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

[khunken]

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..........

And there might not.

So wouldn't it be a good idea to wait until then before boring us with your theories.

[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....-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.

Indeed as you correctly quoted me most of the deaths took place outside the main demo area, which suggest that there was less violence in the ratchaprasong area that is being suggested.

However.

The problem clearly is at an event such as this is that individuals (and i include myself) see 'snapshots' of a wider situation and assume (rightly or wrongly) that that snapshot represents the bigger picture in its entirety. Which clearly it doesn't. But when those snapshots are combined we see a very fluid and dynamic situation which brought out the best and worst in both the protesters and the security forces at different times.

The propaganda being peddled by a number of leading red shirts leaders plays almost exclusively on the simple dichotomy of simple, honest, law abiding protesters verses an illegal, vindictive, murderous security forces and government. (The dem government peddled the exact opposite) Both are true in part, but the actions these words describe, can be applied equally to both sides as opposed to exclusively.

Did the protesters deserve to die - no. Did the protesters know the MIB were among them - who knows how many protesters were truly aware of this, Did the MiB tactics draw a sharper response from security forces? You decide. Did the red leadership know about the MiB and what role did they have in their use..well those really are the million baht questions.

Nevertheless the presence of an armed group is supported and true.

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moruya]

Only if your limited intelligence misses the point in part one.........I guess if you have never had the experience of standing next to a terrorist armed with a submachine gun you would struggle to understand.........

Of course all you guys have a wealth of experiences.......garnered from Tvisa threads.......lucky you eh!

I'd sooner my brain that the scrambled organ between your ears.

How did you know he was a terrorist? Was he wearing red?

You have absolutely NO idea about who I am, what I do, what countries I visit and are therefore not qualified to comment on what my experiences are.

[473geo]

Only if your limited intelligence misses the point in part one.........I guess if you have never had the experience of standing next to a terrorist armed with a submachine gun you would struggle to understand.........

Of course all you guys have a wealth of experiences.......garnered from Tvisa threads.......lucky you eh!

I'd sooner my brain that the scrambled organ between your ears.

How did you know he was a terrorist? Was he wearing red?

You have absolutely NO idea about who I am, what I do, what countries I visit and are therefore not qualified to comment on what my experiences are.

Well have you stood next to a terrorist with a machine gun?.....because if not your post is just hot air with a strong smell of false indignation

[rixalex]

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.

Oh dear you totally miss the point again whoooooooooosh

Who in their right mind is going to question some guy with a submachine gun........please go out and try it

I am trying to understand your point, seriously i am. Are you saying that fear had you rooted to the spot, and it was this same sort of fear that kept all the thousands of red protesters from leaving?

[Buchholz]

< wholly unnecessary snarky discourse snipped >

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

It's same as Human Rights Commission report. Both sides guilty.

.

[jonclark]

"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?

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

They were clearly very successful then as a deterrent if, as one is led to believe, most protesters died after the MiB turned up and the military become more violent. Perhaps had they not turned up .....less lives might have been lost... but that is just speculation and hyperbole as is you claim they were a deterrent.

[473geo]

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.

Oh dear you totally miss the point again whoooooooooosh

Who in their right mind is going to question some guy with a submachine gun........please go out and try it

I am trying to understand your point, seriously i am. Are you saying that fear had you rooted to the spot, and it was this same sort of fear that kept all the thousands of red protesters from leaving?

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does not mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Edited September 14, 2012 by 473geo

[philw]

< wholly unnecessary snarky discourse snipped >

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

It's same as Human Rights Commission report. Both sides guilty.

.

No one is disputing that, are they ??

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

I thought I would reinstate my appeciation of your efforts.

Sorry you regard them as "snarky". ( what is snarky by the way ??)

Edited September 14, 2012 by philw

[rixalex]

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.

Bystanders? Who are you trying to kid? Were you in the centre of Bangkok during those weeks? The place was a battlefield. The situation didn't erupt over night and out of the blue. It escalated over many many days. People weren't just strolling along with their dogs and then finding themselves in amongst it. Everybody in Bangkok knew the areas that were dangerous. Unless you had a job to do that gave you no other choice (those are the people my heart goes out to), you stayed away from those areas. It wasn't rocket science.

[Ferangled]

"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?

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

They were clearly very successful then as a deterrent if, as one is led to believe, most protesters died after the MiB turned up and the military become more violent. Perhaps had they not turned up .....less lives might have been lost... but that is just speculation and hyperbole as is you claim they were a deterrent.

If you want to reply to a post I've made please quote the entirety of the post rather snipping it and taking it out of context. Thankyou.

I actually think there's a lot of truth to what you wrote. I believe their presence did escalate the situation but to then hold them accountable for the military's shooting of unarmed civilians is just irrational. Were they a contributing factor to the escalation of military violence? Sure.

Let's say I employ a guard as a deterrent to burglars and this guard happens to piss off a bunch of neighbourhood thugs. These thugs lock and load, ignore the guard but kill my family and rob my house... would it be rational to blame the guard and therefore absolve the actions of the murderers?

[Buchholz]

< wholly unnecessary snarky discourse snipped >

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

It's same as Human Rights Commission report. Both sides guilty.

No one is disputing that, are they ??

Certainly from time to time there are.

.

[rixalex]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

[Ferangled]

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.

Bystanders? Who are you trying to kid? Were you in the centre of Bangkok during those weeks? The place was a battlefield. The situation didn't erupt over night and out of the blue. It escalated over many many days. People weren't just strolling along with their dogs and then finding themselves in amongst it. Everybody in Bangkok knew the areas that were dangerous. Unless you had a job to do that gave you no other choice (those are the people my heart goes out to), you stayed away from those areas. It wasn't rocket science.

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

[Moruya]

Only if your limited intelligence misses the point in part one.........I guess if you have never had the experience of standing next to a terrorist armed with a submachine gun you would struggle to understand.........

Of course all you guys have a wealth of experiences.......garnered from Tvisa threads.......lucky you eh!

I'd sooner my brain that the scrambled organ between your ears.

How did you know he was a terrorist? Was he wearing red?

You have absolutely NO idea about who I am, what I do, what countries I visit and are therefore not qualified to comment on what my experiences are.

Well have you stood next to a terrorist with a machine gun?.....because if not your post is just hot air with a strong smell of false indignation

I shall ask again - how do you know it was a "terrorist with a machine gun" and not a youth with a plastic toy?

[473geo]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

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

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

[473geo]

Only if your limited intelligence misses the point in part one.........I guess if you have never had the experience of standing next to a terrorist armed with a submachine gun you would struggle to understand.........

Of course all you guys have a wealth of experiences.......garnered from Tvisa threads.......lucky you eh!

I'd sooner my brain that the scrambled organ between your ears.

How did you know he was a terrorist? Was he wearing red?

You have absolutely NO idea about who I am, what I do, what countries I visit and are therefore not qualified to comment on what my experiences are.

Well have you stood next to a terrorist with a machine gun?.....because if not your post is just hot air with a strong smell of false indignation

I shall ask again - how do you know it was a "terrorist with a machine gun" and not a youth with a plastic toy?

Jesus you are getting desperate.........go have a lie down......

[MAJIC]

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.

Well if they did their job,and cleared the Reds off the streets in the first place,there would have been no need to call in the Army,no nagging suspicion necessary.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MAJIC

[chotthee]

And no one even think that the MiB could be send in by the Army.

Once a boy was short accidentally by the US police.

The police than planted some drug hence gave him the excuse of shooting him.

Same same.

People are already started dying by real bullets.

So army send in a a couple of masked MiB, and let the camera film it.

Now, army have the excuse to slaughter, and license to fire at will en-mass.

[Ferangled]

I shall ask again - how do you know it was a "terrorist with a machine gun" and not a youth with a plastic toy?

Edit... sorry really not worth responding to, this thread is on a downward spiral of idiocy. I notice that any valid points made have been skipped over in favour of dragging this thread off the rails.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ferangled

[jonclark]

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

They were clearly very successful then as a deterrent if, as one is led to believe, most protesters died after the MiB turned up and the military become more violent. Perhaps had they not turned up .....less lives might have been lost... but that is just speculation and hyperbole as is you claim they were a deterrent.

If you want to reply to a post I've made please quote the entirety of the post rather snipping it and taking it out of context. Thankyou.

I actually think there's a lot of truth to what you wrote. I believe their presence did escalate the situation but to then hold them accountable for the military's shooting of unarmed civilians is just irrational. Were they a contributing factor to the escalation of military violence? Sure.

Let's say I employ a guard as a deterrent to burglars and this guard happens to piss off a bunch of neighbourhood thugs. These thugs lock and load, ignore the guard but kill my family and rob my house... would it be rational to blame the guard and therefore absolve the actions of the murderers?

If I was a cynic i'd reply to you analogy by saying that if you didn't have the guard in the first place would the thugs have killed your family and robbed your house. No guard = no one to annoy the local thugs which following the chain of events you describe means your house remains un robbed and your family alive.

I think directly comparing the army to thugs and murderers, who are by definition and action, as the name suggests implicit law breakers is slightly unfair and is a biased starting point for your analogy.

[tlansford]

and of course we have the biased nation headline, it couldn't have just been the 'report from the TRCT obtained', could it?

nope, just make sure to put the red shirts in the negative light from the very get go (title) of the article... when in fact there's actually very little within the article that speaks of the title's claim.

This

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

is not the title of the article written by The Nation.

It is just the title of this post.

[Ferangled]

If I was a cynic i'd reply to you analogy by saying that if you didn't have the guard in the first place would the thugs have killed your family and robbed your house. No guard = no one to annoy the local thugs which following the chain of events you describe means your house remains un robbed and your family alive.

I think directly comparing the army to thugs and murderers, who are by definition and action, as the name suggests implicit law breakers is slightly unfair and is a biased starting point for your analogy.

Fair point with regard to the military but similarly I wasn't trying to portray my family as red shirt supporters either (in fact the opposite is true). That said anyone that shoots randomly into a crowd of unarmed protesters is perhaps befitting of the title "murderous thug". I wouldn't extend that to the entire armed forces of Thailand but most baskets of apples have a few that are rotten to the core...

The point was that while the guard provided the initial spark for the reaction the responsibility for their actions rest firmly with those that pulled the trigger.

BTW as you did actually make this reply is it fair to label you a cynic?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ferangled

[MAJIC]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

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

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

[473geo]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

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

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

Oh dear could your concentration not mange to carry you to the next few words

"without becoming targets for live amnunition"

[Ferangled]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

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

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

Yes god dam_n those peaceful protesters, anyone would think it was their country... demonstrating on the streets? Whatever next, the poor voting? Quick someone get me a gun....

[rixalex]

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

If not the country, certainly the capital city, and also, in my view, to define someone as being a "peaceful protester", requires that person to protest within the law.

[Moruya]

Jesus you are getting desperate.........go have a lie down......

The name is Moruya. 3 syllables and just 6 letters.

[philw]

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

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

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

"..............without becoming targets for live ammunition" in a temple compound.

It was well beyond the "holding the country to ransom stage." ( if that ever existed. ).

Fact is we now have a report highlighting the actions of troops on the rail track shooting into the temple compound.

A government / army whitewash is starting to look increasingly difficult.

Any takers on how long before the Prime Minister at the time is indicted ??