Democrats: Thaksin Was Behind Men In Black

[looping]

It's blatantly obvious why the MIB existed, and for what purpose, Abhisit should get the evidence and present it rather than just stating the obvious. Without evidence he looks a bit silly.

Chalerm should be made to declare their identities, if he claimed to have known. That would be a start. I'm sure that if they can be found, they'd fall like a pack of cards. Shame that there's a huge incentive for the current government for this to NOT happen.

[yourauntbob]

This old conversation again

[AleG]

It's blatantly obvious why the MIB existed, and for what purpose, Abhisit should get the evidence and present it rather than just stating the obvious. Without evidence he looks a bit silly.

Chalerm should be made to declare their identities, if he claimed to have known. That would be a start. I'm sure that if they can be found, they'd fall like a pack of cards. Shame that there's a huge incentive for the current government for this to NOT happen.

What do you mean IF they can be found? Some have already been arrested, confessed and charged for firing grenades and RPGs during the protests. On the other hand, suspiciously, I haven't seen any follow through on who they were taking orders from .

Here's one:

“Mr Surachai admitted to being involved in two violent attacks during the protest. One was the May 8 shooting at a police security checkpoint at Sala-Daeng intersection where one police officer was killed and two others injured. The other was a grenade attack on a Lumpini police flat on May 19.

...

Mr Surachai implicated Maj Gen Khattiya, widely known as Seh Daeng, as the mastermind of the attacks."

Edited April 10, 2013 by AleG

[Buchholz]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

[yourauntbob]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

I stand by my comment. No matter what "evidence" comes out people stick to their side of the story without ever looking at much of the facts.

Those how dislike Thaksin say that the army were angles and everything was a big conspiracy of redshirts killing themselves to frame the government. Never mind the videos on youtube showing people being shot at the protest sites.

Those who sympathies with the red shirts fill their heads that the government sent in men in black to shoot at their own people in order undermine their claims.

Both sides have consistently denied any responsibility or accountability for anything that happened including all those who died senselessly so the rich could rage war on each other. The government sent soldiers to shoot at their own citizens while the red leadership hid behind a group of desperate people. All parties should be ashamed of themselves and all the TV members out their who file in line behind either side are no better. Hate me if you like, ban me if you must but thats the truth that very few are saying.

[GazR]

These claims state what I suspect many people believe, but I'd like to see what actual proof the Dems can produce, just as I'd love to see the various investigations and commissions interview former-PM Thaksin & his local-representatives, or the black-shirt leader who DPM-Chalerm knows but refuses to name !

Don't the current government want to establish the full truth ?

Why ever not ?

The current government is really committed. It seems that Thai Rath has reported that the Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs, Surapong Tovichakchaikul, has said the following on the jurisdiction of the ICC (after the Sept, 15th rally this year):

“It is time for Thailand to accept the ad hoc jurisdiction of the ICC in order to allow the truth to come out.”

Further more UDD legal representative Robert A. has recently said in a speech

“Our application to the ICC is being treated very seriously.”

Unfortunately the ICC doesn't comment on requests for investigation as long as no decision is made if the ICC has jurisdiction. Of course the original 'request to investigate possible ...' was only on the 31st of January last year, these things take time

Talk is cheap: Anyway, the official investigation already established that there were 5 MIB - all allied with the Red Shirts.

Maybe that's why Chalerm knows who they are.

[yoshiwara]

The Blackshirts weren't a democracy, they were Thaksin's putative armed wing. Not an aberration but a direct line leading from Arisman's call to arms video. The operation was intended to bring down the government. It failed.

[Pi Sek]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

I stand by my comment. No matter what "evidence" comes out people stick to their side of the story without ever looking at much of the facts.

Those how dislike Thaksin say that the army were angles and everything was a big conspiracy of redshirts killing themselves to frame the government. Never mind the videos on youtube showing people being shot at the protest sites.

Those who sympathies with the red shirts fill their heads that the government sent in men in black to shoot at their own people in order undermine their claims.

Both sides have consistently denied any responsibility or accountability for anything that happened including all those who died senselessly so the rich could rage war on each other. The government sent soldiers to shoot at their own citizens while the red leadership hid behind a group of desperate people. All parties should be ashamed of themselves and all the TV members out their who file in line behind either side are no better. Hate me if you like, ban me if you must but thats the truth that very few are saying.

Your point is well-taken and I agree that the football-team-mentality of the Thai political divide is very childish and highly irresponsible, and most of us seem to question the source before looking at what is actually said. But I'm afraid I am unable to be quiet and accept what I see as real injustice.

I said it in 2010 and I'll say it now: if anything comes out that convinces me that the UDD protest was in the right and the government/army/whoever else weren't, then I'll gladly hold my hands up, say "I'm wrong" and champion the 'other' side. But I can't really count soldiers shooting at what might appear to be an armed threat in a live fire zone as "in the wrong".

I think that a Senate panel's findings should be taken as somewhere between fairly strong advice and an outright ruling. And the panel findings basically show that, on 10 April 2010:

- armed protesters attacked the army

- the army operations were carried out properly

- investigations since the event have not been conducted properly

Buchholz did miss off, for me, the most interesting point of the Senate panel's findings... that "the panel believed that a red-shirt protester, Wasant Phuthong, was shot from behind by one of the protesters".

All this makes me wonder if I was correct in my day-one suspicion that Thaksin, as well as being financially responsible for the protest itself, was funding a separate armed wing to cause deaths on both sides to incite civil war with a view to being able to return as the country's saviour.

The OP isn't clear whether it is the panel itself who suspects when it says "Thaksin Shinawatra who was suspected of being the mastermind of the violence".

Edited April 10, 2013 by Pi Sek

[philw]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

I stand by my comment. No matter what "evidence" comes out people stick to their side of the story without ever looking at much of the facts.

Those how dislike Thaksin say that the army were angles and everything was a big conspiracy of redshirts killing themselves to frame the government. Never mind the videos on youtube showing people being shot at the protest sites.

Those who sympathies with the red shirts fill their heads that the government sent in men in black to shoot at their own people in order undermine their claims.

Both sides have consistently denied any responsibility or accountability for anything that happened including all those who died senselessly so the rich could rage war on each other. The government sent soldiers to shoot at their own citizens while the red leadership hid behind a group of desperate people. All parties should be ashamed of themselves and all the TV members out their who file in line behind either side are no better. Hate me if you like, ban me if you must but thats the truth that very few are saying.

A pretty accurate summation, I think, and a good example of how the country operates.

[maidu]

It's good that this report is coming out, belated as it is. Unfortunately, anything that ruffles the feathers of the standing gov't will be either ignored or disputed - so nothing tangible will get done about it. Even if a court cases came along, the PT and the Shinawatres would get any embarrassing (to them) cases thrown out on technicalities - as they did with recent arson charges. The gov't's ace in the deck, is the threat of additional Red occupations and harassment of jurors. In sum, trying to find the real truth and prosecute wrongdoers can only be a subjective exercise in Thailand. It's quixotic and T will continue being T, and never be able to say a word of truth.

It's blatantly obvious why the MIB existed, and for what purpose, Abhisit should get the evidence and present it rather than just stating the obvious. Without evidence he looks a bit silly.
Chalerm should be made to declare their identities, if he claimed to have known. That would be a start. I'm sure that if they can be found, they'd fall like a pack of cards. Shame that there's a huge incentive for the current government for this to NOT happen.

Involving Chalerm would be buffoonism. He has zero credence, so if he says something, it can immediately be discounted by whomsoever doesn't agree with him.

The Blackshirts weren't a democracy, they were Thaksin's putative armed wing. Not an aberration but a direct line leading from Arisman's call to arms video. The operation was intended to bring down the government. It failed.

Actually, it succeeded. Look who's in power now.

[yoshiwara]

It's good that this report is coming out, belated as it is. Unfortunately, anything that ruffles the feathers of the standing gov't will be either ignored or disputed - so nothing tangible will get done about it. Even if a court cases came along, the PT and the Shinawatres would get any embarrassing (to them) cases thrown out on technicalities - as they did with recent arson charges. The gov't's ace in the deck, is the threat of additional Red occupations and harassment of jurors. In sum, trying to find the real truth and prosecute wrongdoers can only be a subjective exercise in Thailand. It's quixotic and T will continue being T, and never be able to say a word of truth.

It's blatantly obvious why the MIB existed, and for what purpose, Abhisit should get the evidence and present it rather than just stating the obvious. Without evidence he looks a bit silly.

Chalerm should be made to declare their identities, if he claimed to have known. That would be a start. I'm sure that if they can be found, they'd fall like a pack of cards. Shame that there's a huge incentive for the current government for this to NOT happen.

Involving Chalerm would be buffoonism. He has zero credence, so if he says something, it can immediately be discounted by whomsoever doesn't agree with him.

The Blackshirts weren't a democracy, they were Thaksin's putative armed wing. Not an aberration but a direct line leading from Arisman's call to arms video. The operation was intended to bring down the government. It failed.

Actually, it succeeded. Look who's in power now.

It didn't succeed in its immediate aims and if you think that the return of a PTP government is Thaksin's ultimate aim then you haven't been paying attention. Even from Thaksin's own agenda the failure to get him back to Thailand is a mark of political failure.

[Thai at Heart]

video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters. Witnesses, who were officials and from the general public, testified to the panel that a van delivered men in black who walked into the group of protesters outside the Sattree Witthaya School.

You need to face it, burning central, assassinating a general, MIB , shooting journos so the world wont know was all the work of the DEMS

.

Why not go for the whole enchilada?

If the Dems were responsible for the MIB, the Dems were responsible for the whole Red Shirt movement.

.

Well unfortunately pornthip lost every ounce of credibility long ago. There is no conclusive way to prove who organised the black shirt mercenaries, but law of averages says red shirts and Thaksin .

But that doesn't mean that the Army didn't shoot surrendering protestors and innocents also.

They probably know who it was actually in the black shirt group but portraying a solid army outweighs shopping names.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Satcommlee]

I'd love to be legally allowed to speak my mind on this issue!

[whybother]

I'd love to be legally allowed to speak my mind on this issue!

Do you think it all goes that high?

[DeepInTheForest]

interesting link below which shows that Thaksin as a sponsor of the Red Shirt movement is not exactly the paragon of virtue that his supporters like to think he is..Indeed there is more black than white when one reads through the passages and also links to other Red Shirt propaganda, misinformation sites too.

http://landdestroyer...-hide-army.html

Warning to the sane unless you are looking for some masochistic amusement .I didn't even open the landdestroyer link this time.For about a year or so I did monitor his blog from time to time.After the endless attempted justifications of dictatorial regimes (he is a great fan of Syria's murderous regime) I eventually lost patience.However the big problem is that he is quite mad, not Thai Visa madness which is rarely more than eccentricity, but real barking mad.

All I can say is, don't underestimate us.

Arf, arff!!

[OzMick]

video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters. Witnesses, who were officials and from the general public, testified to the panel that a van delivered men in black who walked into the group of protesters outside the Sattree Witthaya School.

You need to face it, burning central, assassinating a general, MIB , shooting journos so the world wont know was all the work of the DEMS

ockquote> .

Why not go for the whole enchilada?

If the Dems were responsible for the MIB, the Dems were responsible for the whole Red Shirt movement.

.

Well unfortunately pornthip lost every ounce of credibility long ago. There is no conclusive way to prove who organised the black shirt mercenaries, but law of averages says red shirts and Thaksin .

But that doesn't mean that the Army didn't shoot surrendering protestors and innocents also.

They probably know who it was actually in the black shirt group but portraying a solid army outweighs shopping names.

Surrendering protesters? That's a nice new casual lie. And we could

re-open the old argument about how "innocent" you are while involved in a

criminal conspiracy to overthrow a legitimate government, currently

breaking several laws (but that's OK, they are laws you don't like), and

aiding and abetting murderers; but lets stick to "surrendering". Have

you any support for that term (hands in the air, white flags, kneeling

with hands on head), or is that a quote from the Thaksin press?

Edited April 10, 2013 by OzMick

[maidu]

I agree with the above post: Nowhere have I heard the phrase 'shoot surrendering protesters' (relating to the Reds commandeering Bkk in 2010) before here. Methinks you're giving ammunition to the Reds. If nothing else, the Reds and Thaksin are masters of falsely twisting things around to burnish their image. Just what the Thai sheeple need to contemplate: another colorful lie foisted upon them from the well-funded Thaksin lie machine.

Edited April 10, 2013 by maidu

[Thai at Heart]

video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters. Witnesses, who were officials and from the general public, testified to the panel that a van delivered men in black who walked into the group of protesters outside the Sattree Witthaya School.

You need to face it, burning central, assassinating a general, MIB , shooting journos so the world wont know was all the work of the DEMSockquote> .

Why not go for the whole enchilada?

If the Dems were responsible for the MIB, the Dems were responsible for the whole Red Shirt movement.

.

Well unfortunately pornthip lost every ounce of credibility long ago. There is no conclusive way to prove who organised the black shirt mercenaries, but law of averages says red shirts and Thaksin .

But that doesn't mean that the Army didn't shoot surrendering protestors and innocents also.

They probably know who it was actually in the black shirt group but portraying a solid army outweighs shopping names.

Surrendering protesters? That's a nice new casual lie. And we could

re-open the old argument about how "innocent" you are while involved in a

criminal conspiracy to overthrow a legitimate government, currently

breaking several laws (but that's OK, they are laws you don't like), and

aiding and abetting murderers; but lets stick to "surrendering". Have

you any support for that term (hands in the air, white flags, kneeling

with hands on head), or is that a quote from the Thaksin press?

Well I couldn't think of a better word for people caught in crossfire cowering in terror for their lives.

What do you mean by a lie? That there weren't unarmed people trying to get out or give themselves up who got hurt? I am not saying there weren't black shirts and violent protestors.

But they didn't represent the conduct of all the people at the protest. Some of the army personnel went to far, it happens, it's tragic, can I understand how it happens, yes.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[OzMick]

Well unfortunately pornthip lost every ounce of credibility long ago. There is no conclusive way to prove who organised the black shirt mercenaries, but law of averages says red shirts and Thaksin .

But that doesn't mean that the Army didn't shoot surrendering protestors and innocents also.

They probably know who it was actually in the black shirt group but portraying a solid army outweighs shopping names.

Surrendering protesters? That's a nice new casual lie. And we could

re-open the old argument about how "innocent" you are while involved in a

criminal conspiracy to overthrow a legitimate government, currently

breaking several laws (but that's OK, they are laws you don't like), and

aiding and abetting murderers; but lets stick to "surrendering". Have

you any support for that term (hands in the air, white flags, kneeling

with hands on head), or is that a quote from the Thaksin press?

Well I couldn't think of a better word for people caught in crossfire cowering in terror for their lives.

What do you mean by a lie? That there weren't unarmed people trying to get out or give themselves up who got hurt? I am not saying there weren't black shirts and violent protestors.

But they didn't represent the conduct of all the people at the protest. Some of the army personnel went to far, it happens, it's tragic, can I understand how it happens, yes.

Yes, I mean that there is no evidence at all that the RTA shot red shirts attempting to surrender. Running away, quite possibly, but that's a long way from "surrendering."

Pardon me for being pedantic, but I would hate to see a new myth started. The red leaders preached "We will fight to the last drop of (your) blood" and then surrendered like lambs when the crunch came, and I don't remember as much as a bruise on their lily white skin. More's the pity.

Edited April 11, 2013 by OzMick

[bendejo]

One Saturday during the time the reds were camped out near the Pinklao bridge they had a big march, I think it was up to Victory Monument. They passed through the area I was staying in at the time. I was already familiar with the blackshirts, pickup trucks full of them was a regular sight in the neighborhood, my guess is they had a barracks nearby. Tough looking bunch, didn't look at all like off-duty police, more like ex-cons.

During the march I noticed the reds would not look directly at the blackshirts.

Also the rare cop in uniform along the route would not look at the reds. I recall one at a street stall reading a newspaper (one of the lousy ones that has only a few pages) and he refused to look up from it.

The near-miraculous event of the whole months-long demonstration was how quickly that area in front of Central World was vacated after the bold-speaking cowards on the stage ran for it.

I didn't see who participated in the selective vandalism that followed. That one of the targets was the oldest cinema in Thailand I think is very telling, look up the business Thaksin's father was in and you'll see what I mean.

But it was a non-violent movement, if you don't believe me just read the sign they hung over the stage

Edited April 11, 2013 by bendejo

[animatic]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

I stand by my comment. No matter what "evidence" comes out people stick to their side of the story without ever looking at much of the facts.

Those how dislike Thaksin say that the army were angles and everything was a big conspiracy of redshirts killing themselves to frame the government. Never mind the videos on youtube showing people being shot at the protest sites.

Those who sympathies with the red shirts fill their heads that the government sent in men in black to shoot at their own people in order undermine their claims.

Both sides have consistently denied any responsibility or accountability for anything that happened including all those who died senselessly so the rich could rage war on each other. The government sent soldiers to shoot at their own citizens while the red leadership hid behind a group of desperate people. All parties should be ashamed of themselves and all the TV members out their who file in line behind either side are no better. Hate me if you like, ban me if you must but thats the truth that very few are saying.

Your point is well-taken and I agree that the football-team-mentality of the Thai political divide is very childish and highly irresponsible, and most of us seem to question the source before looking at what is actually said. But I'm afraid I am unable to be quiet and accept what I see as real injustice.

I said it in 2010 and I'll say it now: if anything comes out that convinces me that the UDD protest was in the right and the government/army/whoever else weren't, then I'll gladly hold my hands up, say "I'm wrong" and champion the 'other' side. But I can't really count soldiers shooting at what might appear to be an armed threat in a live fire zone as "in the wrong".

I think that a Senate panel's findings should be taken as somewhere between fairly strong advice and an outright ruling. And the panel findings basically show that, on 10 April 2010:

- armed protesters attacked the army

- the army operations were carried out properly

- investigations since the event have not been conducted properly

Buchholz did miss off, for me, the most interesting point of the Senate panel's findings... that "the panel believed that a red-shirt protester, Wasant Phuthong, was shot from behind by one of the protesters".

All this makes me wonder if I was correct in my day-one suspicion that Thaksin, as well as being financially responsible for the protest itself, was funding a separate armed wing to cause deaths on both sides to incite civil war with a view to being able to return as the country's saviour.

The OP isn't clear whether it is the panel itself who suspects when it says "Thaksin Shinawatra who was suspected of being the mastermind of the violence".

That would be a logical set of conclusions.

Fits his ego profile, his need to be controlling, and his lack of moral compunction.

Edited April 11, 2013 by animatic

[maidu]

One Saturday during the time the reds were camped out near the Pinklao bridge they had a big march, I think it was up to Victory Monument. They passed through the area I was staying in at the time. I was already familiar with the blackshirts, pickup trucks full of them was a regular sight in the neighborhood, my guess is they had a barracks nearby. Tough looking bunch, didn't look at all like off-duty police, more like ex-cons.

During the march I noticed the reds would not look directly at the blackshirts.

Also the rare cop in uniform along the route would not look at the reds. I recall one at a street stall reading a newspaper (one of the lousy ones that has only a few pages) and he refused to look up from it.

The near-miraculous event of the whole months-long demonstration was how quickly that area in front of Central World was vacated after the bold-speaking cowards on the stage ran for it.

I didn't see who participated in the selective vandalism that followed. That one of the targets was the oldest cinema in Thailand I think is very telling, look up the business Thaksin's father was in and you'll see what I mean.

But it was a non-violent movement, if you don't believe me just read the sign they hung over the stage

Interesting that all the first hand accounts, like the one above, by residents or workers in the commandeered areas - are like-minded. They all, with no exceptions - see the Red occupation as troublesome (at least) and/or threatening to life limb and buildings (at worst). Even so, the Thaksin/Red propaganda machine has been so successful at painting the Reds as victims - it's amazing - how gullible so many Thais are. I guess in a country where all the locals (including monks) believe strongly in ghosts and other hocus pocus, then perhaps it's not surprising they're so easily duped by the Shinawatre/Red b*llshit they get fed.

[Buchholz]

This old conversation again

.

With a fresh update of definitive findings from evidence and witnesses that you are welcome to address.

1. The violence on April 10, 2010 was not started by the troops.

2. The protesters expanded their rally site from Phan Fah Bridge to Rajdamnoen Road and later on to the Rajprasong Intersection.

3. The troops dispatched to control the protesters had acted properly within the framework of the laws.

4. Video clips clearly showed there were men in black clothes who joined the red-shirt protesters.

5.A foreign reporter recorded a video of men in black, but an armed man confronted him with a gun and seized the camera from him.

6. There were several witnesses who believed there were men in black who fired at the troops.

7. The DSI is dragging its feet in investigating the killing of Colonel Romklao.

8. Critical evidence has been over-looked by the DSI.

9. Evidence suggests there were men in black among the protesters and they had prepared to fight the authorities with AK-47 assault rifles, M-79 grenades and M-67 grenades as well as teargas, while troops were armed on that occasion only with shields and batons.

10. Further evidence suggests that several of 26 victims were not killed at the scene, but were carried from other areas because blood traces and DNA tests did not match the scenes of violence.

.

I stand by my comment. No matter what "evidence" comes out people stick to their side of the story without ever looking at much of the facts.

Those how dislike Thaksin say that the army were angles and everything was a big conspiracy of redshirts killing themselves to frame the government. Never mind the videos on youtube showing people being shot at the protest sites.

Those who sympathies with the red shirts fill their heads that the government sent in men in black to shoot at their own people in order undermine their claims.

Both sides have consistently denied any responsibility or accountability for anything that happened including all those who died senselessly so the rich could rage war on each other. The government sent soldiers to shoot at their own citizens while the red leadership hid behind a group of desperate people. All parties should be ashamed of themselves and all the TV members out their who file in line behind either side are no better. Hate me if you like, ban me if you must but thats the truth that very few are saying.

Your point is well-taken and I agree that the football-team-mentality of the Thai political divide is very childish and highly irresponsible, and most of us seem to question the source before looking at what is actually said. But I'm afraid I am unable to be quiet and accept what I see as real injustice.

I said it in 2010 and I'll say it now: if anything comes out that convinces me that the UDD protest was in the right and the government/army/whoever else weren't, then I'll gladly hold my hands up, say "I'm wrong" and champion the 'other' side. But I can't really count soldiers shooting at what might appear to be an armed threat in a live fire zone as "in the wrong".

I think that a Senate panel's findings should be taken as somewhere between fairly strong advice and an outright ruling. And the panel findings basically show that, on 10 April 2010:

- armed protesters attacked the army

- the army operations were carried out properly

- investigations since the event have not been conducted properly

Buchholz did miss off, for me, the most interesting point of the Senate panel's findings... that "the panel believed that a red-shirt protester, Wasant Phuthong, was shot from behind by one of the protesters".

.

The omission was intentional as I wanted to confine my list to the definitive findings from evidence and witness... and not just a particular "belief".

.

[Yunla]

The "MIB" on stage and in the street photos, were not the actual shooters, but just another facet of the confusionist tactics being perpetrated by the redmob leadership around that time.

In my opinion, the actual shooters were highly professional foreign snipers, who were never photographed, and who left the country entirely unnoticed just like they arrived. Thaksin was certainly their client, and with his strong links to the former USSR and various intel fronts in the West, it would not be hard for him to get some high grade mercenaries for this job.

It is always possible that certain Western intel fronts, the same ones who have been pushing so-called 'coloured revolutions' in many nations around the world in recent years, AKA globalist desovereignization ops masquerading as people-power revolutions, were pulling Thaksin's crooked strings and providing the right people for the 2010 killings. Thaksin is regarded by some as a simple-minded globalist mule, dating back as far as his time with the "Carlyle Group", doing the donkey work for much more serious & intelligent figures in the globalist heirarchy.

On the ground, one of the redmob leaders said around the time of the tremendously unpatriotic "burn Bangkok to the ground" speeches by redmob on stage in 2010, there was a backstage interview in which the phrase "fatalities among our number can only further our cause" was blurted out by the red-thug in question, with his glazed eyes and bloodcrazed rictus grin a promising sign for all, I'm sure. Obviously the redmob had won an early election from Abhisit already, plus months of free unmolested Demo time to outline their feelings, and could have gone home peacefully, but that was never the point, the whole thing was orchestrated from the start as a group-martyrdom operation with a (hoped for) nationwide outraged backlash resulting in immediate redshirt rule and an almost deific status for the brave heroes of the revolution etc.

But as always happens when greedy power-crazed men like Thaksin and his Western handlers play games with peoples lives, innocent people die, and well-meaning political figures are sidelined and toppled. But karma has a funny habit of catching up with everyone eventually.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Yunla

[maidu]

The post above, re; foreign mercenaries, is too much of a stretch. First off, whenever you have farang anywhere near a group of Thais, the farang stick out like a cricket in a group of ants. Also; why insert a conspiracy-style theory in the mix? Is that a way to confuse the issue? The black shirt concept already has credence, as there are eyewitnesses and photos and other evidence. Let's stay focused on what's real, and not introduce 'canards'

[metisdead]

Trolling post and a reply have been removed.

[ZhouZhou]

i remember that like yesterday how my neighbors warned me not to go out and cross praram 4 because there was the fear one could be shot and killed.

it was not a good time for bangkok.

[ZhouZhou]

The "MIB" on stage and in the street photos, were not the actual shooters, but just another facet of the confusionist tactics being perpetrated by the redmob leadership around that time.

In my opinion, the actual shooters were highly professional foreign snipers, who were never photographed, and who left the country entirely unnoticed just like they arrived. Thaksin was certainly their client, and with his strong links to the former USSR and various intel fronts in the West, it would not be hard for him to get some high grade mercenaries for this job.

It is always possible that certain Western intel fronts, the same ones who have been pushing so-called 'coloured revolutions' in many nations around the world in recent years, AKA globalist desovereignization ops masquerading as people-power revolutions, were pulling Thaksin's crooked strings and providing the right people for the 2010 killings. Thaksin is regarded by some as a simple-minded globalist mule, dating back as far as his time with the "Carlyle Group", doing the donkey work for much more serious & intelligent figures in the globalist heirarchy.

On the ground, one of the redmob leaders said around the time of the tremendously unpatriotic "burn Bangkok to the ground" speeches by redmob on stage in 2010, there was a backstage interview in which the phrase "fatalities among our number can only further our cause" was blurted out by the red-thug in question, with his glazed eyes and bloodcrazed rictus grin a promising sign for all, I'm sure. Obviously the redmob had won an early election from Abhisit already, plus months of free unmolested Demo time to outline their feelings, and could have gone home peacefully, but that was never the point, the whole thing was orchestrated from the start as a group-martyrdom operation with a (hoped for) nationwide outraged backlash resulting in immediate redshirt rule and an almost deific status for the brave heroes of the revolution etc.

But as always happens when greedy power-crazed men like Thaksin and his Western handlers play games with peoples lives, innocent people die, and well-meaning political figures are sidelined and toppled. But karma has a funny habit of catching up with everyone eventually.

is there any evidence for that foreign snippers from russia theory or that Thaksin - Carlyle Group conspiracy?

[ITGabs]

Myth or reality?

I arrived in Thailand just weeks before the red shirt protest, walking around the democracy monument, I've been a long talk with some thai red shirt that describe me with full of details what happens that day, relative to this news he told me that 4 army vehicles (including tanks) come from the MC-donald corner with one or two helicopters (now i don't remember well) one tank uses the machine gun over the people but at the same point from some of the building there was one or two snipers and they kill a key person of the red shirt, he told me the name of that "leader"

the funny fact, I invite him some beers but we walked more than kung <deleted> to some creepy area of Bangkok, before he open a door of a Thai tourist information where a old farang woman tried to sell me a vacation plan during half hour!! xD later the guy was outside with a big bottle of beer probably the second or the third one, he asked me "you have your tour" and that freak me out, he offer me beer, but in my mind I was in defcon x ready to explode or wherever, so I thought that the beer have something, and probably some of their friend were there or waiting in some deadly bar etc etc so I give some money to him and said that I was exhausted with the weather and the annoying old woman trying to sell me tours to everywhere, and just let him speaking alone.

but really the histories were very interesting...

Edited April 11, 2013 by ITGabs

[maidu]

re; above post: How can a person arrive on the scene 'before' the events happened, and then speak with someone about the events that happened?