heavily armed military that had the protesters out numbered.... no I guess not.

WHAT?

KireB · September 14, 2012

It was a generally peaceful demonstration until the state of emergency was declared by AV and he ( presumably ) authorised the input of 30,000 troops and their gungho officers wanting to put the peasants back in their place.

Calling them "terrorists" was quite a mistake in my opinion and with luck, he and his subordinates ( and the generals he answers to ) will eventually be brought before a Thai court.

When a group of people decided that lobbing grenades at public places, government buildings and banks was fun and a peaceful thing to do,and red shirts steal/snatch weapons from security forces, shopping malls in central Bangkok had to close down again, blood was splashed in the streets, and so on the authorities has no choice in calling the SOE. A curfew was needed in Bangkok. Don't throw in the old chess nut that this was a peaceful protest, Bangkok was in a state of paranoia and everyone was scared.

Besides, why would truly peaceful protesters care about security forces in the city? Is that a reason to attack and kill soldiers?

phiphidon · September 14, 2012

When dealing with a 515 page report expressed as a few paragraphs in the OP it's a bit difficult to do anything other than select extracts. Rather than sympathising with the brainwashed why don't apply some of your non brainwashed views to the points that ferangled has pointed out earlier, or don't you accept them?

I don't accept anything that Ferangled has said in his umpteen posts on this thread. I have previously posted that I think the extract provided on this thread is fair. All Ferangled (& others) have done is twist selected pieces of the piece to suit their agenda. I haven't seen any red-shirt supporter accept the piece overall. Do you?

You say the "piece" is fair but do not not answer any of ferangleds misgivings on it and then ask me whether I will accept it - by which I presume you wish me to declare that I find the piece fair?

Of course I don't accept it - WHEN I've seen and read all 515 pages of the full report and not a nation precis piece I will be in a better position to comment.

maidu · September 14, 2012

Much of the report's findings are things that close observers of news and photos of that time were aware of. It's good the report came out, and I hope there's follow-up and disciplinary action taken. My overall impression of the issues, is that the Reds came to Bangkok, most of them were paid to come by you-know-who, either directly or indirectly. A core faction of the Reds (including armed 'men in Black') seemed to be protectors (of Reds) and inciters, led by Seh Daeng. The inciting part is expressed in the report.

It's of great credit to the Armed forces that many more Reds weren't killed. In most other countries of the world, if a large portion of their capital city had been commandeered by rowdies with petro-soaked barricades, the results would have been a lot more strong tactics by security forces. The amount of restraint by Abhisit and the army was exemplary. The Reds should wake up each morning and say a prayer to thank whatever deity they pray to, that they're alive and well. If I had been the top banana at that juncture (in charge of security for Bkk), I would have come down sooner and harder.

nurofiend · September 14, 2012

@whybother

I want to get this cleared up once and for all, as obviously judging by the 10 likes, 10 people have also got it wrong.

you said

"If you had watched the video that this photo came from, you would see that these guys were amongst the protesters and shooting at the army"

you said

"I was suggesting that he look at the video to see that these guys were amongst the red shirts and shooting at the army."

then with the bank analogy you suggested

"Just in this case, there were some bank staff that were involved with the bank robbers"

This is a clear hinted suggestion by you that they were being helped by the protesters/red shirts in this instance.

Then you say

"I didn't say anything about the protesters. I said that the shooters were amongst them"(quote limit reached)

...But you did say something about the protesters didn't you?

and why deny that you were suggesting that the protesters were somewhat helping as accomplices in this instance, when that is clearly what you were getting at and hinting?

Then you say

"<deleted>? They weren't army just because they had riot shields. Is that simple enough for you?"

I'm terribly sorry but it is you that have the reading and complete misunderstanding problem of what i was saying, i never suggested or hinted that it was the army doing the shooting in that instance, i never suggested or hinted that you were saying it was the protesters/red shirts doing the shooting rather than the MIB in that instance.

i was suggesting that you were saying the protesters/red shirts (you know those guy's that you didn't mention?) were helping the shooters, be it by providing cover or whatever other thought you might have.

and i stand by the viewpoint of that's what you were getting at, no matter how much you dress it up like you only mentioned the protesters just because they were there at the same time too.

i hope you finally understand.

Edited September 14, 2012 by nurofiend

473geo · September 14, 2012

Much of the report's findings are things that close observers of news and photos of that time were aware of. It's good the report came out, and I hope there's follow-up and disciplinary action taken. My overall impression of the issues, is that the Reds came to Bangkok, most of them were paid to come by you-know-who, either directly or indirectly. A core faction of the Reds (including armed 'men in Black') seemed to be protectors (of Reds) and inciters, led by Seh Daeng. The inciting part is expressed in the report.

It's of great credit to the Armed forces that many more Reds weren't killed. In most other countries of the world, if a large portion of their capital city had been commandeered by rowdies with petro-soaked barricades, the results would have been a lot more strong tactics by security forces. The amount of restraint by Abhisit and the army was exemplary. The Reds should wake up each morning and say a prayer to thank whatever deity they pray to, that they're alive and well. If I had been the top banana at that juncture (in charge of security for Bkk), I would have come down sooner and harder.

And there you have it folks in a nutshell,......... sooner........if the government, like many of the posters on Tvisa at the time, had not been so complacent regarding the strength of feeling and the numbers that would travel to Bangkok, we would not have arrived at the point we did.

The government underestimated, failed to control the crowd, failed to guide them to an appropriate location, and failed to poice them in a satisfactory manner.......complacency, lack of forsight and planning, failure to manage.......the major crimes of the government resulting in the carnage that followed

Edited September 14, 2012 by 473geo

KireB · September 14, 2012

The government underestimated, failed to control the crowd, failed to guide them to an appropriate location, and failed to poice them in a satisfactory manner.......complacency, lack of forsight and planning, failure to manage.......the major crimes of the government resulting in the carnage that followed

Good point and to a certain extend true, but it's those who incited, triggered and asked for (Mr T., 2010:"please bring your children") that are responsible, They took advantage of the situation!

rubl · September 14, 2012

When dealing with a 515 page report expressed as a few paragraphs in the OP it's a bit difficult to do anything other than select extracts. Rather than sympathising with the brainwashed why don't apply some of your non brainwashed views to the points that ferangled has pointed out earlier, or don't you accept them?

I don't accept anything that Ferangled has said in his umpteen posts on this thread. I have previously posted that I think the extract provided on this thread is fair. All Ferangled (& others) have done is twist selected pieces of the piece to suit their agenda. I haven't seen any red-shirt supporter accept the piece overall. Do you?

You say the "piece" is fair but do not not answer any of ferangleds misgivings on it and then ask me whether I will accept it - by which I presume you wish me to declare that I find the piece fair?

Of course I don't accept it - WHEN I've seen and read all 515 pages of the full report and not a nation precis piece I will be in a better position to comment.

Well, surely we want to be clear about facts, now don't we? Mind you, the 'I will be in a better position to comment' doesn't give much guarantee really remembering various comments made by you and others before.

Anyway, greetings from Bangkok

jdinasia · September 14, 2012

Back to the OP

The operation by the 'men in black' were very instrumental in creating and elevating the violence with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives," page 184 of the report read.

"with the aim of provoking" ....

There were also statements in there about protesters being killed from an area controlled by the reds .....amazing only to people that didn't understand why the MIB were there.

phiphidon · September 14, 2012

When dealing with a 515 page report expressed as a few paragraphs in the OP it's a bit difficult to do anything other than select extracts. Rather than sympathising with the brainwashed why don't apply some of your non brainwashed views to the points that ferangled has pointed out earlier, or don't you accept them?

I don't accept anything that Ferangled has said in his umpteen posts on this thread. I have previously posted that I think the extract provided on this thread is fair. All Ferangled (& others) have done is twist selected pieces of the piece to suit their agenda. I haven't seen any red-shirt supporter accept the piece overall. Do you?

You say the "piece" is fair but do not not answer any of ferangleds misgivings on it and then ask me whether I will accept it - by which I presume you wish me to declare that I find the piece fair?

Of course I don't accept it - WHEN I've seen and read all 515 pages of the full report and not a nation precis piece I will be in a better position to comment.

Well, surely we want to be clear about facts, now don't we? Mind you, the 'I will be in a better position to comment' doesn't give much guarantee really remembering various comments made by you and others before.

Anyway, greetings from Bangkok

Would you comment on a 515 page report based on seeing a The Nation precis of it (apart from agreeing with every part that is negative wrt the UDD or PTP of course)?

"Mind you, the 'I will be in a better position to comment' doesn't give much guarantee really remembering various comments made by you and others before"

Why would that be then rubl, because I'd likely offer a different viewpoint to you? You've already prejudged me so I might as well say nothing, dare say a few on here will be relieved.

Lets see what your position is after the first results come out from the inquests.

MAJIC · September 14, 2012

Yes! most of us are aware that the Black Shirts were assisted by the Red Shirts,and by the same token the Black Shirts were there to do some dirty work for the Red Shirts! seems as though the Commission is not going to reveal,who paid the Black Shirts?

I wonder why? must be someone close to the Reds, because even Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm claims he knows,who they were, and if so,he must be protecting someone,.......I wonder who? suffice to say: no Chrystal Ball is needed to work that out.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MAJIC

rubl · September 14, 2012

Would you comment on a 515 page report based on seeing a The Nation precis of it (apart from agreeing with every part that is negative wrt the UDD or PTP of course)?

"Mind you, the 'I will be in a better position to comment' doesn't give much guarantee really remembering various comments made by you and others before"

Why would that be then rubl, because I'd likely offer a different viewpoint to you? You've already prejudged me so I might as well say nothing, dare say a few on here will be relieved.

Lets see what your position is after the first results come out from the inquests.

The inquests are concentrated on 'easy' cases where it might be soldiers did the shooting which resulted in death. No real surprise, soldiers 'exchanging' fire with peaceful protesters are bound to hit something or someone every once in a while even if as Robert A. wrote they need to fire thousands on rounds

So, I can safely ignore all posts you made on/in this particular topic as you rather wait for the 515 page report? May I assume you'll wait for the English version

monkfish · September 14, 2012

Unfortunately I have to say I was never more disgusted in my entire life than when I was on this forum on the 10th of April 2010,

Following the events of the evening almost real time on another famous Thai forum and reposting pictures on TV

I remember got a 7 day posting ban for telling one particular TV member to f-xxx for applauding the massacre of civilians,

To tell you the truth since then I entirely lost my hope of Farang Human Civilisation in Thailand.

But anyway even still even today they are still defending it to the very end.

hellodolly · September 14, 2012

There's no doubt both sides were to blame.........however it's imperative that government forces are held to the highest standards, randomly shooting at protestors is completely out of order, and encircling and entrapping them even more so. Complete innocents lost their lives at this protest, and that was a national disgrace.

This was a hellish circle, a scar on the nation.

They did not shoot at protester's. They waited until they were seizing public property and refusing to move on. Some of them were armed and had other non uniformed red shirts build them barricades and start fires. Those people were just as guilty. Cooking procuring them arms makes them just as guilty. As the ones doing the shooting and invading hospitals

Edited September 14, 2012 by hellodolly

Roadman · September 14, 2012

Unfortunately I have to say I was never more disgusted in my entire life than when I was on this forum on the 10th of April 2010,

Following the events of the evening almost real time on another famous Thai forum and reposting pictures on TV

I remember got a 7 day posting ban for telling one particular TV member to f-xxx for applauding the massacre of civilians,

To tell you the truth since then I entirely lost my hope of Farang Human Civilisation in Thailand.

But anyway even still even today they are still defending it to the very end.

Strange. I see most on here accepting that the Army killed innocents. Then there are those that have their Red lenses in where Thaksin is the holy re incarnation and anything the hardcore UDD/Red thugs do is not accountable. Then there are those that present something that was not when they use words like massacre.

I have more faith in a good number of farangs who understand what democracy is than the average thai who thinks it is the right to be above the law of democaracy or it is a ฿500 four yearly handout.

monkfish · September 14, 2012

Unfortunately I have to say I was never more disgusted in my entire life than when I was on this forum on the 10th of April 2010,

Following the events of the evening almost real time on another famous Thai forum and reposting pictures on TV

I remember got a 7 day posting ban for telling one particular TV member to f-xxx for applauding the massacre of civilians,

To tell you the truth since then I entirely lost my hope of Farang Human Civilisation in Thailand.

But anyway even still even today they are still defending it to the very end.

Strange. I see most on here accepting that the Army killed innocents. Then there are those that have their Red lenses in where Thaksin is the holy re incarnation and anything the hardcore UDD/Red thugs do is not accountable. Then there are those that present something that was not when they use words like massacre.

I have more faith in a good number of farangs who understand what democracy is than the average thai who thinks it is the right to be above the law of democaracy or it is a ฿500 four yearly handout.

Do you have to be a Red Shirt or even "UDD/Red thugs" to see *unarmed* civilians were killed?

fasteddie · September 14, 2012

interesting photo of the "men in black". I wonder why they carry riot shields....

If you had watched the video that this photo came from, you would see that these guys were amongst the protesters and shooting at the army.

Not true, nowhere in the video can you see who they're shooting at!

philw · September 14, 2012

Sorry not getting into a who was first argument........the peaceful protestors had a right to remain without becoming targets for live amnunition in a compound where there were only limited actions (have only seen the one video incident) by the men in black

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

Down playing the red menace again? Unbelievable you guys. These gangsters were directly responsible for several murders among security forces and indirectly the trigger for military action that killed 'peaceful protesters', most with rockets, molotovs, knives and slingshots, and who chose to stay in a battle ground for weeks surrounded by terrorists and military battling each other with heavy weapons.

It's wonderful how entirely blame free the army is in your scenario.

It's also amazing how little evidence there is ( if any ) to justify the murder of those shot by the army.

The RTA has not produced anything factual or instigated any specific prosecutions, other than those under general headings against the Red leadership.

They have produced no case by case justifications for their shootings,probably because there isn't any.

Viz the nurse etal.........

I think we can be certain that if they had any evidence to the effect that "we had to shoot person A because he was heavily armed and posed a direct threat", they would have produced it by now.

They have not

fasteddie · September 14, 2012

interesting photo of the "men in black". I wonder why they carry riot shields....

Maybe this video from the 10th of April 2010 answers your question.

Where in the video does it give an explanation why they are carrying shields? So maybe not eh!

philw · September 14, 2012

Unfortunately I have to say I was never more disgusted in my entire life than when I was on this forum on the 10th of April 2010,

Following the events of the evening almost real time on another famous Thai forum and reposting pictures on TV

I remember got a 7 day posting ban for telling one particular TV member to f-xxx for applauding the massacre of civilians,

To tell you the truth since then I entirely lost my hope of Farang Human Civilisation in Thailand.

But anyway even still even today they are still defending it to the very end.

Strange. I see most on here accepting that the Army killed innocents. Then there are those that have their Red lenses in where Thaksin is the holy re incarnation and anything the hardcore UDD/Red thugs do is not accountable. Then there are those that present something that was not when they use words like massacre.

I have more faith in a good number of farangs who understand what democracy is than the average thai who thinks it is the right to be above the law of democaracy or it is a ฿500 four yearly handout.

I don't think there are any regular posters on here who laud Thaksin.

There are some however, who criticise the impunity and excessive force used by the military and those posters generally seek accountability on all sides.

The country is divided, in way it has never been before and we should be sad but learn from that.

philw · September 14, 2012

There's no doubt both sides were to blame.........however it's imperative that government forces are held to the highest standards, randomly shooting at protestors is completely out of order, and encircling and entrapping them even more so. Complete innocents lost their lives at this protest, and that was a national disgrace.

This was a hellish circle, a scar on the nation.

They did not shoot at protester's. They waited until they were seizing public property and refusing to move on. Some of them were armed and had other non uniformed red shirts build them barricades and start fires. Those people were just as guilty. Cooking procuring them arms makes them just as guilty. As the ones doing the shooting and invading hospitals

Thanks dolly, when are you going to shoot the next nurse for providing medical services ???

fasteddie · September 14, 2012

"Both [sides] believe they were victims. The operation by the 'men in black' were very instrumental in creating and elevating the violence with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives," page 184 of the report read.

...

...

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple, the report added.

Let me hear from the usual defenders of the red realm how they feel about these quotes from the article.

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple,

What, 3 days later like in Lumpini?

fasteddie · September 14, 2012

Oh please! all that video shows is that some men carrying shields, and some apparently armed, apparently discharged arms at something or other!

Buchholz · September 15, 2012

YOU....

if you don't wish to follow proper protocol and netiquette.... go elsewhere.

< childish name-calling snipped >

You could of course just not get overly pedantic about others style of posting/ quoting or not read the posts if you find it so deeply offensive...

If it breaks the forum rules (improper quoting), it is not just a "style of posting" to be ignored. Particularly, for me, when it involves posts about me.

What is with you guys that you insist on dragging these simple facts, that all posters are expected to comply with, out into some wholly unnecessary snarky discourse?

The netiquette are just common sense, such as the above post. These protocols aren't unreasonable.

Common sense tells you not to just type any text and throw it into a non-annotated quote box and say so and so said this.

At the end of the day, you and every other member agreed to comply with them when you joined.

If you want netiquette tets go for it. Are you stating for the record that the quotes that I said were yours, from the same thread, are not?

Before you answer they are from this thread http://www.thaivisa....s/#entry4908402 Post's 2 and 15. There that'll give you time to go back and delete them.

I'm stating for the record that if you are going to quote me or anyone else, then learn to quote properly.

It's not difficult, but if it is for you, then provide the specific link to a specific post (available by right clicking on the post number).

Additionally, as you're apparently unaware, posts can't be deleted 10 months after they are written.

.

somtumlion · September 15, 2012

LMAO that you dudes are still going back and forth about this. Image if you had actually put your time to good use - like helping someone in need.

marshbags · September 15, 2012

Much of the report's findings are things that close observers of news and photos of that time were aware of. It's good the report came out, and I hope there's follow-up and disciplinary action taken. My overall impression of the issues, is that the Reds came to Bangkok, most of them were paid to come by you-know-who, either directly or indirectly. A core faction of the Reds (including armed 'men in Black') seemed to be protectors (of Reds) and inciters, led by Seh Daeng. The inciting part is expressed in the report.

It's of great credit to the Armed forces that many more Reds weren't killed. In most other countries of the world, if a large portion of their capital city had been commandeered by rowdies with petro-soaked barricades, the results would have been a lot more strong tactics by security forces. The amount of restraint by Abhisit and the army was exemplary. The Reds should wake up each morning and say a prayer to thank whatever deity they pray to, that they're alive and well. If I had been the top banana at that juncture (in charge of security for Bkk), I would have come down sooner and harder.

The deity they pray to maidu

That,s an easy one...Thaksin their divine leader and his disciples

Jataporn, Nattawut, Veera, Weng ect. ect.

marshbags

Edited September 15, 2012 by marshbags

Sign In

Commission Says 'men In Black' May Have Got Cooperation From Red Shirts

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US