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

[Moruya]

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....

The MIB and violent red shirts are indeed testament to the fact that this was not a peaceful protest.

[rixalex]

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.

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

[KireB]

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

Down playing the red menace again? Unbelievable you guys. These gangsters were directly responsible for several murders among security forces and indirectly the trigger for military action that killed 'peaceful protesters', most with rockets, molotovs, knives and slingshots, and who chose to stay in a battle ground for weeks surrounded by terrorists and military battling each other with heavy weapons.

[AleG]

Quite an interesting thread, full of wonderful "logic"

The MIB brave action of creating a Red Shirt filled field of cross fire between them and the Army as a way of protecting the lives of Red Shirts. Brillian plan!

Very amusing also the high planes of logic that argue that because Thais like to avoid confrontation they stood put as armed men engaged in guerrilla tactics with the Army within the Red Shirt protest area, so as to avoid upsetting the MiB.

[Ferangled]

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.

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Really? Actually I was staying at a friend's condo that happened to be in the area... participating in terrorism? What are you banging on about?! So all the reporters were guilty of armed terrorism by proxy as were any peaceful protesters caught up in the escalating violence.... ok, clearly your are taking a holiday from reality once again!

[KireB]

"..............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 ??

If it can be established that the red shirts not just supported but also facilitated their terrorist cells, it will be interesting to see what will happen to the likes of Weng, Nattawut and Jatuporn who called for and instigated a lot of the violence. Also, the Shinawatras. Yingluck was openly present in the red camp, so were Somchai, Thaksin's wife and kids. Actually most of the present governent was openly calling for an armed and violent revolution of the 'poor'.

[rixalex]

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?

The moment you knew the guard was armed and dangerous, you would have sacked him and told him to bugger off because his continued presence in your house was giving the false impression that you were in some way a part of his nonsense, putting you and your family's lives in danger.

[rixalex]

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Really? Actually I was staying at a friend's condo that happened to be in the area... participating in terrorism? What are you banging on about?! So all the reporters were guilty of armed terrorism by proxy as were any peaceful protesters caught up in the escalating violence.... ok, clearly your are taking a holiday from reality once again!

I am not talking about residents or reporters, i'm talking about people who were there, on the streets in which the fighting was taking place, and who were there entirely of their own free choice. Not because they lived there, not because they had to work, but because they wanted to be a part of what the red shirt movement was doing.

[khunken]

PhilW

"..............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 ??

Why twist the report? Yes, there were peaceful protestors, together with more than a smattering of non-peaceful protestors so it is doubtful if the army knew exactly which was which in a violent confrontation - returning fire at a distance could account for some casualties. The armed red & black shirts (particularly the former) made sure that there were plenty of their fodder in the mix.

A red shirt whitewash is also looking unlikely & I would guess that the chances of Abhisit being indicted are the same as Thaksin's.

By the way, you don't have to post the latter part twice - I remember reading it in one of the earlier responses.

[webfact]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung Friday questioned the final report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) which states that "men in black" provoked the Army to use weapons against redshirt protesters in 2010.

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

The TRCT report shows that the socalled "men in black" had received cooperation from redshirt guards, prompting the Army to use live bullets.

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

-- The Nation 2012-09-14

[ScouseTommy]

Ahh reminds me of the pointless back and forth we had for months on here back in 2010. Give it up lads one of you is obviously very pro red shirt and the other not. Your never gonna see eye to eye so give us all a break eh!

P.S. I doubt the army would bother with a riot shield as it isnt bullet proof and there is much better cover or armour available to soldiers!

[Ferangled]

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Really? Actually I was staying at a friend's condo that happened to be in the area... participating in terrorism? What are you banging on about?! So all the reporters were guilty of armed terrorism by proxy as were any peaceful protesters caught up in the escalating violence.... ok, clearly your are taking a holiday from reality once again!

I am not talking about residents or reporters, i'm talking about people who were there, on the streets in which the fighting was taking place, and who were there entirely of their own free choice. Not because they lived there, not because they had to work, but because they wanted to be a part of what the red shirt movement was doing.

Oh I get it, so you are just selectively applying your comment to the people you choose to... great stuff, it's called selective reasoning by the way!

[rixalex]

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

Keep dreaming if you think anyone from high up, on either side, will ever do time for any of this mess. PTP have already made it clear that they are not interested in pursuing the army for justice, they are going after the government of the day. And why single out the government and leave the army alone? Not obvious? The Dems are the biggest obstacle right now between them and getting the whitewash Thaksin bill passed, otherwise jokingly known as the reconciliation bill. PTP are after leverage, that's all. Justice doesn't remotely come into it. If and when they get their leverage, a let-bygones-be-bygones deal will be done, and quick as you know it, in flies your hero.

[KireB]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung Friday questioned the final report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) which states that "men in black" provoked the Army to use weapons against redshirt protesters in 2010.

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

The TRCT report shows that the socalled "men in black" had received cooperation from redshirt guards, prompting the Army to use live bullets.

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

-- The Nation 2012-09-14

So Chalem is back peddling on earlier statements he made about the identity of this group and ignoring the HRW reports, youtube videos, Dan River from CNN, Atimes, witnesses etc.. How typical and makes me realize that this TRTC report could be potentially damaging to the present government.

[rixalex]

Oh I get it, so you are just selectively applying your comment to the people you choose to... great stuff, it's called selective reasoning by the way!

You knew all along precisely the people i was referring to. What you were doing is what is called "feigning stupidity"; pretending to think you genuinely thought i was of the view that reporters were in fact armed terrorists.

[Buchholz]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung Friday questioned the final report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) which states that "men in black" provoked the Army to use weapons against redshirt protesters in 2010.

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

The TRCT report shows that the socalled "men in black" had received cooperation from redshirt guards, prompting the Army to use live bullets.

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

One of Pheu Thai Party's best.

.

[khunken]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung Friday questioned the final report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) which states that "men in black" provoked the Army to use weapons against redshirt protesters in 2010.

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

The TRCT report shows that the socalled "men in black" had received cooperation from redshirt guards, prompting the Army to use live bullets.

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

One of Pheu Thai Party's best.

.

Better not say best what?

He changes his tune as much as his 'ear medicine'. Didn't he say that the MIB were actually police?

[Ferangled]

Oh I get it, so you are just selectively applying your comment to the people you choose to... great stuff, it's called selective reasoning by the way!

You knew all along precisely the people i was referring to. What you were doing is what is called "feigning stupidity"; pretending to think you genuinely thought i was of the view that reporters were in fact armed terrorists.

Yes, I knew all along that you were grasping at straws in trying to apply some sort of reasoning that would rationalise your belief that unarmed peaceful protesters were fair targets for the military. Stupidity? Well I wouldn't have gone that far, I was hoping you might just be having a bad day...

[Buchholz]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

One of Pheu Thai Party's best.

Better not say best what?

He changes his tune as much as his 'ear medicine'. Didn't he say that the MIB were actually police?

Yes, he did,

"I would like to reiterate here that they are policemen," Chalerm said.

but perhaps that was said during an ear medicine-induced blackout and he doesn't remember.

I'm wondering if the DSI will back up his claims of what their conclusions were or will there be more spin control and denials on that.

.

[jonclark]

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?

Sorry I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. The point was using your household guard analogy. The guard started the problem, but you say he holds no responsibility. I am saying if he hadn't caused the problem (pissing off local thugs) there would have been no problem at all. Or do you think it is okay to piss people off, agitate them and then wash your hands of the consequences?

In effect what your stating is people who cause the problem (the guard [as an analogy for the MIB] ) are not responsible for the fallout the follows when people react.

So if i turned up at your house repeatedly late every night of the week and made you and your family feel unsafe, by various types of anti social behavior and piss you off, you come and and smack me one. It's all your fault. I hold no blame

Your analogy is too simplistic and poor and simply doesn't hold up - sorry

As for the cynical bit - spot on - that's what living here does to you when yo follow Thai politics!

[rubl]

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

Surely Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm is not suggesting that the TRCT only had legal authority to come with another conclusion? Wow! Now I understand why member phiphidon regularly complaint about the lack of teeth and only limited mandate k. Abhisit gave this commission.

[Ferangled]

Sorry I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. The point was using your household guard analogy. The guard started the problem, but you say he holds no responsibility. I am saying if he hadn't caused the problem (pissing off local thugs) there would have been no problem at all. Or do you think it is okay to piss people off, agitate them and then wash your hands of the consequences?

In effect what your stating is people who cause the problem (the guard [as an analogy for the MIB] ) are not responsible for the fallout the follows when people react.

So if i turned up at your house repeatedly late every night of the week and made you and your family feel unsafe, by various types of anti social behavior and piss you off, you come and and smack me one. It's all your fault. I hold no blame

Your analogy is too simplistic and poor and simply doesn't hold up - sorry

As for the cynical bit - spot on - that's what living here does to you when yo follow Thai politics!

Sorry but we seem to be losing each other here, probably my fault for using a poor analogy to begin with. I have to conclude however that your's is no better; a more accurate response in terms of the actual events would be that I didn't smack you but randomly smacked your neighbour, who actually didn't do anything to incite my anger but was guilty by proxy! Fair comment?

Clearly action and reaction are in practice here but you are effectively saying that the action absolves any reaction against anyone, no matter if they weren't responsible for the initial action! It's patently just absurd. Let's leave the analogies alone for now. Inciting violence is one thing, shooting groups of unarmed civilians is another.

[Moruya]

Chalerm questions TRCT report

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung Friday questioned the final report of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) which states that "men in black" provoked the Army to use weapons against redshirt protesters in 2010.

Chalerm said the TRCT, which was appointed by the Abhisit Vejjajiva government, had no legal authority to come up with such a conclusion that there were men in black during the protests.

The TRCT report shows that the socalled "men in black" had received cooperation from redshirt guards, prompting the Army to use live bullets.

Chalerm said the authorised investigators of the Department of Special Investigation had concluded that there were no men in black among the protesters.

-- The Nation 2012-09-14

Ignoramous

[rixalex]

Yes, I knew all along that you were grasping at straws in trying to apply some sort of reasoning that would rationalise your belief that unarmed peaceful protesters were fair targets for the military.

I have never tried to rationalise a belief that unarmed peaceful protesters were fair targets for the military, because that is not my belief and never has been.

[KireB]

Inciting violence is one thing, shooting groups of unarmed civilians is another.

Ok let's hear from you now: who were these unared civilians. Were they indeed unarmed, were they just civilians or were they part of the red shirts? Were they aware of the war zone they created or were they just waiting for the bus when they got shot. You have a mouthful today, touching a degree of sheer arrogance, so now inform us.

[phiphidon]

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've read all the posts in this thread so far & the Sri Lanka football 'analogy' takes the biscuit for stupidity.

The report, as set out in the Nation, seems pretty fair to me. But it appears that the red shirt supporters can't accept it without either using selective extracts or conspiracy theories.

To add to Rivalex's comment, I also sympathise with the brainwashed.

When dealing with a 515 page report expressed as a few paragraphs in the OP it's a bit difficult to do anything other than select extracts. Rather than sympathising with the brainwashed why don't apply some of your non brainwashed views to the points that ferangled has pointed out earlier, or don't you accept them?

[phiphidon]

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.

Buchholz was being sarcastic, is that it . Strange, it seems to me that he actually praised Chalerm in his first post and then disparaged him in the second. That's not being sarcastic, that's just being confused.

[metisdead]

Off topic nonsense baiting posts have been removed as well as some replies.

[phiphidon]

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.

.

I'm sorry buchholz,I point out an obvious flaw in an argument. In return I 'm told that if I don't get it (presumably the point you made but which I showed as flawed) it's my problem , accused of being of being a die hard red shirt fan (fair enough) but then told it's time I "start apologizing for all the terror your heroes have caused, and your comments supporting their actions, instead of playing the judge."

I point out that this is a tad emotional and personal (which it plainly is) and now you butt in and accuse me of overly personal attacks referring to "no shortage of posts" - are you keeping records?

Now blow me down and knock me over with a feather but that sounds like you are appealing to the mods and trying to get me suspended or banned.

Would you kindly just stick to the OP or not bother to post.

[khunken]

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've read all the posts in this thread so far & the Sri Lanka football 'analogy' takes the biscuit for stupidity.

The report, as set out in the Nation, seems pretty fair to me. But it appears that the red shirt supporters can't accept it without either using selective extracts or conspiracy theories.

To add to Rivalex's comment, I also sympathise with the brainwashed.

When dealing with a 515 page report expressed as a few paragraphs in the OP it's a bit difficult to do anything other than select extracts. Rather than sympathising with the brainwashed why don't apply some of your non brainwashed views to the points that ferangled has pointed out earlier, or don't you accept them?

I don't accept anything that Ferangled has said in his umpteen posts on this thread. I have previously posted that I think the extract provided on this thread is fair. All Ferangled (& others) have done is twist selected pieces of the piece to suit their agenda. I haven't seen any red-shirt supporter accept the piece overall. Do you?