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

[Nickymaster]

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

peaceful protest camp

[rixalex]

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.

Anyone familiar with Thai history would know what tends to happen when protesters "meet" with the army. It's not pretty and not always because the army are the ruthless blood-hungry killers some people like to portray them as, but because they are simply not that well trained, prepared or equiped. So if within the red camp, it was protection at the top of their minds, why not simply tell the people to go home? Wouldn't that have done a better job of protecting than the men in black?

Yes i appreciate they felt they had a reasonable grievance - i agree they did - but it wasn't like the country had been taken over by a totalitarian dictatorship, and it wasn't like the government hadn't already compromised massively.

So no, i don't agree this was about protecting people. This was about adding to the confusion, mayhem and violence... all ingredients usually essentially required with which to force a government to stand down.

[rixalex]

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.

The commission report does not cast light on a lot of things. Doesn't mean we can't use a bit of logic and common sense to reach the most probable and likely conclusion. Can you suggest a theory that you believe really and truly does offer a more likely and probable conclusion for where the leading and funding came from, if not from within the red camp?

[Buchholz]

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

peaceful protest camp

men in black = 'protectors'

[Nickymaster]

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.

Anyone familiar with Thai history would know what tends to happen when protesters "meet" with the army. It's not pretty and not always because the army are the ruthless blood-hungry killers some people like to portray them as, but because they are simply not that well trained, prepared or equiped. So if within the red camp, it was protection at the top of their minds, why not simply tell the people to go home? Wouldn't that have done a better job of protecting than the men in black?

Yes i appreciate they felt they had a reasonable grievance - i agree they did - but it wasn't like the country had been taken over by a totalitarian dictatorship, and it wasn't like the government hadn't already compromised massively.

So no, i don't agree this was about protecting people. This was about adding to the confusion, mayhem and violence... all ingredients usually essentially required with which to force a government to stand down.

Stop wasting your time Rixalex.

They don't want to know the truth. For them everything leading up to the crackdown is not important.

Their small brains can only handle simple information such as: Abhisit killed the peaceful protestors..

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

-the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

-the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers.

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers.

And then they dare to claim that the RTA escalated the violence.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nickymaster

[OzMick]

Stop wasting your time Rixalex.

They don't want to know the truth. For them everything leading up to the crackdown is not important.

Their small brains can only handle simple information such as: Abhisit killed the peaceful protestors..

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

-the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

-the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers.

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers.

And then they dare to claim that the RTA escalated the violence.

You forgot the Temple of the Emerald Buddha RPG attack March 30 2010.

Also 3 RPGs were fired at the Dusit.

BTW the firing of a RPG into the fuel tank farm was one of the most irresponsible acts of the red campaign, and which could have killed hundreds in the ensuing fire. IMHO the only reason it failed was incompetence - using an armour piercing round rather than a HE.

[KireB]

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.

LOL, this is the post of the year. You didn't have much of it, but now you've lost the last bit of credibility! You are a troll!

[AleG]

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

2009 Red Shirt "protests", no MiB, no dead protesters.

2010 Red Shirt "protests", MiB "protecting them, 70 something dead "protesters", plus 20 or so security officials and a handful of bystanders.

Another ad hoc rationalization that is simply BS.

[GentlemanJim]

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.

I watched a program on TV the other night from the series 'Through the Wormhole' with Morgan Freeman, they were trying to find evidence of parallel Universes, well I think we have it, I must pop him an email.

Militia are not needed to guard peaceful protestors. An 'encampment' that is built in the middle of a bustling city where roads are sealed off with walls of tyres primed with incendiaries, and barricades of sharpened bamboo sticks/wood/tyres etc etc, where people moving through that part of the city on their day to day business are stopped and searched at unauthorized checkpoints by militia who are armed to intimidate, on stage speeches lasting 20 hours a day where those who attend are told to kill soldiers and burn the city to the ground, where blood is taken from children below the age of consent for a sick demonstration at the family house of the PM etc etc etc. Where the sick and elderly infirm were forced to evacuate their beds when the peaceful protestors invaded a hospital, and all this before a soldier went anywhere near them. If all that is peaceful in your parallel universe then cool, but please stay there and don't bring your mindless codswollop to this real world where the definition of peaceful is a little less 'colourful'.

Edited September 19, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[jayboy]

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.

The commission report does not cast light on a lot of things. Doesn't mean we can't use a bit of logic and common sense to reach the most probable and likely conclusion. Can you suggest a theory that you believe really and truly does offer a more likely and probable conclusion for where the leading and funding came from, if not from within the red camp?

I could but I won't.

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

[rixalex]

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

Edited September 19, 2012 by rixalex

[rixalex]

I could but I won't.

Don't forget, i didn't ask you just for another theory, i asked for another theory that you believe really and truly does offer a more likely and probable conclusion.

Are you seriously trying to tell me, your theory, whatever it is, is what you consider the most likely and most probable of all theories on offer? Come on.

[jayboy]

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

Entirely up to you.I have very little interest in winning points on Thai Visa.If you have to ask the question it's possible you may not have your ear close to the ground.

[rixalex]

By the way, you seem to have split into two different lines of argument:

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.

"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.

[rixalex]

If you have to ask the question it's possible you may not have your ear close to the ground.

Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly can say i hear all sorts of different theories for most things that happen here. Of course in the absence of total proof, one should always keep an open mind to all possibilities, and that i do, but at the same time, if one refuses to accept going along with the most obvious theory, on the basis that it might not be the correct theory, pretty much all debates would quickly grind to a halt.

One has the feeling that sometimes, grinding debate to a halt, or at least have it running around in circles, is the precise objective. The debate on the men in black is a prime example.

[tlansford]

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

2009 Red Shirt "protests", no MiB, no dead protesters.

2010 Red Shirt "protests", MiB "protecting them, 70 something dead "protesters", plus 20 or so security officials and a handful of bystanders.

Another ad hoc rationalization that is simply BS.

2009, 6 people missing - 2 of them showed up in the river.

They were protesters.

[tlansford]

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.

I watched a program on TV the other night from the series 'Through the Wormhole' with Morgan Freeman, they were trying to find evidence of parallel Universes, well I think we have it, I must pop him an email.

Militia are not needed to guard peaceful protestors. An 'encampment' that is built in the middle of a bustling city where roads are sealed off with walls of tyres primed with incendiaries, and barricades of sharpened bamboo sticks/wood/tyres etc etc, where people moving through that part of the city on their day to day business are stopped and searched at unauthorized checkpoints by militia who are armed to intimidate, on stage speeches lasting 20 hours a day where those who attend are told to kill soldiers and burn the city to the ground, where blood is taken from children below the age of consent for a sick demonstration at the family house of the PM etc etc etc. Where the sick and elderly infirm were forced to evacuate their beds when the peaceful protestors invaded a hospital, and all this before a soldier went anywhere near them. If all that is peaceful in your parallel universe then cool, but please stay there and don't bring your mindless codswollop to this real world where the definition of peaceful is a little less 'colourful'.

GJ - I'll be happy to stay in my universe and I hope that people who think they can unleash the army on their own people will stay out of it.

[AleG]

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

2009 Red Shirt "protests", no MiB, no dead protesters.

2010 Red Shirt "protests", MiB "protecting them, 70 something dead "protesters", plus 20 or so security officials and a handful of bystanders.

Another ad hoc rationalization that is simply BS.

2009, 6 people missing - 2 of them showed up in the river.

They were protesters.

Who killed those two?

[tlansford]

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

2009 Red Shirt "protests", no MiB, no dead protesters.

2010 Red Shirt "protests", MiB "protecting them, 70 something dead "protesters", plus 20 or so security officials and a handful of bystanders.

Another ad hoc rationalization that is simply BS.

2009, 6 people missing - 2 of them showed up in the river.

They were protesters.

Who killed those two?

What do you think yourself?

2009, no men in black but still had dead protesters.

BTW, the color in 2009 was "blue"

[whybother]

2009, 6 people missing - 2 of them showed up in the river.

They were protesters.

6 alleged to be missing. 2 found in the river, but police don't know if they were killed in the protests.

[AleG]

Who killed those two?

What do you think yourself?

2009, no men in black but still had dead protesters.

BTW, the color in 2009 was "blue"

I think people get killed in Thailand everyday for any number of stupid reasons. Unless there's any indication that their deaths had anything to do with them being Red Shirts or the protest it's just two more of the daily deaths in the country.

Therefore the point still stands, no MiB, no deadly clashes with security forces, no dead protesters.

Edited September 19, 2012 by AleG

[Nickymaster]

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.

I watched a program on TV the other night from the series 'Through the Wormhole' with Morgan Freeman, they were trying to find evidence of parallel Universes, well I think we have it, I must pop him an email.

Militia are not needed to guard peaceful protestors. An 'encampment' that is built in the middle of a bustling city where roads are sealed off with walls of tyres primed with incendiaries, and barricades of sharpened bamboo sticks/wood/tyres etc etc, where people moving through that part of the city on their day to day business are stopped and searched at unauthorized checkpoints by militia who are armed to intimidate, on stage speeches lasting 20 hours a day where those who attend are told to kill soldiers and burn the city to the ground, where blood is taken from children below the age of consent for a sick demonstration at the family house of the PM etc etc etc. Where the sick and elderly infirm were forced to evacuate their beds when the peaceful protestors invaded a hospital, and all this before a soldier went anywhere near them. If all that is peaceful in your parallel universe then cool, but please stay there and don't bring your mindless codswollop to this real world where the definition of peaceful is a little less 'colourful'.

GJ - I'll be happy to stay in my universe and I hope that people who think they can unleash the army on their own people will stay out of it.

What should the army have done? The terrorizing of downtown Bangkok and the killing of 20 officials is not enough. They should have waited until it was 30 or 40? Not even talking about invading a hospital and all that kind of stuff.

So what should the army have done? (Remember an election within 6 months was promised)

[GentlemanJim]

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.

I watched a program on TV the other night from the series 'Through the Wormhole' with Morgan Freeman, they were trying to find evidence of parallel Universes, well I think we have it, I must pop him an email.

Militia are not needed to guard peaceful protestors. An 'encampment' that is built in the middle of a bustling city where roads are sealed off with walls of tyres primed with incendiaries, and barricades of sharpened bamboo sticks/wood/tyres etc etc, where people moving through that part of the city on their day to day business are stopped and searched at unauthorized checkpoints by militia who are armed to intimidate, on stage speeches lasting 20 hours a day where those who attend are told to kill soldiers and burn the city to the ground, where blood is taken from children below the age of consent for a sick demonstration at the family house of the PM etc etc etc. Where the sick and elderly infirm were forced to evacuate their beds when the peaceful protestors invaded a hospital, and all this before a soldier went anywhere near them. If all that is peaceful in your parallel universe then cool, but please stay there and don't bring your mindless codswollop to this real world where the definition of peaceful is a little less 'colourful'.

GJ - I'll be happy to stay in my universe and I hope that people who think they can unleash the army on their own people will stay out of it.

Mmm I guess that's a fair deal as you are from a country that just unleashes their army on everybody else's people.

So do you really think it was a peaceful protest then?

[rixalex]

GJ - I'll be happy to stay in my universe and I hope that people who think they can unleash the army on their own people will stay out of it.

What has "their own people" got to do with it? Do you think authorities should act differently dependant on whether suspects are foreign? Go easy on locals?

[nurofiend]

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

still, when it comes to 'drawing what you consider the most likely conclusions' regarding, say as one example, how the abhisit government came into power in 2008, i'd guess that you don't draw the most likely conclusion.

however that's just a guess, so don't hold me to it.

Of course in the absence of total proof, one should always keep an open mind to all possibilities, and that i do, but at the same time, if one refuses to accept going along with the most obvious theory, on the basis that it might not be the correct theory, pretty much all debates would quickly grind to a halt.

i wonder do you use this as your rule of thumb in all situations in your judgement of both sides regarding various situations, well do you?

Edited September 19, 2012 by nurofiend

[Thaddeus]

well do you?

You forgot to add 'punk' on the end.

[rixalex]

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

still, when it comes to 'drawing what you consider the most likely conclusions' regarding, say as one example, how the abhisit government came into power in 2008, i'd guess that you don't draw the most likely conclusion.

however that's just a guess, so don't hold me to it.

The formation of the Abhisit coalition government is a good example. We have a lot of witness statements, witness claims, sightings, historical patterns of behaviour etc to go on, that to my mind makes the events not a matter of certainty, but a matter of high probability, and i wouldn't therefore waste any time disputing any of it.

It may of course come to light, many years from now, that we all had it wrong, and things didn't go down as we imagined, just as many years from now, it may come to light that in fact the men in black were not red shirt supporters dressed in black and funded and led from people within the red movement... but until such a time that that sort of evidence miraculously appears, i'll go along with what i consider the most obvious theories.

[nurofiend]

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

still, when it comes to 'drawing what you consider the most likely conclusions' regarding, say as one example, how the abhisit government came into power in 2008, i'd guess that you don't draw the most likely conclusion.

however that's just a guess, so don't hold me to it.

The formation of the Abhisit coalition government is a good example. We have a lot of witness statements, witness claims, sightings, historical patterns of behaviour etc to go on, that to my mind makes the events not a matter of certainty, but a matter of high probability, and i wouldn't therefore waste any time disputing any of it.

It may of course come to light, many years from now, that we all had it wrong, and things didn't go down as we imagined, just as many years from now, it may come to light that in fact the men in black were not red shirt supporters dressed in black and funded and led from people within the red movement... but until such a time that that sort of evidence miraculously appears, i'll go along with what i consider the most obvious theories.

The formation of the Abhisit coalition government is a good example. We have a lot of witness statements, witness claims, sightings, historical patterns of behaviour etc to go on, that to my mind makes the events not a matter of certainty, but a matter of high probability, and i wouldn't therefore waste any time disputing any of it.

so what is your 'most likely conclusion' of how it came about, was basically what i was asking?

and i'm not talking about the disbandment of ppp part of it, you know what i'm talking about.

i'm just not crystal clear in what you are actually saying in that quote.

Edited September 20, 2012 by nurofiend

[rixalex]

so what is your 'most likely conclusion' of how it came about, was basically what i was asking?

and i'm not talking about the disbandment of ppp part of it, you know what i'm talking about.

i'm just not crystal clear in what you are actually saying in that quote.

I'm saying that the army were actively involved in banging certain heads together and encouraging certain sides to work together. Matchmakers if you will. I don't believe that those politicians had no choice in the sense of their lives being in mortal danger, as perhaps they (and some people here) would like us believe, i think they simply shifted sides because they could see which one had butter on... and it was the army that put the butter there.

Having the army involved in the formation of a coalition government is obviously not what most would consider democracy in action. I oppose it.

I do recognise though that most coalition governments being formed involve murky back room horse-trading and power sharing deals that are also not really democratic, so we either declare all the resulting coalition governments as illegitimate and make drastic changes to the parliamentary system in these situations, or we begrudgingly accept them all. We can't cherry pick.

[ballpoint]

Banharn Silpa-archa (and his share of the CTP) went against Thaksin by boycotting the 2006 elections. Prior to the 2007 elections, Banharn Silpa-archa said no way would he join the PPP in any government. Following the 2007 elections, Banharn Silpa-archa joined the PPP government. Following the disbanding of the PPP, Banharn Silpa-archa joined the Democrat government. Now, five years on, Banharn Silpa-archa says he was forced to do so. And now a bunch of red apologists are on here screaming that it must be true because Banharn Silpa-archa says so. Seems that Banharn Silpa-archa can indeed fool some of the people all of the time. Not that he had much work to do, after all, these are the same people who believe Chalerm is a credible witness.