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

[KireB]

"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.

Who can or has disputed the effects of the activities of the MIB ???

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

That kind of puts to sleep the argument that the reds were heavily armed, does it not ?

An M16 is not heavily armed? Try to walk with one through immigration and use that baloney argument. Plus daily grenade attacks, men in black, knifes, sticks, missiles at helicopters and, to quote Arisman and Nattuwutm, a million bottles of gasoline. Pau pau pau (burn burn burn)!!!!

I think its your pathetic attempt to downplay the violent part of the red siege that needs to go to sleep.

Edited September 14, 2012 by KireB

[nurofiend]

i knew what you were suggesting.

so you're saying that the protesters knew that they (whoever they were) had planned to shoot at the army that night?

you're saying it wasn't a covert operation and all the protestors knew the deal?

You knew what I was suggesting, but you decided to do some trolling anyway.

I didn't say anything about the protesters. I said that the shooters were amongst them.

There's that reading problem again.

I didn't say anything about the protesters

you said the red shirts.......

but as i said, you've obviously completely misunderstood what i was saying.

but i won't troll you about reading problems...

Edited September 14, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

"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.

Who can or has disputed the effects of the activities of the MIB ???

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

That kind of puts to sleep the argument that the reds were heavily armed, does it not ?

There has been suggestion that there was shooting from the temple. Who has said that the red shirts in the temple were heavily armed?

[AleG]

"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.

Gazes at crystal ball.

I see... denials... denials...and... trolling... whoa nelly! lots of trollin'!

[Sharp]

As the old saying goes you play with fire you will be sure to get burned soon or later ..

Agreed ....

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[whybother]

What happened to:

you've obviously completely misunderstood what i was saying, please now, let it die.

You knew what I was suggesting, but you decided to do some trolling anyway.

I didn't say anything about the protesters. I said that the shooters were amongst them.

There's that reading problem again.

I didn't say anything about the protesters

you said the red shirts.......

I said that the shooters were amongst the red shirts/protesters. I didn't say anything about what the red shirts/protesters knew.

The report indicates that some of the red shirts/protesters knew what was happening when the MIB arrived and that they supported that.

[saltandpepper]

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.

'amongst'

do you mean as in if some guys robbed a bank and you were on the same street, you would be amongst the bank robbers?

ridiculous post....

Your comparison i so wrong!!

[MunterHunter]

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

Impossible to get 4000 people inside of that temple, i walk past it every day and can see into it from my office - 1000 people max and then they would be pretty much shoulder-to-shoulder.

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

'Men In Black' Are Policemen, Chalerm Claims

http://www.thaivisa....s/#entry4908402

Why were the police shooting at/attacking the army?

[nurofiend]

What happened to:

nurofiend said: you've obviously completely misunderstood what i was saying, please now, let it die.

You knew what I was suggesting, but you decided to do some trolling anyway.

I didn't say anything about the protesters. I said that the shooters were amongst them.

There's that reading problem again.

I didn't say anything about the protesters

you said the red shirts.......

I said that the shooters were amongst the red shirts/protesters. I didn't say anything about what the red shirts/protesters knew.

The report indicates that some of the red shirts/protesters knew what was happening when the MIB arrived and that they supported that.

whybother said: "I said that the shooters were amongst the red shirts/protesters"

but i thought you didn't say anything about the protesters... hrmph

ok i apologise for keeping on replying to you...this time i really mean, please, let it die.

Edited September 14, 2012 by nurofiend

[noitom]

Were these "men in black" the Thahan Prahan?

[nurofiend]

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.

'amongst'

do you mean as in if some guys robbed a bank and you were on the same street, you would be amongst the bank robbers?

ridiculous post....

Your comparison i so wrong!!

ridiculous post.

explain it?

unless you are saying that the protesters had prior knowledge or involvement of what was happening re: the guys using guns, then the scenario is pretty much the same.

Edited September 14, 2012 by nurofiend

[saltandpepper]

anyway whybother, i don't want to derail this thread with back and forths with you as i think this could be an interesting thread, and i don't feel like wasting my time tbh.

It could be even more interesting if you were not biased to death, and would put your propaganda at rest a bit.

Now, no matter how people put it, there were angry and violent protesters, and there were men in black shooting at the army.

There is a massive suspicion that these men in black were siding (at the very least) with the protesters.

You can redo the history, try to rewrite it, try to twist it....a fact is that if protesters and their "friends" did not turn violent, a lot of lives would have been spared

[nurofiend]

anyway whybother, i don't want to derail this thread with back and forths with you as i think this could be an interesting thread, and i don't feel like wasting my time tbh.

It could be even more interesting if you were not biased to death, and would put your propaganda at rest a bit.

Now, no matter how people put it, there were angry and violent protesters, and there were men in black shooting at the army.

There is a massive suspicion that these men in black were siding (at the very least) with the protesters.

You can redo the history, try to rewrite it, try to twist it....a fact is that if protesters and their "friends" did not turn violent, a lot of lives would have been spared

let me cut you short there before you make outlandish claims, please provide evidence of my propaganda?

or else stop spouting bs.

[nurofiend]

i wonder when we'll get our mitts on the 515-page report.

should make for interesting reading.

[saltandpepper]

anyway whybother, i don't want to derail this thread with back and forths with you as i think this could be an interesting thread, and i don't feel like wasting my time tbh.

It could be even more interesting if you were not biased to death, and would put your propaganda at rest a bit.

Now, no matter how people put it, there were angry and violent protesters, and there were men in black shooting at the army.

There is a massive suspicion that these men in black were siding (at the very least) with the protesters.

You can redo the history, try to rewrite it, try to twist it....a fact is that if protesters and their "friends" did not turn violent, a lot of lives would have been spared

let me cut you short there before you make outlandish claims, please provide evidence of my propaganda?

or else stop spouting bs.

please provide evidence of me spouting BS

And there is no "or else" from me. I am not at your orders, and I have nothing in common with you besides the fact that I am also a member on TV

I wish you a good day Monsieur

[MunterHunter]

Bored of this thread now - i thought it was about the report on the men in black - not some pointless war of words between a handful of highly-strung TVF members...

[jonclark]

On pages 163 and 164, the report says that somebody saw a group of men in black step out of a white van at 7pm on April 10 near the Democracy Monument only to be "surrounded" and escorted by red-shirt guards toward the direction of the deadly confrontation. The guards "barred people from taking photos and some protesters shouted 'a helping hand is here', but were later prevented from speaking".

This quote ties in with my own experiences which i recounted on a previous thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/580865-former-thai-pm-abhisit-in-court-over-red-shirt-protest-deaths # 16

Only to 'corrected' by a red apologist.

[nurofiend]

anyway whybother, i don't want to derail this thread with back and forths with you as i think this could be an interesting thread, and i don't feel like wasting my time tbh.

It could be even more interesting if you were not biased to death, and would put your propaganda at rest a bit.

Now, no matter how people put it, there were angry and violent protesters, and there were men in black shooting at the army.

There is a massive suspicion that these men in black were siding (at the very least) with the protesters.

You can redo the history, try to rewrite it, try to twist it....a fact is that if protesters and their "friends" did not turn violent, a lot of lives would have been spared

let me cut you short there before you make outlandish claims, please provide evidence of my propaganda?

or else stop spouting bs.

please provide evidence of me spouting BS

And there is no "or else" from me. I am not at your orders, and I have nothing in common with you besides the fact that I am also a member on TV

I wish you a good day Monsieur

my evidence of you spouting bs is you saying that i am putting out propaganda, when you have no evidence of this yourself... just empty slurs.

obviously no evidence is required for you to project whatever bs you want on to posters, but spout away all you want, it doesn't bother me... it's just very undignified.

Edited September 14, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

Bored of this thread now - i thought it was about the report on the men in black - not some pointless war of words between a handful of highly-strung TVF members...

man, i'm trying to stop but when someone replies, it's hard not to put your side up, especially when the things thrown at you are nonsense.

anyway, yeah i'm done in this thread for a while.

ps i'm not highly strung, quite chillaxed actually

[jbrain]

Exellent investigation report full of the words, probably-we believe-unspecified-unidentified-highly likely etc.

What have this commision wasting it's time with?

[Moruya]

is it too early to start chastising people for their claims that the soldiers shooting at the temple were really red shirts dressed in army gear?

The army uses 223?

[Nickymaster]

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

'Men In Black' Are Policemen, Chalerm Claims

http://www.thaivisa....s/#entry4908402

.

Nice 1 Buchholz

[Moruya]

So the summary is pretty much as most sane minded individuals have believed all along. The MIB were there to antagonise an army that was not trained for demonstration control and to goad them into returning fire by shooting them, attacking them with grenades and bombs.

The MIB were attached to the Red Shirt Guards, were assisted by them, directed by them coordinated by Seh Daeng and others.

Peaceful protest by butt.

[phiphidon]

"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.

Who can or has disputed the effects of the activities of the MIB ???

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

That kind of puts to sleep the argument that the reds were heavily armed, does it not ?

An M16 is not heavily armed? Try to walk with one through immigration and use that baloney argument. Plus daily grenade attacks, men in black, knifes, sticks, missiles at helicopters and, to quote Arisman and Nattuwutm, a million bottles of gasoline. Pau pau pau (burn burn burn)!!!!

I think its your pathetic attempt to downplay the violent part of the red siege that needs to go to sleep.

And another "up" on the hyperbole front - "missiles at helicopters" -

[asiawatcher]

At least now there is an 'admission' men-in-black 'did' exist. So with the 515 pages (of politically correct - no blame document) can we now let this just go away? If the siege and burning of Bangkok had happened in any western city - it would not have lasted a week - police would have done their jobs - possibly with a few broken bones, and none of the barricades would have been built and there would have been no need to call in the army. But try explaining logic to Thai's...

[fstarbkk]

"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.

Who can or has disputed the effects of the activities of the MIB ???

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

That kind of puts to sleep the argument that the reds were heavily armed, does it not ?

No, not really. At best it proves that the armed militants only left one weapon behind when they cleared out.

The other way of looking at it is, why were there any weapons in the temple at all?

Edited September 14, 2012 by fstarbkk

[Fozfromoz]

is it too early to start chastising people for their claims that the soldiers shooting at the temple were really red shirts dressed in army gear?

The army uses 223?

They would use the 5.56 NATO round, an almost identical bullet. A quick check on Wiki says that a 223 can be used in lieu of a 5.56, however if a 5.56 was used in a 223 Remington the pressures may be too great. I am sure there are plenty of armament SME,s here to clarify.

I would think that the case markings would determine which it was.

[mrtoad]

Interesting and obvious points and allegations seem to made in this report.

There may be enough here to see some generals and the PM of the time ( and other members of his unelected government ) indicted for some very serious crimes.

That really would be a first for Thailand.

Would also be nice to see Red Shirt leaders, Thaksin and other Red Shirts also held accountable for their serious crimes, both in 2009 and 2010.

[Fozfromoz]

"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.

Who can or has disputed the effects of the activities of the MIB ???

There were 4,000 people in the temple and only one weapon ??

That kind of puts to sleep the argument that the reds were heavily armed, does it not ?

No, not really. At best it proves that the armed militants only left one weapon behind when they cleared out.

The other way of looking at it is, why were there any weapons in the temple at all?

Nah not buying. It proves there was one weapon found. Full stop. End of. As to why the was any weapons, would that be in the report?

[AleG]

At least now there is an 'admission' men-in-black 'did' exist. So with the 515 pages (of politically correct - no blame document) can we now let this just go away? If the siege and burning of Bangkok had happened in any western city - it would not have lasted a week - police would have done their jobs - possibly with a few broken bones, and none of the barricades would have been built and there would have been no need to call in the army. But try explaining logic to Thai's...

I have the nagging suspicion that, for the most part, the police did their job. Not their duty, though.