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

[bigbamboo]

So how come the blackshirts were able to move freely amongst the redshirts if they didn't have each other's support?

[Roadman]

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?

Who has the police brought and paid for from his back pocket? The mouthing off from Seh Dueang (before he was rightfully deal with) regards his leadership from the Dubai convicted fugitive criminal is not forgotten.

[bendejo]

Well, at least there is acknowledgement that these guys exist, that's a start.

During the red demos I was seeing pickup trucks full of these guys regularly, looked like a bunch of bad boys, ex-cons. My guess is they had a 'barracks' close to where I was staying. Thai people would avert their eyes from them.

I wonder what their salary was.

One day the reds were out in force, had a march that went on for a few km. I saw a policeman sitting behind a food stall reading a newspaper, wouldn't lift his eyes from it as thousands of cheering reds passed by. I figured they were all paid off by that former policeman who now lives outside the country. I guess Chalerm going after RTPF is a good thing, as he will end up with ZERO sympathy from either the military or the BiB.

Edited September 14, 2012 by bendejo

[rixalex]

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.

What is it that you are not buying? That of these 4000 people we are told were in the temple, none of them could have possibly walked in armed, and then walked out armed?

[Fozfromoz]

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.

What is it that you are not buying? That of these 4000 people we are told were in the temple, none of them could have possibly walked in armed, and then walked out armed?

I was responding to the statement that because one weapon was found, "at best it proves the armed militants only left one weapon behind when they cleared out" The proof is one weapon was found. The Assumption is that there was more. Proof and assumption are not the same.

[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 on0 by a british reporter who was in the temple compound at the time ae 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?

There was also the interview (i.e not " a suggestion") with a british reporter who was in the compound at the time who stated there was no gunfire from the temple area. The interview has been posted several times but I guess you "forgot" about that. Always try to deflect with another question and here it is

"Who has said that the red shirts in the temple were heavily armed?" Most of the posters on here. The red shirts that were in the temple had gone there from the main base in Lumpini Park because it was supposed to be a safe haven. The army had fired indiscriminately into the park before taking it over because of supposedly heavily armed red shirts being there. The soldiers on the tracks above said there were armed red shirts in the Wat and that justified their shooting into the medical tent and in the grounds. It has been stated on here that anyone carrying a rifle is heavily armed.

[rixalex]

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.

What is it that you are not buying? That of these 4000 people we are told were in the temple, none of them could have possibly walked in armed, and then walked out armed?

I was responding to the statement that because one weapon was found, "at best it proves the armed militants only left one weapon behind when they cleared out" The proof is one weapon was found. The Assumption is that there was more. Proof and assumption are not the same.

Nobody made the assumption that there were more, somebody suggested the possibility that there may have been more. Unless all 4,000 people were searched before they left, it seems very possible to me.

[Fozfromoz]

To rixalex.

Anything is possible.

But not proved, my original point made.

[phiphidon]

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....-protest-deaths # 16

Only to 'corrected' by a red apologist.

The only "correction" to your post was another forum member who was there as well (whether or not at the same time I don't know) who said he saw nothing like this occur and another one disputing the 500 MIB figure that the government propagandists were peddling.

You also stated that

" Please remember the events i recounted took place outside the protest area which is where most of the violence and deaths occurred."

which tends to point out that the vast majority of the red shirt protesters had no idea this was happening and highlights some of the alarming posts on this forum about red shirts deserving to die because they happened to be in the same city as these "500 MIB". I would also suggest that a good deal of those red shirts there at the democracy monument had no idea either.

[Ferangled]

Peaceful protest by butt.

Now that's one sort of protest I'm sure we can all agree would make a refreshing change... a peaceful bum protest; I have images of a throng of thongs marching on Parliament!

Thanks, having trawled through the dire string of posts on this thread it's nice to have something to smile about

[rixalex]

To rixalex.

Anything is possible.

But not proved, my original point made.

Understood but nobody was claiming anything else had been proved. Finding one gun as they did proves there was one gun present. Finding one gun does not prove there weren't another dozen or so guns in there at the time. Frankly i am surprised any guns were left behind.

[phiphidon]

'Men In Black' Are Policemen, Chalerm Claims

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

.

Nice 1 Buchholz

Why do you say that? buchholz at first states this

Kudos to Chalerm for finally identifying the origins of the mysterious men in black. They are the Red on the outside, Red on the inside, "tomatoes".

Illuminating also that cops also took out Sae Daeng, which would explain the precise sniper head shot had to be well-trained.

And yet in that same thread he says this

Chalerm has demonstrated intentional vagueness and elusive conjecture

So is buchholz saying that Chalerm is a reliable source or an unreliable source?

[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 ?

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?

Yes, why did the army just leave the one when they searched it the next day?

[KireB]

which tends to point out that the vast majority of the red shirt protesters had no idea this was happening and highlights some of the alarming posts on this forum about red shirts deserving to die because they happened to be in the same city as these "500 MIB". I would also suggest that a good deal of those red shirts there at the democracy monument had no idea either.

My in laws, fervent red shirts, were fully aware of their 'protection squad', so it is pretty naive of you (or just a usual lie) to say that the reds didn't have an idea about the MIB. They knew that they were around and chose to stay on. Not clever just for the face value and fortune of a criminal on the run.

[Thaddeus]

Were these "men in black" the Thahan Prahan?

And because some forum members are so far up their own backsides trying to get their own petty little opinions across, one of the most important questions raised has gone unnoticed and unanswered.

To which the answer is, more than likely, yes.

[473geo]

Most of the comments on this thread give the impression that many posters have missed the underlying purpose of this report

It would not be a smart move to try and lay the whole of the blame on the RTA if you are in government, conflict with the RTA does not bode well for a government

The government must apportion some blame on the RTA to enable the compensation payments regarding the injured and dead thus accomodating the red shirt following

The quoted elements of the report provide vague descriptions and inconclusive comment

Yep just what is required, a report all sides could accept and move on

But will the Thai accept?.....probably.......but certainly not on posters on Tvisa I would suspect

[Moruya]

Most of the comments on this thread give the impression that many posters have missed the underlying purpose of this report

It would not be a smart move to try and lay the whole of the blame on the RTA if you are in government, conflict with the RTA does not bode well for a government

The government must apportion some blame on the RTA to enable the compensation payments regarding the injured and dead thus accomodating the red shirt following

The quoted elements of the report provide vague descriptions and inconclusive comment

Yep just what is required, a report all sides could accept and move on

But will the Thai accept?.....probably.......but certainly not on posters on Tvisa I would suspect

The report doesn't agree with your monocled views, so be it. No surprises there.

But to state that one must be in some form of yogic state to feel the vibrations between the lines of a report that you haven't read puts you more in Barney territory.

[rixalex]

Sadly, but not unexpectedly. you seem to have entirely missed the post I mean point.

It's not deliberate is it ?

Pray tell then, what was the point? That Sri Lanka will soon be competing in the World Cup thanks to their new extreme training methods of having next to the pitch an armed Tamil chap and a farmer (don't ask me what the farmer is there for). Any player who under performs gets shot and replaced.

[chotthee]

The report noted that: "At around 6pm [of May 19, 2010] seven soldiers were deployed on the first floor of [bTS] Skytrain track in front of Wat Pathumwannaram and five [soldiers] at the Siam Centre BTS Station. All of them were armed with M16 rifles and live bullets.

"It was discovered that officers aimed at and shot in the direction of Wat Pathumwannaram.

Lie, all lie. Mark / Suthep / Army already confirm that NO SOLDIERS WERE ON THE BTS THAT DAY.

[rixalex]

Yes and if we're to continue the analogy in this fashion the security forces would then have to start randomly shooting the football supporters, armed or not, using live rounds, managing to kill unarmed supporters, reporters and indeed everyone but the Tamil guy..

Of course later they would go on to claim that only rubber bullets were used contrary to the evidence of the corpses littering the stadium with obvious gunshot wounds...

Well yeah, after the weeks and weeks of stand-off, shit does tend to happen in these sorts of situations, and if you place yourself somewhere between armed soldiers and armed terrorists, there's always a chance things might not go well for you. The trick is, when you realise you are in amongst people who are acting in a violent manner you don't agree with, and when the government tells you for the fifth time to get out for your own safety, to remove yourself immediately.

The only people who deserve sympathy and justice are those who had no choice being there.

[Ferangled]

Of course there were peaceful protesters, but by having armed people among you you are part of a violent uprise! The red siege was, therefor, per definition a violent protest!

Yes clearly being in the vicinity of armed people makes you part of a violent uprising.... the utter abandonment of logic on this forum never fails to amuse me!

Will someone kindly explain why, faced with this terror group of armed MIBs the military managed to shoot everyone but the MIBs themselves? I don't know about you but if I am getting shot at by groups of black clothed militants I would concentrate my fire on them and not randomly shooting everyone but them.

Have I read the same article as everyone else here? From the comments it appears not...

"it led to the confusing and out-of-control use of weapons by soldiers", the report said. It added that soldiers then used rifles and fired "many" live bullets in the direction of the red-shirt protesters. "Many protesters died from bullet wounds," the report stated"

So we have soldiers firing many live bullets into protesters, described as out of control use of weapons. Seems somewhat contrary to the press releases and statements since the event...

"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."

And we have use of live ammunition against the protesters before any involvement from the MIBs...

some 4,000 people had entered the temple, which had been declared a sanctuary area.... "It was discovered that officers aimed at and shot in the direction of Wat Pathumwannaram.What's more, a senior monk at the temple said he had seen a number of soldiers on the Skytrain track and had heard many gunshots fired around the front of the temple at dusk.

It is highly likely that this was the cause of the deaths and injuries around Wat Pathumwananram," the report concluded, adding that one soldier told the TRCT that he had fired into the temple because there was an armed man in black on a tree inside the temple.

Then we have the military shooting up a temple that was declared a sanctuary by the Government. c. 4,000 protesters inside and the reasoning for opening fire on them was that 1 lone MIB was apparently seen up a tree?! Surely one round would be adequate, why the multiple gunshots? There's not even a statement claiming that anyone was firing back from the temple, just that someone saw someone up a tree...

[Nickymaster]

So is buchholz saying that Chalerm is a reliable source or an unreliable source?

If you don't get it, it is your problem.

You being a die-hard red shirt/fan, maybe it's about time for you to start apologizing for all the terror your heroes have caused, and your comments supporting their actions, instead of playing the judge.

Shame on you! Smart..s!

A tad emotional there I feel nickymaster.

It was a simple statement that buchholz contradicts himself. Nothing new about that , but then you get all personal. Curious.

Lets just wait till the real "judges" come up with the results of the inquest, shall we.

Yes I get personal if people only talk crap the whole day and even try to bother me with it.

If you don't see the difference between contradicting and being sarcastic, don't waste my time.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Ferangled]

Yes and if we're to continue the analogy in this fashion the security forces would then have to start randomly shooting the football supporters, armed or not, using live rounds, managing to kill unarmed supporters, reporters and indeed everyone but the Tamil guy..

Of course later they would go on to claim that only rubber bullets were used contrary to the evidence of the corpses littering the stadium with obvious gunshot wounds...

Well yeah, after the weeks and weeks of stand-off, shit does tend to happen in these sorts of situations, and if you place yourself somewhere between armed soldiers and armed terrorists, there's always a chance things might not go well for you. The trick is, when you realise you are in amongst people who are acting in a violent manner you don't agree with, and when the government tells you for the fifth time to get out for your own safety, to remove yourself immediately.

The only people who deserve sympathy and justice are those who had no choice being there.

I think to be fair one might reasonably expect that the soldiers might actually shoot a few armed terrorists and not just peaceful, unarmed bystanders and reporters... sorry but all those that were shot on both sides are worthy of my sympathy, please don't be so offensive.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ferangled

[Buchholz]

So is buchholz saying that Chalerm is a reliable source or an unreliable source?

If you don't get it, it is your problem.

You being a die-hard red shirt/fan, maybe it's about time for you to start apologizing for all the terror your heroes have caused, and your comments supporting their actions, instead of playing the judge.

Shame on you! Smart..s!

A tad emotional there I feel nickymaster.

It was a simple statement that buchholz contradicts himself. Nothing new about that , but then you get all personal. Curious.

pot... kettle... black...

As the above shows, it seems there's no shortage of posts from you that are overly personal attacks. Definitely not curious in your situation.

.

[philw]

Of course there were peaceful protesters, but by having armed people among you you are part of a violent uprise! The red siege was, therefor, per definition a violent protest!

Yes clearly being in the vicinity of armed people makes you part of a violent uprising.... the utter abandonment of logic on this forum never fails to amuse me!

Will someone kindly explain why, faced with this terror group of armed MIBs the military managed to shoot everyone but the MIBs themselves? I don't know about you but if I am getting shot at by groups of black clothed militants I would concentrate my fire on them and not randomly shooting everyone but them.

Have I read the same article as everyone else here? From the comments it appears not...

"it led to the confusing and out-of-control use of weapons by soldiers", the report said. It added that soldiers then used rifles and fired "many" live bullets in the direction of the red-shirt protesters. "Many protesters died from bullet wounds," the report stated"

So we have soldiers firing many live bullets into protesters, described as out of control use of weapons. Seems somewhat contrary to the press releases and statements since the event...

"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."

And we have use of live ammunition against the protesters before any involvement from the MIBs...

some 4,000 people had entered the temple, which had been declared a sanctuary area.... "It was discovered that officers aimed at and shot in the direction of Wat Pathumwannaram.What's more, a senior monk at the temple said he had seen a number of soldiers on the Skytrain track and had heard many gunshots fired around the front of the temple at dusk.

It is highly likely that this was the cause of the deaths and injuries around Wat Pathumwananram," the report concluded, adding that one soldier told the TRCT that he had fired into the temple because there was an armed man in black on a tree inside the temple.

Then we have the military shooting up a temple that was declared a sanctuary by the Government. c. 4,000 protesters inside and the reasoning for opening fire on them was that 1 lone MIB was apparently seen up a tree?! Surely one round would be adequate, why the multiple gunshots? There's not even a statement claiming that anyone was firing back from the temple, just that someone saw someone up a tree...

Difficult to argue against this but my moneys on Rixalex................................

[Ferangled]

In answer to those that deem there were no peaceful protestors because they allowed the MIB to move among them.......

I was watching a local football match in Sri Lanka during the Tamil confrontations, a Tamil guy came and stood alongside me......

He had a machine gun slung over his shoulder.......

I didn't ask him why he was there with a machine gun, but just gave a polite nod and carried on watching the football.......

An analogy that would only start becoming comparable were the football pitch to become surrounded by security forces who demanded that any arms or weapons be put down and the area evacuated by all. At which time, your Tamil "friend" refuses to put down his weapon, refuses to leave, and instead makes some demands and remains stubbornly sitting where he is for the next month or so. You inexplicably stay sitting next to him for this entire period, despite having free will to leave, and despite security forces telling you your life is in danger by staying where you are.

Yes and if we're to continue the analogy in this fashion the security forces would then have to start randomly shooting the football supporters, armed or not, using live rounds, managing to kill unarmed supporters, reporters and indeed everyone but the Tamil guy..

Of course later they would go on to claim that only rubber bullets were used contrary to the evidence of the corpses littering the stadium with obvious gunshot wounds...

Is that before or after the Tamil guy has murdered the Army guys sent to control a seemingly unarmed event?

Well, if you care to read the OP, they actually would have started firing before the Tamil guy even entered the stadium...

"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."

[OzMick]

"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?

[473geo]

Most of the comments on this thread give the impression that many posters have missed the underlying purpose of this report

It would not be a smart move to try and lay the whole of the blame on the RTA if you are in government, conflict with the RTA does not bode well for a government

The government must apportion some blame on the RTA to enable the compensation payments regarding the injured and dead thus accomodating the red shirt following

The quoted elements of the report provide vague descriptions and inconclusive comment

Yep just what is required, a report all sides could accept and move on

But will the Thai accept?.....probably.......but certainly not on posters on Tvisa I would suspect

The report doesn't agree with your monocled views, so be it. No surprises there.

But to state that one must be in some form of yogic state to feel the vibrations between the lines of a report that you haven't read puts you more in Barney territory.

You are welcome to disagree with any comments I have made in the post above............I understand of course you will wish to read the whole report before contradicting anything I have stated.......may I advise you cut out the crap and concentrate on the task......thank you

[philw]

Thank you Ozmick and special thanks to Bucholze, our custodian of protocol and the etiquette of the net.

When this report is made public ( next week, I understand ) there might well be some serious allegations made against all decision makers..........

[philw]

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?

Think this will probably resurface soon, the TRCT report seems not to have the fingerprints and iris scans of the troops on the tracks so leaving it open for some on here to argue that they weren't troops.............or some such nonsense.