Popular Post soundman Posted September 18, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted September 18, 2012 I have removed the posts discussing the banned members. No point to them, unless anyone wants to let me know what their current nics are. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? I don't think it is a priority for the PTP to find out who they are, or rather publicising it, since some of them already would know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? I don't think it is a priority for the PTP to find out who they are, or rather publicising it, since some of them already would know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. what makes you think some of them already know who they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? The reason the TRCT was not able to: However, its [TRCT] power was limited because it could not issue subpoenas or grant immunity in exchange for testimony Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Independent+Thai+investigation+blames+both+sides+deadly+2010/7252710/story.html#ixzz26mvsbqTN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas? I don't know and neither do you. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't that much info available, but equally, there should be a lot of witnesses. But there aren't. One would assume the commission would interview as many people as possible and try to gather as much info as possible. It will be interesting to see just how deep they delved. Likewise, the army, being so certain and specific about the 500, should have a lot of information. Especially given that they must have had a lot of special ops and under cover people there. Why is there so little photographic evidence ?? The were probably more cameras there than at an F1 race. I would think it's a certainty that several people, on all sides, know a lot more than they are saying. Why could that be ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas? I don't know and neither do you. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't that much info available, but equally, there should be a lot of witnesses. But there aren't. One would assume the commission would interview as many people as possible and try to gather as much info as possible. It will be interesting to see just how deep they delved. They could have delved a lot deeper if they had had the tools to do so, such as immunity for testimony. You can't say definitively that there aren't a lot of witnesses amongst the Red Shirts. Without the ability to subpoena witnesses, "a lot" of them could have simply not testified. . Edited September 18, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 what makes you think some of them already know who they are? Wasa Theprian is secretary to House panel and 'close' to Phayao Pheu Thai MP Wisut Chai-narun ... Police were seeking Wasa after she was found to have transferred money to a bank account belonging to Kasi Ditthanarat, a businessman who took Samai Wongsuwan to the apartment building in Nonthaburi's Bang Bua Thong district. Samai stayed in Room 202 at Samarn Metta Mansion, where the bomb went off - accidentally, according to police. Samai, a red-shirt guard, died at the scene. ... Wasa was accused of transferring Bt40,000 to Kasi on October 3, and Bt50,000 to him on October 6 - the day after the blast - via a bank inside Parliament House. Seh Daeng and Thaksin Shinawatra in Dubai. ... Seh Daeng has been an embarrassment to and a thorn in the side of his army superiors. Issuing threats and suspected of being involved in a grenade attack on army chief General Anupong Paojinda’s office, Seh Daeng has been vocal in his support for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his red shirt supporters ... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. I don't know why people may get the idea that UDD/PTP may know people related to terrorism during the Red Shirt "protest". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas? I don't know and neither do you. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't that much info available, but equally, there should be a lot of witnesses. But there aren't. One would assume the commission would interview as many people as possible and try to gather as much info as possible. It will be interesting to see just how deep they delved. Likewise, the army, being so certain and specific about the 500, should have a lot of information. Especially given that they must have had a lot of special ops and under cover people there. Why is there so little photographic evidence ?? The were probably more cameras there than at an F1 race. I would think it's a certainty that several people, on all sides, know a lot more than they are saying. Why could that be ?? You don't know why Red Shirts don't come forward to help identify the MiB, really. So the strategy here is to play dumb? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Aleg, do please grow up and stop looking for an agenda................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas? I don't know and neither do you. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't that much info available, but equally, there should be a lot of witnesses. But there aren't. One would assume the commission would interview as many people as possible and try to gather as much info as possible. It will be interesting to see just how deep they delved. Likewise, the army, being so certain and specific about the 500, should have a lot of information. Especially given that they must have had a lot of special ops and under cover people there. Why is there so little photographic evidence ?? The were probably more cameras there than at an F1 race. I would think it's a certainty that several people, on all sides, know a lot more than they are saying. Why could that be ?? You don't know why Red Shirts don't come forward to help identify the MiB, really. So the strategy here is to play dumb? Correct. The red strategy is to play dumb, which is easy for many here. But how to play dumb when it is proven that 20 officials were killed? Somebody must have killed them. The current government doesn't care about them. They never even mentioned them. Very very strange. Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further. Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings. In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers. Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ? I don't think it is a priority for the PTP to find out who they are, or rather publicising it, since some of them already would know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. what makes you think some of them already know who they are? From what I have seen and what I have read, I am sure that some of them, particularly some of the leaders, know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The reason the TRCT was not able to: However, its [TRCT] power was limited because it could not issue subpoenas or grant immunity in exchange for testimony The second sentence is correct but your preamble, "The reason the TRCT was not able to", is simply your personal assumption.It is no doubt part of the problem but not all of it. An equally plausible reason for the Commission not delving deeply, as another member has pointed out, is that it was just a too sensitive issue in current day Thailand. Anyway there does seem to be a consensus among forum members that investigative bodies should have fuller powers to summon and interrogate.Naturally this also applies to the army whose senior officers have consistently lied, prevaricated and obstructed all efforts to get to the bottom of events in 2100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Mistake Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Aleg, do please grow up and stop looking for an agenda................ I'm grown up, now would you deign to address the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) The reason the TRCT was not able to: However, its [TRCT] power was limited because it could not issue subpoenas or grant immunity in exchange for testimony The second sentence is correct but your preamble, "The reason the TRCT was not able to", is simply your personal assumption.It is no doubt part of the problem but not all of it. An equally plausible reason for the Commission not delving deeply, as another member has pointed out, is that it was just a too sensitive issue in current day Thailand. Anyway there does seem to be a consensus among forum members that investigative bodies should have fuller powers to summon and interrogate.Naturally this also applies to the army whose senior officers have consistently lied, prevaricated and obstructed all efforts to get to the bottom of events in 2100. They still have some time. Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here. but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts. I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts. read much lately? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers. No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted. Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz26pxJ1jyw (just mirroring the snipping style buchlolz) "(just mirroring the snipping style buchlolz)" and it is B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z... Edited September 18, 2012 by tlansford 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 - dleete for quote limits - I don't think it is a priority for the PTP to find out who they are, or rather publicising it, since some of them already would know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. what makes you think some of them already know who they are? From what I have seen and what I have read, I am sure that some of them, particularly some of the leaders, know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. do Abhisit and Suthep also know who they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) and it is B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z... That's right. It's difficult to understand why it seems so difficult for you and others to master, particularly when it's right in front of you when you quote. . Edited September 18, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 - dleete for quote limits - I don't think it is a priority for the PTP to find out who they are, or rather publicising it, since some of them already would know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. what makes you think some of them already know who they are? From what I have seen and what I have read, I am sure that some of them, particularly some of the leaders, know who they are. Sent from my HTC phone. do Abhisit and Suthep also know who they are? I don't remember seeing Abhisit and Suthep in the red shirts camps. So how could they know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Perhaps because along with the legitimate questions gets thrown in this contrived and non-existent cloud of doubt about what group they were a part of and who they were fighting for. It's nothing more than a diversionary tactic aimed at shifting blame. well if there is no cloud of doubt, then there is no mystery. so 'all knowing' rixalex, who precisely were they? When did i state i knew precisely who they were? I have already stated a good half dozen times the fact that the names, addresses and phone numbers of the "men in black" are not known (at least not publicly) and i believe never will be... but since when did we know precisely who countless of the red shirts were, since when did we know precisely who all the soldiers were, since when did we know precisely who the snipers were? We don't, we didn't. Why is it only for the men in black that people suddenly want to know precise details? Yes I admit it would be great to have those details, but we don't have those details for most of the people from all sides of the protest, and yet for them we don't have all these "but who were these mystery people..." type comments. And why not? Well because their role, what they were doing, who they were attacking and which side was backing them, was blatantly obvious. A "red shirt" wakes up in the morning, puts on a black shirt, picks up a gun, and suddenly they have become mystery figures in some people's eyes. It's a nonsense. They are no more mysterious than their friends, brothers, relatives, villagers who woke up and wore red. They may have been more heavily armed, they may have been better trained in the art of violence, but that still doesn't make them anything more than a "red shirt" wearing a black shirt. Edited September 19, 2012 by rixalex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 related: Reconciliation Report Faces Political Apathy: Thailand Full story: http://www.thaivisa....pathy-thailand/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 my point was that no one knows who exactly they were, so they remain a mystery. rixalex with his mind set automatically to knee jerk bias took this as me saying it could have been the government and army themselves just as likely as being someone with some connection to thaksin and the red shirts, which is not what i suggested, hinted or think myself. it's just the calibre of some posters one must deal with on here i suppose. Where did i state your thoughts as being: it could have been the government and army themselves just as likely as being someone with some connection to thaksin and the red shirts ? I didn't accuse you of thinking any such thing. I accused people of using the fact that we don't know the names and addresses of the MIB as cause for all this "but who were these mystery people..." type blame-deflecting nonsense. Why don't you ask the same question of the red shirts? Do you know precisely who they were? Do you have a list of all their names and phone numbers? Of course not. But there is no mystery to them is there? You know what they were doing, who they were a part of, don't you? Well, this may come as a feigned surprise to you, but i know what the black shirts were doing and who they were a part of, and I don't need to know precisely who they were to know any of this. The question is, why do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Perhaps because along with the legitimate questions gets thrown in this contrived and non-existent cloud of doubt about what group they were a part of and who they were fighting for. It's nothing more than a diversionary tactic aimed at shifting blame. well if there is no cloud of doubt, then there is no mystery. so 'all knowing' rixalex, who precisely were they? When did i state i knew precisely who they were? I have already stated a good half dozen times the fact that the names, addresses and phone numbers of the "men in black" are not known (at least not publicly) and i believe never will be... but since when did we know precisely who countless of the red shirts were, since when did we know precisely who all the soldiers were, since when did we know precisely who the snipers were? We don't, we didn't. Why is it only for the men in black that people suddenly want to know precise details? Yes I admit it would be great to have those details, but we don't have those details for most of the people from all sides of the protest, and yet for them we don't have all these "but who were these mystery people..." type comments. And why not? Well because their role, what they were doing, who they were attacking and which side was backing them, was blatantly obvious. A "red shirt" wakes up in the morning, puts on a black shirt, picks up a gun, and suddenly they have become mystery figures in some people's eyes. It's a nonsense. They are no more mysterious than their friends, brothers, relatives, villagers who woke up and wore red. They may have been more heavily armed, they may have been better trained in the art of violence, but that still doesn't make them anything more than a "red shirt" wearing a black shirt. I'm surprised at your line (no mystery about men in black) not only because it has already been discredited but also because you have previously accepted there were many outstanding questions.Yet here you are saying they are no more than redshirts with different coloured shirts.It's an intellectually slovenly approach and unsupported by any kind of critical analysis.The unresolved questions are much more than not knowing the precise details.If you are saying that these people were red sympathisers - or hired by red sympathisers - everybody (except for Amsterdam and a few extremists) would agree with you.However there is so much more that needs to be properly understood.I confess to being slightly disappointed as I had presumed you had the capacity to sift evidence and make rational conclusions unlike many of the usual suspects.Apparently I was wrong and you have simply yielded to confirmation bias.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) I'm surprised at your line (no mystery about men in black) not only because it has already been discredited but also because you have previously accepted there were many outstanding questions. Not many questions. A few. Precisely who they were, ie names and phone numbers, and precisely who funded and organised them. But as i keep stating, i don't know precisely who the people dressed in red were either, and i don't know precisely who funded and organised them. Do you? If you are saying that these people were red sympathisers - or hired by red sympathisers - everybody (except for Amsterdam and a few extremists) would agree with you. Yes that is precisely what i am saying, and i disagree, if this forum is any measure to go by, that the number of people in disagreement with this premise amount to the few extremists you claim. However there is so much more that needs to be properly understood. I don't disagree, but that goes not only for the "black shirts", but all sorts of murky issues surrounding the protests. The thing is, we have to accept that clear, solid, reliable in-stone evidence, is never realistically going to appear, for all sorts of the happenings and for all sorts of reasons, and so we either start making conclusions based on logical thinking and what is most probable, or we refuse to make any conclusions whatsoever. Precisely what more does this intellectual heavy-weight need to know that is so important, beyond that the black shirts were a militant violent splinter group of the red shirts, funded and led from people within that camp, and whose goal it was to increase the tension and up the general mayhem, and by doing so, put the government under greater pressure to cave in? Please tell. Edited September 19, 2012 by rixalex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) The men in black appeared to be intially involved to 'protect' the protestors, there is photographic evidence of such activity by unarmed 'men in black' I guess they were also there as a deterent to the RTA turning up and dispersing the peaceful protest camp. It would appear that the RTA and Abhisit were not deterred and turned up surrouding the camp......thus escalating the violence Edited September 19, 2012 by 473geo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The men in black appeared to be intially involved to 'protect' the protestors, there is photographic evidence of such activity by unarmed 'men in black' I guess they were also there as a deterent to the RTA turning up and dispersing the peaceful protest camp. It would appear that the RTA and Abhisit were not deterred and turned up surrouding the camp......thus escalating the violence It seems to me that you are the first person to point out the most likely role of the now infamous MiB which would have been to protect the protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 The men in black appeared to be intially involved to 'protect' the protestors, there is photographic evidence of such activity by unarmed 'men in black' I guess they were also there as a deterent to the RTA turning up and dispersing the peaceful protest camp. It would appear that the RTA and Abhisit were not deterred and turned up surrouding the camp......thus escalating the violence It seems to me that you are the first person to point out the most likely role of the now infamous MiB which would have been to protect the protesters. And it seems that if that was their purpose they were woefully small in numbers and failed badly. OTOH if their purpose was to initiate and escalate violence, their strength was about right and they succeeded. Is it standard operating practice for peaceful protesters to take along their own private mercenary miltia to protect themselves from police and other security officials? Not to mention preliminary RPG and grenade attacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickymaster Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) The men in black appeared to be intially involved to 'protect' the protestors, there is photographic evidence of such activity by unarmed 'men in black' I guess they were also there as a deterent to the RTA turning up and dispersing the peaceful protest camp. It would appear that the RTA and Abhisit were not deterred and turned up surrouding the camp......thus escalating the violence It seems to me that you are the first person to point out the most likely role of the now infamous MiB which would have been to protect the protesters. Protecting the protestors by hiding among them and shooting at the officials. That kind of protecting? When (date) did the army start surrounding the camp? Edited September 19, 2012 by Nickymaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) To quote one part of rixalex's last post, "beyond that the black shirts were a militant violent splinter group of the red shirts, funded and led from people within that camp" That is precisely what is not known, and an area that the Commission report does not cast light on. Edited September 19, 2012 by jayboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now