Thai Soldier Tells Bangkok Court Of ' Men In Black'

[OzMick]

Ah yes these mythicaly highly trained and armed MIB that killed or injured exactly how many people??? about zero.

They were there, they were armed, they fired at the soldiers. Whether they were highly trained or not is speculative. You however are the typical Red apologist. The pictures are there and so are the witnesses and yet your red tinted glasses refuse to let you believe they exist. Or worse, perhaps you do believe they exist but you don't care, you just want to deny their existence because they being there just doesn't fit the red shirt profile of being peace loving demonstrators. Boo F ing hoo.

I am not denying there were armed men in black, i am questioning to what extent/numbers they were there or even who they were. Have you read all the reports and witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do you only believe the witness testimony which you like? There is quite a bit of witness testimony/reports etc which indicate the armed forces shot unarmed civilians, but i suppose you don't read/believe those reports.

I await your answer to my basic question of motive. Who benefited from the deaths at the wat?

[muttley]

Given the sheer number of people with video cameras, cell phones etc and the scrutiny directed toward the government troops, if any "massacre" by government troops occured it was surely the best covert operation in the history of the world.

Just a bunch of words is'nt it. massacre, death, whatever. You're just as dead whether you were shot and killed in a massacre than if you are shot and killed in a slight altercation with the RTA. Though I'm sure it's a lot easier to deal with the deaths of civilians if you dengirate the method of their death.

[OzMick]

I think it's not so difficult to figure out who those MIB in fact were.

They were soldiers who worked for Saeh Deng, and this also explains why the temple people were shot using the same ammunition the army used.

Wow, those MIBs are mighty crafty, using military ammunition to shoot the people in the temple. That way, people would think that it was the soldiers who shot those people.The big question, then, is why don't they wear military outfits?

Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Thailand's top forensics expert, and a person who sides with no one, concluded that the shots that killed the people in the wat were fired from the BTS tracks. Previously, the then government, explained that away by insisting that there were no soldiers on the tracks that night. Reading the article, written to support the MIB theory, the army witness stated that it was the army that occupied the tracks.

Now, because we have seen pictures of people wearing black, in the crowd with red shirted people, you think it should be obvious to anyone who they are and what they did. But, after reading this article, assuming you did read it, you still insist it was them nasty MIBs that shot those people?

Are you suffering from the misconception that NATO 5.56mm ball ammunition is a rare commodity?

And the big answer is "they didn't want to kicked to death by red shirts." Doh!

[OzMick]

Given the sheer number of people with video cameras, cell phones etc and the scrutiny directed toward the government troops, if any "massacre" by government troops occured it was surely the best covert operation in the history of the world.

Just a bunch of words is'nt it. massacre, death, whatever. You're just as dead whether you were shot and killed in a massacre than if you are shot and killed in a slight altercation with the RTA. Though I'm sure it's a lot easier to deal with the deaths of civilians if you dengirate the method of their death.

Somewhat like how some people's "democracy fighter' is everybody else's "mercenary terrorist" - it's all about perception, gullibility and intelligence.

[muttley]

Chalerm said he knew who the men in black were. Then he said there were no men in black. Needs more ear medicine.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Men-in-black-are-policemen-Chalerm-claims-30171725.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Chalerm-queries-men-in-black-claim-30190453.html

Suthep knew their home addresses, so what

Mr Suthep said police possess photographs sent by the media and others and they are now able to identify the terrorists holding M16s. AK47s and M79s as well as their home addresses. He said warrants for their arrest will be issued as it is “impossible to let them walk freely in the country.”

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/356044-bangkok-red-shirt-rally-live-wednesday/#entry3504294

[gl555]

Ah yes these mythicaly highly trained and armed MIB that killed or injured exactly how many people??? about zero.

They were there, they were armed, they fired at the soldiers. Whether they were highly trained or not is speculative. You however are the typical Red apologist. The pictures are there and so are the witnesses and yet your red tinted glasses refuse to let you believe they exist. Or worse, perhaps you do believe they exist but you don't care, you just want to deny their existence because they being there just doesn't fit the red shirt profile of being peace loving demonstrators. Boo F ing hoo.

I am not denying there were armed men in black, i am questioning to what extent/numbers they were there or even who they were. Have you read all the reports and witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do you only believe the witness testimony which you like? There is quite a bit of witness testimony/reports etc which indicate the armed forces shot unarmed civilians, but i suppose you don't read/believe those reports.

Have YOU read all the reports and the witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do YOU only believe the witness testimony which you like? Like all the Red apologists, you love bringing up that the army shot unarmed civilians while either dismissing the men in black or minimising what they did there.

[muttley]

it's so superficial and simple minded to think a shirt means anything.

So the bad guys throw on a special shirt so they can be identified?

Why not wear some camouflage?

The answer is quite simple, it was to avoid being shot by your mates with a licence to kill. Black is quite a good camouflage while not appearing "military" and IMHO far safer than red at that time.

Just at what time was it safer (iyo) to not wear red and why would you say that?

[OzMick]

it's so superficial and simple minded to think a shirt means anything.

So the bad guys throw on a special shirt so they can be identified?

Why not wear some camouflage?

The answer is quite simple, it was to avoid being shot by your mates with a licence to kill. Black is quite a good camouflage while not appearing "military" and IMHO far safer than red at that time.

Just at what time was it safer (iyo) to not wear red and why would you say that?

If you read the earlier posts you would know - try #36

[hellodolly]

The army went on their legitimate business and has been very frequently filmed and put in pictures. The mysterious Men-in-black woke up in the night to do whatever they wanted to do. No film, no photo's. Therefor is clear and obvious that the army did something wrong and the MiB didn't exist.

I had a discussion on this with our dear cuddly mutt two weeks ago. Never got an answer on my last reply. Here for all to judge:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/620820-inquest-inclusive-on-who-fired-fatal-shot-in-dusit-zoo-workers-death-2010-political-violence/page-2#entry6139638

You never will

[Curt1591]

Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Thailand's top forensics expert, and a person who sides with no one, concluded

.

Funny how the same Dr. Pornthip can vacillate between being referred to Thailand's top pathologist to Thailand's biggest fool, over her insistence on the reliability of GT200 bomb detector, depending on how she is needed to be portrayed by a particular side on a particular issue.

.

I hardly think she is anywhere near being in contention for Thailand's biggest fool; far too much competition.

But, in this case, the then government did concede that that the shots came from the tracks, but said that the government troops weren't up there.

Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks.

As far as being a red shirt apologist goes, I can't stand just about any politician. I believe that anyone believes that any of them are working for anyone but themselves, is truly deluded.

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -Thomas Sowell

[smutcakes]

Ah yes these mythicaly highly trained and armed MIB that killed or injured exactly how many people??? about zero.

They were there, they were armed, they fired at the soldiers. Whether they were highly trained or not is speculative. You however are the typical Red apologist. The pictures are there and so are the witnesses and yet your red tinted glasses refuse to let you believe they exist. Or worse, perhaps you do believe they exist but you don't care, you just want to deny their existence because they being there just doesn't fit the red shirt profile of being peace loving demonstrators. Boo F ing hoo.

I am not denying there were armed men in black, i am questioning to what extent/numbers they were there or even who they were. Have you read all the reports and witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do you only believe the witness testimony which you like? There is quite a bit of witness testimony/reports etc which indicate the armed forces shot unarmed civilians, but i suppose you don't read/believe those reports.

Have YOU read all the reports and the witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do YOU only believe the witness testimony which you like? Like all the Red apologists, you love bringing up that the army shot unarmed civilians while either dismissing the men in black or minimising what they did there.

I have read the ones that I have seen, but i have not gone to lengths to read as many as possible. My very first post on this subject, was a tongue in cheek response to the first reply, which some people have taken seriously.

I just found it strange that with so much witness testimony and reports all ready out there, that when this new witness testimony came out, because it implicated the MIB over the Wat deaths, it was automatically taken as the truth by many on here, which is completely ignoring all the other independent reports and witness statements which have been reported previously, some of which implicate the army, some of which implicate MIB. My main point of the first post, was why this army spokesman has now testified when previously the army seemingly refused to participate in any report/study/investigation.

It is obviously very confusing as to what happened, and who, why and how the people came to be shot at in the Wat.

[hellodolly]

Ah yes these mythicaly highly trained and armed MIB that killed or injured exactly how many people??? about zero.

They were there, they were armed, they fired at the soldiers. Whether they were highly trained or not is speculative. You however are the typical Red apologist. The pictures are there and so are the witnesses and yet your red tinted glasses refuse to let you believe they exist. Or worse, perhaps you do believe they exist but you don't care, you just want to deny their existence because they being there just doesn't fit the red shirt profile of being peace loving demonstrators. Boo F ing hoo.

I would not call him a typical red apologist. More like a typical no nothing red shirt denier.

I wonder if he got s a degree in the red shirts school on Democracy at the point of a gun.

The new report seems plausible mainly because of the character of the red shirts (invading hospitals) and Turning Downtown Bangkok in to an armed fortress just before attempting to burn Bangkok down and proclaiming loud and clear they did nothing wrong.

According to them it was all Abhist fault because he neglected to kiss their ass and do exactly as they told him immediately.Kind of hard to believe any thing those people and their mouth pieces say.

Edited March 9, 2013 by hellodolly

[waza]

Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Thailand's top forensics expert, and a person who sides with no one, concluded

.

Funny how the same Dr. Pornthip can vacillate between being referred to Thailand's top pathologist to Thailand's biggest fool, over her insistence on the reliability of GT200 bomb detector, depending on how she is needed to be portrayed by a particular side on a particular issue.

.

I hardly think she is anywhere near being in contention for Thailand's biggest fool; far too much competition.

But, in this case, the then government did concede that that the shots came from the tracks, but said that the government troops weren't up there.

Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks.

As far as being a red shirt apologist goes, I can't stand just about any politician. I believe that anyone believes that any of them are working for anyone but themselves, is truly deluded.

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -Thomas Sowell

Being obtuse is no excuse for twisting the facts and declaring, . "Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks." Who is this someone and where is it reported?

If you read the article it actually says. " Pisanu said that when his team moved into the area under the Siam BTS station, he saw two armed men in black hiding behind a pillar about 200 or 300 metres from troops."

Here are those 2 Blackshirts............

Notice they are pointing their guns at the Wat,(Hilighted by the arrow).

Not only are you intolerant of politicians, "As far as being a red shirt apologist goes, I can't stand just about any politician" , you seem likewise to be intolerant of the truth.

Edited March 9, 2013 by waza

[waza]

They were there, they were armed, they fired at the soldiers. Whether they were highly trained or not is speculative. You however are the typical Red apologist. The pictures are there and so are the witnesses and yet your red tinted glasses refuse to let you believe they exist. Or worse, perhaps you do believe they exist but you don't care, you just want to deny their existence because they being there just doesn't fit the red shirt profile of being peace loving demonstrators. Boo F ing hoo.

I am not denying there were armed men in black, i am questioning to what extent/numbers they were there or even who they were. Have you read all the reports and witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do you only believe the witness testimony which you like? There is quite a bit of witness testimony/reports etc which indicate the armed forces shot unarmed civilians, but i suppose you don't read/believe those reports.

Have YOU read all the reports and the witness testimony of the various incidents? Or do YOU only believe the witness testimony which you like? Like all the Red apologists, you love bringing up that the army shot unarmed civilians while either dismissing the men in black or minimising what they did there.

I have read the ones that I have seen, but i have not gone to lengths to read as many as possible. My very first post on this subject, was a tongue in cheek response to the first reply, which some people have taken seriously.

I just found it strange that with so much witness testimony and reports all ready out there, that when this new witness testimony came out, because it implicated the MIB over the Wat deaths, it was automatically taken as the truth by many on here, which is completely ignoring all the other independent reports and witness statements which have been reported previously, some of which implicate the army, some of which implicate MIB. My main point of the first post, was why this army spokesman has now testified when previously the army seemingly refused to participate in any report/study/investigation.

It is obviously very confusing as to what happened, and who, why and how the people came to be shot at in the Wat.

Can you provide links to these independant reports and witness statements?

[muttley]

Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Thailand's top forensics expert, and a person who sides with no one, concluded

.

Funny how the same Dr. Pornthip can vacillate between being referred to Thailand's top pathologist to Thailand's biggest fool, over her insistence on the reliability of GT200 bomb detector, depending on how she is needed to be portrayed by a particular side on a particular issue.

.

It does seem strange doesn't it? But when you look further in to it the Thailands top pathologist endorsement rings out far more than the one "Top Fool" endorsement. She was involved in a number of investigations during the incidents 0f 2010, including proof of nitrates residue being found in Chualalongkorn Hospital of grenades fired at Sala Daeng (hence the "invasion") and of course this one with the proof of direction of fire, cartridges found etc. Presumably she was a "top fool" when investigating the Sala Daeng incident and probably is "top fool" again when investigating this incident under Abhisit but presenting the info to the Inquest she'll be "top fool' again but from a differenent set of people - it's kind of like that Tharit chap isn't it??

[rubl]

It's really amazing that when on officer of the RTA tells something the verdict is close to "he's lying". When a respectable red-shirt tells something the verdict is "Yeah, that's how it was".

Apart from that we have the umpthienth discussion on the March - May 2010 riots and I'm only surprised no one yet mentioned the army torching CWT :-)

[gl555]

I have read the ones that I have seen, but i have not gone to lengths to read as many as possible. My very first post on this subject, was a tongue in cheek response to the first reply, which some people have taken seriously.

I just found it strange that with so much witness testimony and reports all ready out there, that when this new witness testimony came out, because it implicated the MIB over the Wat deaths, it was automatically taken as the truth by many on here, which is completely ignoring all the other independent reports and witness statements which have been reported previously, some of which implicate the army, some of which implicate MIB. My main point of the first post, was why this army spokesman has now testified when previously the army seemingly refused to participate in any report/study/investigation.

It is obviously very confusing as to what happened, and who, why and how the people came to be shot at in the Wat.

Nobody's ignoring the other witness testimony. However, I find it strange that when someone comes out with testimony that MIBs were there, people like you come out of the woodwork trying to either dismiss that testimony as lies or trying to minimise the presence of the MIBs. This soldier is a 'witness' not a 'spokesman' for the whole Army.

[muttley]

it's so superficial and simple minded to think a shirt means anything.

So the bad guys throw on a special shirt so they can be identified?

Why not wear some camouflage?

The answer is quite simple, it was to avoid being shot by your mates with a licence to kill. Black is quite a good camouflage while not appearing "military" and IMHO far safer than red at that time.

Just at what time was it safer (iyo) to not wear red and why would you say that?

If you read the earlier posts you would know - try #36

Just thought you'd back up your opinion of when it was ever safe to wear "red in the land"

[Pimay1]

it's so superficial and simple minded to think a shirt means anything.

So the bad guys throw on a special shirt so they can be identified?

Why not wear some camouflage?

The answer is quite simple, it was to avoid being shot by your mates with a licence to kill. Black is quite a good camouflage while not appearing "military" and IMHO far safer than red at that time.

Just at what time was it safer (iyo) to not wear red and why would you say that?

If you read the earlier posts you would know - try #36

Just thought you'd back up your opinion of when it was ever safe to wear "red in the land"

It is safe to wear red here in Udon every day. Got rid of all my yellow polo shirts. Didn't want my car to be trashed again.

[jackspratt]

[

It is safe to wear red here in Udon every day. Got rid of all my yellow polo shirts. Didn't want my car to be trashed again.

What nonsense.

Given that yellow polo shirts are strongly associated with the King, it is inconceivable that anyone, and particularly a farang, would be picked out for that reason alone.

But I am willing to reconsider that conclusion if you can post a photo of your trashed vehicle, and perhaps a copy of the police report and/or insurance claim.

[OzMick]

The answer is quite simple, it was to avoid being shot by your mates with a licence to kill. Black is quite a good camouflage while not appearing "military" and IMHO far safer than red at that time.

Just at what time was it safer (iyo) to not wear red and why would you say that?

If you read the earlier posts you would know - try #36

Just thought you'd back up your opinion of when it was ever safe to wear "red in the land"

Sacrificial pawns are never safe. OTOH the vast mass of red shirts deluded into rallying in BKK in 2010 went home without a scratch, despite being associated with violent armed thugs, and disobeying legitimate orders to disperse from the security forces. Which, of course, brings us right back to false claims of "massacre".

BTW when did I ever express an opinion (before now) of when it was safe to wear red. Are you misreading or failing to comprehend again?

Edited March 9, 2013 by OzMick

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

I haven't really followed this but have this question.

How many regular non MIB soldiers were shot by MIB?

It seems fairly clear the MIB were soldiers with a different loyalty or set of orders. Okay wearing a mask makes sense to cover their identities but if they weren't targeting non MIB soldiers it still doesn't make a lot of sense why they would dress differently than the other soldiers.

[OzMick]

I haven't really followed this but have this question.

How many regular non MIB soldiers were shot by MIB?

It seems fairly clear the MIB were soldiers with a different loyalty or set of orders. Okay wearing a mask makes sense to cover their identities but if they weren't targeting non MIB soldiers it still doesn't make a lot of sense why they would dress differently than the other soldiers.

How would they mingle with the red shirts in RTA uniform? That would confuse the crap out of the protesters who wouldn't know friend from foe.

BTW who ever claimed their function was to kill RTA? IMHO their function was to instigate fire-fights, and ensure the casualty ratio was of the correct proportions.

[Curt1591]

Being obtuse is no excuse for twisting the facts and declaring, . "Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks." Who is this someone and where is it reported?

The "someone" is Lieutenant Pisanu Thadkaew, the soldier who's testimony is the subject of the article. And, it is reported immediately preceding your quote:

"He went on to say that another set of troops joined to provide protection in the centre, from the BTS track."

If you read the article it actually says. " Pisanu said that when his team moved into the area under the Siam BTS station, he saw two armed men in black hiding behind a pillar about 200 or 300 metres from troops."

Immediately followed by "He said that one of these men in black fled the scene upon seeing the soldiers, but the other fired at troops using an M16 assault rifle. Pisanu said he returned fire and the man ran in the direction of the Chalerm Pao intersection."

So, these MIBs were on the tracks, along with government troops. When the troops, on the ground, one fled and the other fired and fled.

Here are those 2 Blackshirts............

Black shirt snipers at temple.jpg

Notice they are pointing their guns at the Wat,(Hilighted by the arrow).

I thought that arrow might be the "pillars" they were seen hiding behind...

Let me see if I follow this...

The Lieutenant, from under the Siam BTS station, saw these MIBs, behind a pillar, 200~300 meters away. When the MIBs spot the troops, one runs in the direction of Henry Dunant, the other fires at the troops then also runs in the direction of Henry Dunant.

The Lieutenant seems to be good at details, he identified one MIB's weapon as an "M16 assault rifle". Personally, with such an eye for detail, and precise testimony, I am puzzled by the lack of mention of how the MIBs jumped, belayed, or maybe flew from the BTS tracks.

BTW,

I think the guys in your blown out, poorly exposed, grainy photo aren't Men in Black. I believe they are actually, MDFs - "Mysterious Dark Figures" - the other, often referenced, bad guys. The lighting makes it impossible to truly discern the color of their clothing. It could be black, brown, dark green or any other dark color or combination thereof.

[OzMick]

Being obtuse is no excuse for twisting the facts and declaring, . "Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks." Who is this someone and where is it reported?

The "someone" is Lieutenant Pisanu Thadkaew, the soldier who's testimony is the subject of the article. And, it is reported immediately preceding your quote:

"He went on to say that another set of troops joined to provide protection in the centre, from the BTS track."

>If you read the article it actually says. " Pisanu said that when his team moved into the area under the Siam BTS station, he saw two armed men in black hiding behind a pillar about 200 or 300 metres from troops."

Immediately followed by "He said that one of these men in black fled the scene upon seeing the soldiers, but the other fired at troops using an M16 assault rifle. Pisanu said he returned fire and the man ran in the direction of the Chalerm Pao intersection."

So, these MIBs were on the tracks, along with government troops. When the troops, on the ground, one fled and the other fired and fled.

Here are those 2 Blackshirts............

Black shirt snipers at temple.jpg

Notice they are pointing their guns at the Wat,(Hilighted by the arrow).

I thought that arrow might be the "pillars" they were seen hiding behind...

Let me see if I follow this...

The Lieutenant, from under the Siam BTS station, saw these MIBs, behind a pillar, 200~300 meters away. When the MIBs spot the troops, one runs in the direction of Henry Dunant, the other fires at the troops then also runs in the direction of Henry Dunant.

The Lieutenant seems to be good at details, he identified one MIB's weapon as an "M16 assault rifle". Personally, with such an eye for detail, and precise testimony, I am puzzled by the lack of mention of how the MIBs jumped, belayed, or maybe flew from the BTS tracks.

BTW,

I think the guys in your blown out, poorly exposed, grainy photo aren't Men in Black. I believe they are actually, MDFs - "Mysterious Dark Figures" - the other, often referenced, bad guys. The lighting makes it impossible to truly discern the color of their clothing. It could be black, brown, dark green or any other dark color or combination thereof.

The M16 rifle has a distinctive profile and sound signature. Any experienced officer should be able to distinguish it from either.

[animatic]

We look forward to the forum red apologists putting a spin on this story.

Fake blackshirts will be a good one.

Well hes not exactly going to say there were no enemy there was he, after all he and his mates had just mowed down 6 unarmed civilians in the Wat.

On a serious note, there have been numerous reports on this subject, has this soldiers testimony been received before? I have not seen it mentioned, in fact the army seemingly have gone to lengths to prevent its personnel taking part in investigations into events, so why has this soldier now come out and testified?

Do you have some sort of mental impairment that would lead you to believe that putting on a green uniform turns a person into a homicidal maniac? it is a matter of historical fact that it is quite difficult to train troops to take human life. Yet you unreservedly accept that a group of soldiers would kill innocent and unarmed people in a declared security refuge that they would have been well aware of.

Why would they do that, what is the benefit to them? Thrill killing - because I very much doubt that they were being paid a bonus for the number killed?

OTOH it is clearly demonstrated that this event has been used to vilify the RTA and the Democrat government. Who has benefitted?

And consider that it was completely in the opposite interests of the army to kill anyone not actively going after them.

Their stated brief was to clear out the place in an orderly fashion.

Many people left via an alley exiting from the wat, there is no logical reason to shoot them like ducks in a barrel when they are exiting as directed, UNLESS, your aim is to blame the army for killing them. Which was one of the obvious as the nose on your face aimes of the red occupation of Bangkok and all the ginned up street battles they made happen.

But the last thing the current government wants, considering their ties to Red Leadership and the whole occupation, is this to spin back at them, if the do not maintain and full press to spin the blame where they want it. This was a serious backspin put on their game plan. So they must keep at it or else.

Remembering : "Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake." - Tartakower (1887-1956)

Edited March 9, 2013 by animatic

[rubl]

Both side on the fence fully into it again today I see. It's interesting that because the army has been filmed and photographed so many times
and the others having much to hide being invisable leads some to the conclusion that they must have not been there. Or if they were obviously
in small numbers only, probably actually RTA of a different opinion.

At least it should be clear and obvious to all that our regular red-shirt protesting for democracy knew nothing about them and were really innocent to the point of being witless, mindless, dumb deaf and blind. IMHO

[Thaddeus]

were really innocent to the point of being witless, mindless, dumb deaf and blind. IMHO

And they sure play a mean pinball, metaphorically speaking.

[yoshiwara]

Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunand, Thailand's top forensics expert, and a person who sides with no one, concluded

.

Funny how the same Dr. Pornthip can vacillate between being referred to Thailand's top pathologist to Thailand's biggest fool, over her insistence on the reliability of GT200 bomb detector, depending on how she is needed to be portrayed by a particular side on a particular issue.

.

I hardly think she is anywhere near being in contention for Thailand's biggest fool; far too much competition.

But, in this case, the then government did concede that that the shots came from the tracks, but said that the government troops weren't up there.

Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks.

As far as being a red shirt apologist goes, I can't stand just about any politician. I believe that anyone believes that any of them are working for anyone but themselves, is truly deluded.

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -Thomas Sowell

Being obtuse is no excuse for twisting the facts and declaring, . "Now, someone on their side, on the ground, said that they had cover from soldiers on those very same tracks." Who is this someone and where is it reported?

If you read the article it actually says. " Pisanu said that when his team moved into the area under the Siam BTS station, he saw two armed men in black hiding behind a pillar about 200 or 300 metres from troops."

Here are those 2 Blackshirts............

Black shirt snipers at temple.jpg

Notice they are pointing their guns at the Wat,(Hilighted by the arrow).

Not only are you intolerant of politicians, "As far as being a red shirt apologist goes, I can't stand just about any politician" , you seem likewise to be intolerant of the truth.

He falls into the 'I am not a redshirt supporter but...' category. Different strategy, same objective.

[Curt1591]

The M16 rifle has a distinctive profile and sound signature. Any experienced officer should be able to distinguish it from either.

There are many variations of M16s. The "sound signature" isn't too different between an M16, M16 variant, or any other semi-auto rifle that will fire that caliber. Yes, the M16 is select-fire. But, if fired upon in full-auto, I'm sure that would have been mentioned.

As far as experience officer goes, I don't know how it works in the Thai army, but in the US armed forces, "Lieutenant" usually means you are fresh out of Uni. In Vietnam, the were some of the dumbest SOBs!

Judging by the Thai Army Colonel who live across the street from me, rank has nothing whatsoever to do with being a knowledgeable soldier.

But, that's not the point....

The point is that he saw fit to detail the type of weapon, but didn't mention how the MIBs got from the BTS tracks to head towards Henry Dunant. In fact, he didn't even mention that they were on the tracks.

He did also state that they were "hiding behind a pillar". I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that, along the rail bed, itself, there are many "pillars" behind which one could hide. Any pillars would be at stations or at street level.