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

[Nickymaster]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

[473geo]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Just the intial reaction to expect......politics

[rixalex]

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Indeed. Which is why i find it so daft when i hear these sorts of people saying "all we want is a fair investigation that reveals the truth". They want nothing of the sort. They want an investigation that reveals that they were right, that they did no wrong, and that the other side were totally to blame. Any other sort of a conclusion being reached will just be dismissed, as they are proving.

[473geo]

As Buchholz once stated regarding the drug wars, innocent until proved otherwise by legal process. Now what exactly am I supposed to be ignoring?

what was said...

(but not what 473 was referring to snipped)

Wrong quote Buchholz.......back to the search engine for you.....

Sorry if highlighting your misuse of what I said interferes with you said I said.

Perhaps next time, just provide the actual quote yourself.

OR

just keep it on the topic of Men In Black and not derail onto Thaksin's horrific Drug Wars.

I must apologise for recalling the content and not the location Buchholz....if I come across the post I will of course forward by PM to avoid derailing a topic.

[473geo]

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Indeed. Which is why i find it so daft when i hear these sorts of people saying "all we want is a fair investigation that reveals the truth". They want nothing of the sort. They want an investigation that reveals that they were right, that they did no wrong, and that the other side were totally to blame. Any other sort of a conclusion being reached will just be dismissed, as they are proving.

Sounds like just another day on Tvisa to me....

[khunken]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

First of all, this is not a government report.

Second, the current government has never produced a fair & impartial report.

Third, most of those on this thread not accepting it are red shirt supporters.

Fourth, yes, a report that all sides can accept is exactly what's needed.

Fifth, the current government & red shirt 'leadership' have already started to display their rejection of the report.

Sixth, Chalerm not long ago said that the MIB were police; not he says they don't exist.

I have posted twice on this thread that the extract is fair. Do you think it is fair? Yes or no, not like Phiphidon who says he prefers to wait for the full report despite having a fair amount to say on this extract.

[Nickymaster]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Just the intial reaction to expect......politics

I am just reporting the current situation. So which part of my post is...politics?

[473geo]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

First of all, this is not a government report.

Second, the current government has never produced a fair & impartial report.

Third, most of those on this thread not accepting it are red shirt supporters.

Fourth, yes, a report that all sides can accept is exactly what's needed.

Fifth, the current government & red shirt 'leadership' have already started to display their rejection of the report.

Sixth, Chalerm not long ago said that the MIB were police; not he says they don't exist.

I have posted twice on this thread that the extract is fair. Do you think it is fair? Yes or no, not like Phiphidon who says he prefers to wait for the full report despite having a fair amount to say on this extract.

First - I have never stated this is a government report - my point was it suits the government not to antagonise the military

Second - majority goverment reports err on the side of positive reflection on the government - not just the current Thai government - but as this is not a government report I can only conclude you are padding out your rhetoric

Third - most of the discussion on this thread is surrounding individual actions and micro debating not on the rounded view of the report

Fourth - thank you

Fifth - read my post again, politicians are not "the Thai people"

Sixth - I stopped taking a great deal of notice on the reports provided regarding Chalerm and his comments....but many continue if it suits them

In answer to your question:

I think the report achieves exactly what it set out to do....as per my post above......is it accurate? in so far as it goes brushing over contentious detail yes it is

I hope it works and Thailand will move on

[Nickymaster]

"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.

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple,

What, 3 days later like in Lumpini?

"with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives,"

In this context and without more information, this in nothing more than speculative. A lot like posters on TVF

No speculation here my friend, many have seen these events occur with their own eyes. Including myself.

They could have left after the first rounds of deaths knowing there would be an election within 6 months. Because that’s what they wanted isn't it? An election...real democracy.

But their leaders told them to stay and "fight on". No speculation here. Just facts.

Come on give it another twist tf.

[473geo]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Just the intial reaction to expect......politics

I am just reporting the current situation. So which part of my post is...politics?

"Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report;"

[KireB]

Let me refer you to my first post on this thread

"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 posters on Tvisa I would suspect"

Problem is that the red leaders cannot accept this report. It's completely out of line with their propaganda strategy: " the reds were peaceful protestors (and for sure not sponsored and ordered by Thaksin) and AV killed the innocent, peaceful democracy-loving people. And the police did a good job keeping law and order....and the reds had the right to "return" fire and kill 20 officials…

Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report; unsurprisingly.

Just the intial reaction to expect......politics

What a BS excuse. They refuse this report cause it sheds a light on their movement that they want everyone to forget. That of a armed revolt against the state of Thailand. You can twist and turn whatever you want, but without these red hooligans and their grenade lobbing and soldiers killing terrorist cells, there wouldn't be any casualties at all!

[rixalex]

First - I have never stated this is a government report - my point was it suits the government not to antagonise the military

One of the main problems the reds/PTP claimed to have with the Dems when they were in government was that they were "in cahoots with the military". Now that PTP is showing itself just as ready and willing to jump into bed with the military, this is no longer described as being "in cahoots", we now call this simply "trying not to antagonise the military". Nice bit of rewording going on to cover for the fact that nothing has really changed.

[473geo]

First - I have never stated this is a government report - my point was it suits the government not to antagonise the military

One of the main problems the reds/PTP claimed to have with the Dems when they were in government was that they were "in cahoots with the military". Now that PTP is showing itself just as ready and willing to jump into bed with the military, this is no longer described as being "in cahoots", we now call this simply "trying not to antagonise the military". Nice bit of rewording going on to cover for the fact that nothing has really changed.

Oh yes something has changed alright, PTP have honed their survival skills......

[473geo]

What a BS excuse. They refuse this report cause it sheds a light on their movement that they want everyone to forget. That of a armed revolt against the state of Thailand. You can twist and turn whatever you want, but without these red hooligans and their grenade lobbing and soldiers killing terrorist cells, there wouldn't be any casualties at all!

And subsequent Thai 'governments' could continue to ignore the needs of the electorate with impunity, and roll out the military if there were any objections

Of course there maybe those that argue nothing has changed........in their minds probably not......the next election will be very interesting

[rixalex]

Oh yes something has changed alright, PTP have honed their survival skills......

Look forward to PTP issuing an apology to the Dems for having accused them so many times of being in cahoots with the military, now they have realised that all along, the Dems were simply exercising their survival skills.

[473geo]

Oh yes something has changed alright, PTP have honed their survival skills......

Look forward to PTP issuing an apology to the Dems for having accused them so many times of being in cahoots with the military, now they have realised that all along, the Dems were simply exercising their survival skills.

There are those who might just argue, if military installed the survival instincts are not required, so much so that a government might miss 10,000 protestors setting up camp in the capital city.......until it is too late!!

[Nickymaster]

What a BS excuse. They refuse this report cause it sheds a light on their movement that they want everyone to forget. That of a armed revolt against the state of Thailand. You can twist and turn whatever you want, but without these red hooligans and their grenade lobbing and soldiers killing terrorist cells, there wouldn't be any casualties at all!

And subsequent Thai 'governments' could continue to ignore the needs of the electorate with impunity, and roll out the military if there were any objections

Of course there maybe those that argue nothing has changed........in their minds probably not......the next election will be very interesting

Talking about the electorate's needs, it all depends on how much money this government has left for populist spending in 3 years from now. Because the current PM is not interested (or to say it nicely, not capable) of making the Thai population self-sufficient, just dependent on them.

Where have I seen this go wrong before?

[kimamey]

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.

It's possible they had shields because they were from the army and had been sent in to fire from the protesters position and give an excuse for the army to attack. It's possible the protesters didn't realise this and thought they were on their side.

This is all possible but since the reds haven't claimed the MIB were on their side it's more likely but not proved that they weren't army and were either part of the protest or using it as a cover to cause trouble and were acting for someone else entirely.

Of course as far as I know neurofiend is anti Abhisit and Democrat so the latter is going to be less acceptable.

This report does at least look fairly balanced although I have no idea of the competency or neutrality of those involved.

It would seem likely that looking at the two sides they are very different as would be their actions.

The army are trained in warfare of different types including fighting through streets. I have no doubt that the suggestion that the then PM ordered the army to shoot and kill protesters in anything other than self defence is untrue. If he'd been prepared to do that it would have been better to do it earlier. Not every member of any group, be it in this case reds or army is going to be the same. It's therefore obvious that under this sort of stress some will be more likely to shoot at either something that angers or frightens them. How do you decide exactly when self defence starts? How many of us would, when confronted by a large angry mob for so long, say I've had enough of this? These people are firing at me when they should be on the same side as me. Some will have been anti red anyway and their neutrality will have been tested and some will have failed. This will happen but the army is better trained than the reds so it will just be a few who will break but as I said they are trained and equipped so if they fire it's more likely they will kill.

I'm sure there were trained fighters within the reds but most will be non trained and will have gone to the protests in the belief that they had a right to a better life and this was the way to do it, at least to start with. As things progressed some would have doubts and hold back particularly when things got dangerous. They would have family responsibilities and be rightly afraid of death or injury. Some, although not trained fighters would be angry and motivated enough not to have doubts. Maybe they didn't understand the dangers. Perhaps they'd seen to many films and for that moment believed them to be realistic. Whilst the reds may not have had the military training and equipment their leaders seem to have had money to arrange logistic such as transport and food. Above all else they had an ability to talk, to promote propaganda and to rally their supporters. The ability to take small truths or lies and turn them to your own advantage seems to be a great strength of the reds. The fact that most of the leaders seem to be to rich, elite and well away from the trouble they promote seems not to be noticed. I'm no fan of the reds but they're ability to rally the masses has to be admired and maybe feared.

[rixalex]

Oh yes something has changed alright, PTP have honed their survival skills......

Look forward to PTP issuing an apology to the Dems for having accused them so many times of being in cahoots with the military, now they have realised that all along, the Dems were simply exercising their survival skills.

There are those who might just argue, if military installed the survival instincts are not required, so much so that a government might miss 10,000 protestors setting up camp in the capital city.......until it is too late!!

Only people who might argue that would be those desperate to find a distinction between two governments acting in exactly the same way, so as to condemn one, but excuse the other.

[maidu]

Why not have a designated 'protest area' in a big field somewhere in the outskirts of Bkk. There can be a stage and lots of parking area. Sort of like an aggrandized 'speakers corner' at Hyde Park in London. Protest groups can go there, have loud long speeches, get drunk, yell slogans, and go home.

Allowing long lines of p.u. trucks, filled with red shirts (who were paid) to go in to Bangkok unhindered was the first mistake the Abhisit gov't made. after that, the rowdies ruled, along with the 'black shirt' embedded with them. If Thais weren't so culturally inclined to tell lies, some of the Reds might come out and tell the truth. But it's more than simply a matter of telling the truth, as angry people might harm or kill them for doing so.

[473geo]

Oh yes something has changed alright, PTP have honed their survival skills......

Look forward to PTP issuing an apology to the Dems for having accused them so many times of being in cahoots with the military, now they have realised that all along, the Dems were simply exercising their survival skills.

There are those who might just argue, if military installed the survival instincts are not required, so much so that a government might miss 10,000 protestors setting up camp in the capital city.......until it is too late!!

Only people who might argue that would be those desperate to find a distinction between two governments acting in exactly the same way, so as to condemn one, but excuse the other.

If there is a distinction there is, is there? if there is, just means your comment was ill thought out that's all, nothing major

[rixalex]

If there is a distinction there is, is there? if there is, just means your comment was ill thought out that's all, nothing major

What?

[phiphidon]

What it proves is that in addition to being unaware of the forum's functioning, you're also unaware of the concept of sarcasm and how a sarcastic comment may seem to conflict with a subsequent serious comment if only one is take the first one as non-sarcastic.

However, it only seems that way for people unfamiliar with sarcasm.

p.s. the "links" you provided are not links to my quotes. You provided a single link to the OP of the thread.

p.s.s. I did read your reply.

.

To be fair if you're trying to portray sarcasm via the internet you need to be very skilful with words. In the abscence of that skill, perhaps you could adopt Karl Marxs' equivalent punctuation for depicting sarcasm as used in Das Kapital. At the end of a sentences or sentences you wish to portray as sarcasm type this [!]

Amazing that no where in that 80-post thread with thousands of views did anyone fail to recognize the sarcasm for what it was.

Only 10 months later after it was written, did you alone fail to.

Perhaps that should tell you something.

.

Yep, I'm British.

[phiphidon]

Going rate at the time to reach the office varied from 50 to 100 baht depending on the extortionists on duty ,wife's handbag searched and oldest son was asked why his father wasn't supporting Thaksin and the Red Shirt movement.

Pure intimidation nothing more nothing less.Indeed the Thaksin nightmare of democracy was being practiced on a trial run.

People are now coming to realize just what Thaksin and his ilk stand for, a despotic bunch of tyrants intent on enriching themselves and their families.,

Thaksin is indeed a fine example of a liberator of the oppressed, much like Joe Stalin, Mao Tse Tung,Hun Sen. Pol Pot etc

Is there a Godwins Law equivalent for "Joe Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hun Sen, Pol Pot etc" ?

[philw]

What it proves is that in addition to being unaware of the forum's functioning, you're also unaware of the concept of sarcasm and how a sarcastic comment may seem to conflict with a subsequent serious comment if only one is take the first one as non-sarcastic.

However, it only seems that way for people unfamiliar with sarcasm.

p.s. the "links" you provided are not links to my quotes. You provided a single link to the OP of the thread.

p.s.s. I did read your reply.

.

To be fair if you're trying to portray sarcasm via the internet you need to be very skilful with words. In the abscence of that skill, perhaps you could adopt Karl Marxs' equivalent punctuation for depicting sarcasm as used in Das Kapital. At the end of a sentences or sentences you wish to portray as sarcasm type this [!]

Amazing that no where in that 80-post thread with thousands of views did anyone fail to recognize the sarcasm for what it was.

Only 10 months later after it was written, did you alone fail to.

Perhaps that should tell you something.

.

Yep, I'm British.

Shit, so am I.( don't tell me Mum )

[Skywalker69]

# 251 "Chalerm and Thida already stated they cannot accept the report;"

Says two of the must trustworthy people in Thailand?

[473geo]

Amazing that no where in that 80-post thread with thousands of views did anyone fail to recognize the sarcasm for what it was.

Only 10 months later after it was written, did you alone fail to.

Perhaps that should tell you something.

.

Yep, I'm British.

Shit, so am I.( don't tell me Mum )

What a revelation I'm also "unaware of the concept of sarcasm"

I often wondered where this flaw eminated......I'm British too

Buchholz is a genius.... ..

[phiphidon]

First of all, this is not a government report.

Second, the current government has never produced a fair & impartial report.

Third, most of those on this thread not accepting it are red shirt supporters.

Fourth, yes, a report that all sides can accept is exactly what's needed.

Fifth, the current government & red shirt 'leadership' have already started to display their rejection of the report.

Sixth, Chalerm not long ago said that the MIB were police; not he says they don't exist.

I have posted twice on this thread that the extract is fair. Do you think it is fair? Yes or no, not like Phiphidon who says he prefers to wait for the full report despite having a fair amount to say on this extract.

If you have a problem with my commenting on a thread perhaps you should report me with the reasons why.

[rubl]

First of all, this is not a government report.

Second, the current government has never produced a fair & impartial report.

Third, most of those on this thread not accepting it are red shirt supporters.

Fourth, yes, a report that all sides can accept is exactly what's needed.

Fifth, the current government & red shirt 'leadership' have already started to display their rejection of the report.

Sixth, Chalerm not long ago said that the MIB were police; not he says they don't exist.

I have posted twice on this thread that the extract is fair. Do you think it is fair? Yes or no, not like Phiphidon who says he prefers to wait for the full report despite having a fair amount to say on this extract.

If you have a problem with my commenting on a thread perhaps you should report me with the reasons why.

As we want to be sure of facts, and assuming we do not waste space on nettiquette discussions, what is there to comment on? MiB exist? Clearly, clearly whatever, why do you refuse to believe?

Inconsistency thy name starts with a p. IMHO of course.

Now let's try again the OP "Commission says MiB may have got cooperation from red shirts", almost like some saying 'government involvement', or 'army with matches in CentralWorld'.

[473geo]

As we want to be sure of facts, and assuming we do not waste space on nettiquette discussions, what is there to comment on? MiB exist? Clearly, clearly whatever, why do you refuse to believe?

Inconsistency thy name starts with a p. IMHO of course.

Now let's try again the OP "Commission says MiB may have got cooperation from red shirts", almost like some saying 'government involvement', or 'army with matches in CentralWorld'.

So Rubl also the MiB may not have got cooperation.........as we want to be sure of facts......and not maybe this or possibly that....correct