regarding black shirts:

As I understand, Seh Daeng had been a long time in command of the para-military rangers who patrol the cambodian border. They spend most of their time in the jungle - real badasses - their uniform is black and they are armed with AK47 and M16.

I would consider it unfair to bet on their political sympathies, 99% red would be an understatement - anyway if Seh Daeng had been calling for their support in Bangkok to overthrow "bad people" in power... support he would have gotten. And I think that's what happened.

And I also think he got the bill for his actions presented to him.

also read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

the photo below shows an actual ranger in his uniform at the protests:

and this one of the black shirts:

regarding black shirts:

As I understand, Seh Daeng had been a long time in command of the para-military rangers who patrol the cambodian border. They spend most of their time in the jungle - real badasses - their uniform is black and they are armed with AK47 and M16.

I would consider it unfair to bet on their political sympathies, 99% red would be an understatement - anyway if Seh Daeng had been calling for their support in Bangkok to overthrow "bad people" in power... support he would have gotten. And I think that's what happened.

And I also think he got the bill for his actions presented to him.

When asked about the 10th of April, the renegade general Seh Daeng said 'no one saw me". Indeed no one has come forward saying this colorful chap was seen.

regarding black shirts:

As I understand, Seh Daeng had been a long time in command of the para-military rangers who patrol the cambodian border. They spend most of their time in the jungle - real badasses - their uniform is black and they are armed with AK47 and M16.

I would consider it unfair to bet on their political sympathies, 99% red would be an understatement - anyway if Seh Daeng had been calling for their support in Bangkok to overthrow "bad people" in power... support he would have gotten. And I think that's what happened.

And I also think he got the bill for his actions presented to him.

When asked about the 10th of April, the renegade general Seh Daeng said 'no one saw me". Indeed no one has come forward saying this colorful chap was seen.

he was busy working the radio to tell where the M79 launchers should be pointed at - same as he did for weeks before throughout bangkok.

Did anyone deny that the reds had a supporting black shirt contingent?

Amazingly as yet unfound? They can find a person who nicks 20 baht from 7-11 in a minute.

I would presume ex or current army, why are they untouchable? But this story is about rules of engagement at specific times and what orders were issued to soldiers.

Convicting a person shooting on soldiers should be easy. Attributing blame for what happened during the crackdown is complicated because the Thai army apparently never does wrong. Never breaks an order, never gives conflicting orders.

They are right up there with the best of them apparently?????

convicting a person shooting on soldiers is not possible - you understand why right

So the black shirts turned around and started firing at their own people and in the process shot a Japanese photographer. Well I guess that made them oh so popular with the red shirts. Ludicrous.

and where is the guys camera and the footage that he recorded ???????

my best guess is he was trying to do his neutral reporting job far too well and when he didn't respond to orders was shot dead - find his camera and show how well he was doing his job as a journalist ........would someone like to tell me I'm wrong

yes actually who says he was with the redshirts - that footage clearly shows he got away with his life as did many others on the receiving end of that grenade

honestly I fail to see what there is to discuss on this thread - it seems that the reds were well armed and dangerous, I have only sympathy for the solders thrown into this situation - they did what I would have reluctantly done, returned deadly force with deadly force, I'm just surprised only 90 died - they can spin it what ever way they like but these young soldiers were defending themselves - nothing less than I would do myself - there's just too much video evidence

Are people on here still so ignorant and naieve about the Thai military?

Dear oh dear.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Posts in which the quoted content had been altered have been removed:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

Are people on here still so ignorant and naieve about the Thai military?

Dear oh dear.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

yeh so naïve - bombed - shot at - injured and killed by their own people - so naïve we all are

once the reds put on uniforms and brandished lethal weapons they became soldiers - soldiers shoot soldiers, rules of engagement, I'm surprised so few were killed, who are the hero's ? well the people that didn't need or want to be there - the soldiers, and how many court cases have we seen about that - zero

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atrocities-made-to-order-how-wall-street-and-london-manufacture-tragedy-to-sell-war-and-regime-change/31106

With a theory about the protests of the redshirts.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The final footage from Reuters reporter Hiroyuki Muramoto:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dd_1271094999

Well what a good job the Grenade didn't travel another 5-10 meters or Hiro would have been killed by that. How would the red leadership have squirmed their way out of that.

Thanks for posting rubi.

regarding black shirts:

As I understand, Seh Daeng had been a long time in command of the para-military rangers who patrol the cambodian border. They spend most of their time in the jungle - real badasses - their uniform is black and they are armed with AK47 and M16.

I would consider it unfair to bet on their political sympathies, 99% red would be an understatement - anyway if Seh Daeng had been calling for their support in Bangkok to overthrow "bad people" in power... support he would have gotten. And I think that's what happened.

And I also think he got the bill for his actions presented to him.

also read:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

the photo below shows an actual ranger in his uniform at the protests:

and this one of the black shirts:

If I remember correctly Seh Daeng was a sniper who operated with hunter-killer squads. They basically used to go out into the jungle and kill any communists they found.

The final footage from Reuters reporter Hiroyuki Muramoto:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5dd_1271094999

Well what a good job the Grenade didn't travel another 5-10 meters or Hiro would have been killed by that. How would the red leadership have squirmed their way out of that.

Thanks for posting rubi.

Hiroyuki was killed when he was shot in the chest. I just watched the video and Hiroyuki was facing the red shirts when his camera abruptly stopped filming as he was shot. Was he not?

But the theory that it was a Red Shirt militant killing his own is about as ridiculous as the theory that Col. Romklao was killed by one of his own troops from the back.

Not if you think big picture - purpose of the demo and continual sabotaging of 'peace talks' as they neared agreement.

Eye witness testimony, no doubt backed up by written reports and medical reports of injuries, can be so inconvenient to those trying to re-write history.

If it were so...

The first Red Shirt killed in the late afternoon round was at about 18.40 at Kok Wua intersection. Which is at least half an hour was before the so called "blackshirts" arrived, and fired at the soldiers. Before that, during the first clash in the early afternoon the first Red Shirt protester was killed.

Hiro was not killed at Kok Wua, but at Dinso Road, much later, just after Col. Romklao was fatally injured there, sometime around 21.00.

Contradicting his statement - there is ample evidence of soldiers having indeed fired at Red Shirt protesters: there are bullet holes in fixtures such as walls, phone boxes and street signs and posts that came directly from the soldiers' positions (also head and chest high shots) both at Kok Wua and Dinso.

Soldiers with assault rifles were positioned there, also quite in the front lines (at least in Dinso, where i was during the initial assault, walked out of there a few minutes before all hell broke lose there, fortunately). Not long before sunset, during one of the initial clashes i have asked one of the soldiers there if his rifle was loaded with blanks or with real bullets, and he answered that it was real bullets. There was also no attachment necessary when firing blanks mounted on his rifle. It is a lie that the soldiers had their rifles secured in trucks, and were only armed with shotguns, batons and shields.

There are even videos showing soldiers firing towards the Red Shirts.

There were snipers positioned at high buildings, firing at Red Shirt protesters (i have seen that myself when the sniper on top of the school fired his last round).

While there is no doubt that there were armed militants under the Red Shirt protesters who have injured and killed soldiers, it is a blatant lie that the soldiers did not fire at, injure and killed unarmed protesters on April 10.

Here are a few images i took during the aftermath:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

Why would a rifle be loaded with blanks? What purpose would that achieve? What kind of question is that to a soldier out in a riot situation? Is he supposed to scare the protestors with noise? Or did you mean plastic/rubber bullets. If you asked if he had blanks he would say no. Did you ask the wrong question?

What did you see of the sniper on the tall building? A rifle, the silhouette of a head? How do you know he was Army?

You admit there were armed militia in the red shirts, that is something at least.

Your images are nothing to do with this thread and prove nothing that you have said.

Whenever threads appear with statements from the Government saying that 'there were no black shirts', you never leap on those threads and say 'actually there were, I saw them'.

It is a blatant lie on the part of the Government to state that there were no black shirts and that red shirts were no armed..........isn't it.

Yes, the red shirts were armed. We made a few wrong turns one day in bangkok and ended up at a red shirt blockade early in the proceedings. They came screaming and yelling at us that they were in control and motioning that we should GTF out of there. (a) I am not colour blind, I can discern the colour red. ( I know an AK47 when I see one, and that is what I saw being brandished around.

Bottom line is that the red shirt apologists are just as nefarious and dishonest as their political masters, and one tires or reading their BS. The red shirts were clearly armed early in the protest, based on my personal observation. Perhaps they shouldered arms afterwards and let the black shirts do the dirty work, I didn't hang around BKK much longer and hightailed it out of town, but it is a direct lie that the red shirts were unarmed.

I have often wished that I had whipped my camera out and displayed the courage of an idiot and snapped a Kodak moment. But in retrospect, I think my lack of quick thinking bravado was the right level of inaction.

ps: I was also physically in Suvarnahbhumi the moment that the YellowShirts occupied the airport, stranding me in Thailand for a week afterwards without compensation (I had not checked in so I was not the airline's responsibility at that point). In any case, this is just to let you know that if I had a personal beef, it would be with the "other" guys.

<snip>

Yes, the red shirts were armed. We made a few wrong turns one day in bangkok and ended up at a red shirt blockade early in the proceedings. They came screaming and yelling at us that they were in control and motioning that we should GTF out of there. (a) I am not colour blind, I can discern the colour red. ( I know an AK47 when I see one, and that is what I saw being brandished around.

What exactly means "early in the proceedings", and where exactly did you make the wrong turn?

Timing and location is important here in your account.

dam_n, you just forgot to mention those grenades were being fired by the reds.

This is nothing to do with living up to the manners my chosen handle would suggest. You say you write this stuff professionally then live with it, you need to take responsibility for what you write. Just why is it bad manners to state that I do not think you are objective and I do think your work is massively biased to the reds? Perhaps you ought to consider what your 'readership' thinks, rather than a Judge who may read what he wants to see. The reason you end up in these fights on almost every thread is you insist on portraying yourself as neutral and you are not Nick. Stop doing it. You can fool people 5 thousand miles away but not people that live here.

Well, how could i mention by whom these grenades were fired when i just heard the explosions, but have not seen the ones who fired them, or having had time to investigate the matter? That would indeed have been very bad journalism.

As you can see from the comment section, you see that a lot of my readers appreciated the article. This article has been quoted in many academic studies as well.

You don't appreciate it - so what? Others do.

If it would be up to you i should have simply sat at the 11th infantry regiment press conferences, and scribbled down word by word what the government reps have stated and then communicated that unaltered.

Sorry, won't happen.

Can we now finish this? Please?

We need a downvote button. Your occasional upvote from a sympathiser would possibly be offset by a large number of posters calling BS.

We need a downvote button. Your occasional upvote from a sympathiser would possibly be offset by a large number of posters calling BS.

Up to you.

Now can you answer my question of when and where you had that encounter with the AK47 brandishing Red Shirts?

Yes, the red shirts were armed. We made a few wrong turns one day in bangkok and ended up at a red shirt blockade early in the proceedings. They came screaming and yelling at us that they were in control and motioning that we should GTF out of there. (a) I am not colour blind, I can discern the colour red. ( I know an AK47 when I see one, and that is what I saw being brandished around.

You cannot expect me to take your claim serious when you are not willing or able to provide any information other than "early in the proceedings".

Sorry, but as long as you can't do that i can only book this under just another urban myth.

Yes, the red shirts were armed. We made a few wrong turns one day in bangkok and ended up at a red shirt blockade early in the proceedings. They came screaming and yelling at us that they were in control and motioning that we should GTF out of there. (a) I am not colour blind, I can discern the colour red. ( I know an AK47 when I see one, and that is what I saw being brandished around.

You cannot expect me to take your claim serious when you are not willing or able to provide any information other than "early in the proceedings".

Sorry, but as long as you can't do that i can only book this under just another urban myth.

and who here really cares if you believe it or not - make your choice and keep it to yourself

We need a downvote button. Your occasional upvote from a sympathiser would possibly be offset by a large number of posters calling BS.

Up to you.

Now can you answer my question of when and where you had that encounter with the AK47 brandishing Red Shirts?

Hey, I wrote the previous reply during my sequential reading of the posts. LTFO and stop being a jerk. You read and reply to posts in random order do you? That would make about as much sense as your posts actually.

1: I could figure out the date, but I am not going to bother, it was long enough ago that I don't give a FF

2: I don't drive in BKK ever, I leave it to taxi drivers and friends foolish enough to own & drive cars in Bangkok. The location was somewhere around victory monument IIRC (I wasn't really watching coz I wasn't steering) and it was, IIRC, before they commandeered downtown. But as I said, I cannot be bothered chasing passport stamps in an expired passport I no longer have. And certainly not to satisfy a an aggressive little pillock such as yourself <-- ad hominom

3: Feel free to call me a liar, my 3 friends also witnessed this, and one of them is married to a woman who was physically on the barricades for the Reds. Apparently she called my buddy a liar too when the event was related at home. The Reds are good at maintaining the lie, if nothing else. We are peacful and unarmed - utter F*ing bullshit and enough of us know this to call you on it.

Call it an urban myth, call it the f*ing Macarena for all I care. I am just posting the facts as they were on the ground that day.

We need a downvote button. Your occasional upvote from a sympathiser would possibly be offset by a large number of posters calling BS.

Up to you.

Now can you answer my question of when and where you had that encounter with the AK47 brandishing Red Shirts?

Hey, I wrote the previous reply during my sequential reading of the posts. LTFO and stop being a jerk. You read and reply to posts in random order do you? That would make about as much sense as your posts actually.

1: I could figure out the date, but I am not going to bother, it was long enough ago that I don't give a FF

2: I don't drive in BKK ever, I leave it to taxi drivers and friends foolish enough to own & drive cars in Bangkok. The location was somewhere around victory monument IIRC (I wasn't really watching coz I wasn't steering) and it was, IIRC, before they commandeered downtown. But as I said, I cannot be bothered chasing passport stamps in an expired passport I no longer have. And certainly not to satisfy a an aggressive little pillock such as yourself <-- ad hominom

3: Feel free to call me a liar, my 3 friends also witnessed this, and one of them is married to a woman who was physically on the barricades for the Reds. Apparently she called my buddy a liar too when the event was related at home. The Reds are good at maintaining the lie, if nothing else. We are peacful and unarmed - utter F*ing bullshit and enough of us know this to call you on it.

Call it an urban myth, call it the f*ing Macarena for all I care. I am just posting the facts as they were on the ground that day.

Sorry, but before the Red Shirts occupied Rajaprasong (eg. downtown) they had no barricades, especially not at Victory Monument as this was far from their protest site. Their camp stretched from Khok Wua intersection (with some at Sanam Luang), over Pan Fa (where the main stage was located), up to Royal Plaza (where many camped). The protest area was open and easily accessible - i drove in there every single day, often several times.

The barricades at Rajaprasong were only errected after the April 10 incident. The first barricade was erected at the night of April 10 to April 11, after the carnage at Khok Wua and Dinso, where Red Shirts erected a makeshift barricade somewhere around Saphan Khao, fearing an attack by Yellow Shirts and/or soldiers. Soon after the Red Shirts left their Pan Fa protest site and concentrated at Rajaprasong.

Oh, and by the way, if you would read my posts, you may find that i have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts, as i have ran into a group of them during the May fighting, and have publicly said so on many occasions. Therefore there is no need to "call me on it". I just very much doubt your claim of this particular incident, as these armed militants were not operating that openly, only brandished their weapons in the thick of it, and preferred not to be seen, naturally. That is why there are so few photos and videos of them existing, even though each of the hundreds of photographers and cameramen that descended on Bangkok would have loved to get some image of them.

And again, the timing and location you have given us here makes this claim even more unbelievable.

We need a downvote button. Your occasional upvote from a sympathiser would possibly be offset by a large number of posters calling BS.

Up to you.

Now can you answer my question of when and where you had that encounter with the AK47 brandishing Red Shirts?

Hey, I wrote the previous reply during my sequential reading of the posts. LTFO and stop being a jerk. You read and reply to posts in random order do you? That would make about as much sense as your posts actually.

1: I could figure out the date, but I am not going to bother, it was long enough ago that I don't give a FF

2: I don't drive in BKK ever, I leave it to taxi drivers and friends foolish enough to own & drive cars in Bangkok. The location was somewhere around victory monument IIRC (I wasn't really watching coz I wasn't steering) and it was, IIRC, before they commandeered downtown. But as I said, I cannot be bothered chasing passport stamps in an expired passport I no longer have. And certainly not to satisfy a an aggressive little pillock such as yourself <-- ad hominom

3: Feel free to call me a liar, my 3 friends also witnessed this, and one of them is married to a woman who was physically on the barricades for the Reds. Apparently she called my buddy a liar too when the event was related at home. The Reds are good at maintaining the lie, if nothing else. We are peacful and unarmed - utter F*ing bullshit and enough of us know this to call you on it.

Call it an urban myth, call it the f*ing Macarena for all I care. I am just posting the facts as they were on the ground that day.

Sorry, but before the Red Shirts occupied Rajaprasong (eg. downtown) they had no barricades, especially not at Victory Monument as this was far from their protest site. Their camp stretched from Khok Wua intersection (with some at Sanam Luang), over Pan Fa (where the main stage was located), up to Royal Plaza (where many camped). The protest area was open and easily accessible - i drove in there every single day, often several times.

The barricades at Rajaprasong were only errected after the April 10 incident. The first barricade was erected at the night of April 10 to April 11, after the carnage at Khok Wua and Dinso, where Red Shirts erected a makeshift barricade somewhere around Saphan Khao, fearing an attack by Yellow Shirts and/or soldiers. Soon after the Red Shirts left their Pan Fa protest site and concentrated at Rajaprasong.

Oh, and by the way, if you would read my posts, you may find that i have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts, as i have ran into a group of them during the May fighting, and have publicly said so on many occasions. Therefore there is no need to "call me on it". I just very much doubt your claim of this particular incident, as these armed militants were not operating that openly, only brandished their weapons in the thick of it, and preferred not to be seen, naturally. That is why there are so few photos and videos of them existing, even though the hundreds of photographers and cameramen that descended on Bangkok would have loved to get some image of them.

And again, the timing and location you have given us here makes this claim even more unbelievable.

The witness said nothing of a "barricade". Read carefully.

Sorry, but before the Red Shirts occupied Rajaprasong (eg. downtown) they had no barricades, especially not at Victory Monument as this was far from their protest site. Their camp stretched from Khok Wua intersection (with some at Sanam Luang), over Pan Fa (where the main stage was located), up to Royal Plaza (where many camped). The protest area was open and easily accessible - i drove in there every single day, often several times.

The barricades at Rajaprasong were only errected after the April 10 incident.

Oh, and by the way, if you would read my posts, you may find that i have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts, as i have ran into a group of them during the May fighting, and have publicly said so on many occasions. Therefore there is no need to "call me on it". I just very much doubt your claim of this particular incident, as these armed militants were not operating that openly, only brandished their weapons in the thick of it, and preferred not to be seen, naturally. That is why there are so few photos and videos of them existing, even though the hundreds of photographers and cameramen that descended on Bangkok would have loved to get some image of them.

And again, the timing and location you have given us here makes this claim even more unbelievable.

I don't think he said anything about barricades.

The red shirts moved into Ratchaprasong and set up stages a few days before April 10.

A few wrong turns in the Victory Monument area could lead you to an area where there were red shirt "check points". Certainly, there was a lot of shooting in the Victory Monument area (I am not saying AT Victory Monument) later. For someone who is sitting in the back of a taxi and not knowing the area, the memory would have been being at Victory monument, and then a few turns later, running into a check point.

The witness said nothing of a "barricade". Read carefully.

Sorry, yes, he said blockade.

Still - they had no blockade at Victory Monument as it was far from their protest site at Pan Fa. The blockades in the vicinity of Victory monument appeared only when the army began surrounding the Rajaprasong protest site from May 13 to May 19. And the poster said that this incident occurred before the Rajaprasong occupation.

Sorry, but before the Red Shirts occupied Rajaprasong (eg. downtown) they had no barricades, especially not at Victory Monument as this was far from their protest site. Their camp stretched from Khok Wua intersection (with some at Sanam Luang), over Pan Fa (where the main stage was located), up to Royal Plaza (where many camped). The protest area was open and easily accessible - i drove in there every single day, often several times.

The barricades at Rajaprasong were only errected after the April 10 incident.

Oh, and by the way, if you would read my posts, you may find that i have always maintained that there were armed militants under the Red Shirts, as i have ran into a group of them during the May fighting, and have publicly said so on many occasions. Therefore there is no need to "call me on it". I just very much doubt your claim of this particular incident, as these armed militants were not operating that openly, only brandished their weapons in the thick of it, and preferred not to be seen, naturally. That is why there are so few photos and videos of them existing, even though the hundreds of photographers and cameramen that descended on Bangkok would have loved to get some image of them.

And again, the timing and location you have given us here makes this claim even more unbelievable.

I don't think he said anything about barricades.

The red shirts moved into Ratchaprasong and set up stages a few days before April 10.

A few wrong turns in the Victory Monument area could lead you to an area where there were red shirt "check points". Certainly, there was a lot of shooting in the Victory Monument area (I am not saying AT Victory Monument) later. For someone who is sitting in the back of a taxi and not knowing the area, the memory would have been being at Victory monument, and then a few turns later, running into a check point.

True.

But they first Red Shirt checkpoints were in the immediate surroundings of their protests site which is quite a distance from Victory Monument (crossing Rama VI Rd, then crossing the railway lines, passing either the palace, the horse racing ground or the long stretch from Yommarat to Rajadamnern) - at least a 20 minute drive.

And yes, the Red Shirts began their protest at Pan Fa a month before the April 10 incident. Their stages there were set up on March 12/13.

And giving the benefit of doubt, still, i would still like to know more details, such as what time of the day this has occurred, at least the approximate day, and if possible on which road that check point may have been located.

True.

But they first Red Shirt checkpoints were in the immediate surroundings of their protests site which is quite a distance from Victory Monument (crossing Rama VI Rd, then crossing the railway lines, passing either the palace, the horse racing ground or the long stretch from Yommarat to Rajadamnern) - at least a 20 minute drive.

He said nothing about timing. He said a few wrong turns.

The "very first checkpoints" could have been anywhere. What about later ones?

Were there any check points around Ratchaprasong once the red shirts moved in there?

True.

But they first Red Shirt checkpoints were in the immediate surroundings of their protests site which is quite a distance from Victory Monument (crossing Rama VI Rd, then crossing the railway lines, passing either the palace, the horse racing ground or the long stretch from Yommarat to Rajadamnern) - at least a 20 minute drive.

He said nothing about timing. He said a few wrong turns.

The "very first checkpoints" could have been anywhere. What about later ones?

Were there any check points around Ratchaprasong once the red shirts moved in there?

With "the very first checkpoints" i meant the locations. They were in the immediate surroundings of the Pan Fa protest site. Their locations did not change until they left Pan Fa.

At first Rajaprasong was more or less open access, checkpoints and barricades appeared after the April 10 incident. I have mapped them out, but without looking at my notes, i think it was all together 8 barricades/checkpoints - at Saladaeng, at Henry Dunant, at Siam Paragon, at Pratunam on the bridge over Klong Saeng Saep, at Chidlom near Petchaburi Rd, at the Lang Suan/Sarasin intersection, at the Wireless/Sarasin intersection, and i think at the Sukhumvit/Wireless intersection.

I think there was also one more small checkpoint inside the protest area, at the Sarasin/Rajadamri intersection.

During the fighting they have had additional barricades at the Samliem Dindaeng intersection, and at Bon Gai on Rama IV Rd, while trying to corner the soldiers in.

True.

But they first Red Shirt checkpoints were in the immediate surroundings of their protests site which is quite a distance from Victory Monument (crossing Rama VI Rd, then crossing the railway lines, passing either the palace, the horse racing ground or the long stretch from Yommarat to Rajadamnern) - at least a 20 minute drive.

He said nothing about timing. He said a few wrong turns.

The "very first checkpoints" could have been anywhere. What about later ones?

Were there any check points around Ratchaprasong once the red shirts moved in there?

At a checkpoint you "check" drivers and/or search their vehicles and then allow them to pass. Here it looks like some illegal activity was going on behind the blockade and anyone getting near was chased off to prevent them from noticing. This also means that the blockade was just temporary for the duration of the "activities". Our red reporter might have passed the same spot one hour later and seen nothing out of the ordinary.

edit: typo

True.

But they first Red Shirt checkpoints were in the immediate surroundings of their protests site which is quite a distance from Victory Monument (crossing Rama VI Rd, then crossing the railway lines, passing either the palace, the horse racing ground or the long stretch from Yommarat to Rajadamnern) - at least a 20 minute drive.

He said nothing about timing. He said a few wrong turns.

The "very first checkpoints" could have been anywhere. What about later ones?

Were there any check points around Ratchaprasong once the red shirts moved in there?

At a checkpoint you "check" drivers and/or search their vehicles and then allow them to pass. Here it looks like some illegal activity was going on behind the blockade and anyone getting near was chased off to prevent them from noticing. This also means that the blockade was just temporary for the duration of the "activities". Our red reporter might have passed the same spot one hour later and seen nothing out of the ordinary.

edit: typo

I would suggest to wait for more details to emerge (if they emerge) before accepting this as truth.

So far the poster that made the claim has provided nothing but the barest details - no date other than that is supposedly happened before the Rajaprasong occupation, a very fuzzy location, no time at all.

This is how urban rumors get started - accepting claims as truth without questioning or verifying them just because it sounds possible, or because it simply suits ones' points of view. And this here came from an anonymous poster with 31 posts who got aggressive and insulting at the first attempt of asking for details.

Sorry - but this doesn't start good...

Without details i don't believe anything, from anyone, regardless of color sympathies.