Chalerm told to clarify “men in black” at the Labour Ministry

[newcomer71]

Your last sentence is really interesting. Who would desire effect of violence onto the protesters?

Who gains? I'll leave that up to you, but over the last 5+ years, almost every group taking an anti-Thaksin stance has been subject to acts of extreme violence by persons unknown. Drive-by shootings fire-bombing of homes, and explosive rounds are the norm, rather than unusual.

And there are persons who would feel much more justified in claiming the anti-thaksin protesters are anti-democratic if they could be portrayed as violent as the red protesters in 2010.

If your theory (not explicitly written but clear) is correct, how you would explain the policeman dead and more than 10 policeman wounded by gun shots?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Does it matter (in regard to the perception of violence) who is hit by the bullets? If a handgun was used from a rooftop, the odds of hitting an intended target are small, but the chances of hitting someone in a crowd is huge. And that is all that is required to make the news.

Ok, I understand your point. Thogh I don't agree with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JRSoul]

If your theory (not explicitly written but clear) is correct, how you would explain the policeman dead and more than 10 policeman wounded by gun shots?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Does it matter (in regard to the perception of violence) who is hit by the bullets? If a handgun was used from a rooftop, the odds of hitting an intended target are small, but the chances of hitting someone in a crowd is huge. And that is all that is required to make the news.

Ok, I understand your point. Thogh I don't agree with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I never expected that you would. Specifically, which part do you disagree with?

[newcomer71]

If your theory (not explicitly written but clear) is correct, how you would explain the policeman dead and more than 10 policeman wounded by gun shots?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Does it matter (in regard to the perception of violence) who is hit by the bullets? If a handgun was used from a rooftop, the odds of hitting an intended target are small, but the chances of hitting someone in a crowd is huge. And that is all that is required to make the news.

Ok, I understand your point. Thogh I don't agree with it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I never expected that you would. Specifically, which part do you disagree with?

I'm against conspiracy theories.

What I think for now is maybe they were policemen deployed in a strategic position to cover police forces on the ground.

I believe that live bullet weren't used and what we saw were anti riot police weapons used.

But I don't exclude anything else.

Ok I guess we're good and I can go on drinking my coffee...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JRSoul]

I'm against conspiracy theories.

What I think for now is maybe they were policemen deployed in a strategic position to cover police forces on the ground.

I believe that live bullet weren't used and what we saw were anti riot police weapons used.

But I don't exclude anything else.

Ok I guess we're good and I can go on drinking my coffee...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You believe that live bullets weren't used, despite the fact that people were shot, and from a height. Did they pop in from another dimension? Perhaps those wounded/killed were carrying bullets which exploded spontaneously, in a downward direction?

[newcomer71]

I'm against conspiracy theories.

What I think for now is maybe they were policemen deployed in a strategic position to cover police forces on the ground.

I believe that live bullet weren't used and what we saw were anti riot police weapons used.

But I don't exclude anything else.

Ok I guess we're good and I can go on drinking my coffee...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You believe that live bullets weren't used, despite the fact that people were shot, and from a height. Did they pop in from another dimension? Perhaps those wounded/killed were carrying bullets which exploded spontaneously, in a downward direction?

Why you have to make me change idea? I'm telling you I respect your opinion but I don't agree. I'm being civil and I would like to keep it that way.

For what we know people on the roof could have shoot live round as with the same chances they couldn't have done that.

How can you exclude there were other people at some windows or another roof shooting live rounds?

And who exactly told people killed or wounded got shot from a height?

I'm done replying the same thing over and over because I guess we have a different idea and we both have the right to keep it. I'm not trying to ask support from anyone here but only writing what I think. Over

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited December 28, 2013 by newcomer71

[waza]

Your last sentence is really interesting. Who would desire effect of violence onto the protesters?

Who gains? I'll leave that up to you, but over the last 5+ years, almost every group taking an anti-Thaksin stance has been subject to acts of extreme violence by persons unknown. Drive-by shootings fire-bombing of homes, and explosive rounds are the norm, rather than unusual.

And there are persons who would feel much more justified in claiming the anti-thaksin protesters are anti-democratic if they could be portrayed as violent as the red protesters in 2010.

If your theory (not explicitly written but clear) is correct, how you would explain the policeman dead and more than 10 policeman wounded by gun shots?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Can you link to where more than 10 police have been injured by gun shots? it wouldn't be Thai Rath by any chance?

I have seen threads with injuries to policemen, some stating that they were inflicted accidentally by other police. Thanks

and there is the pic of the RTP using makeup to fake gunshot wounds

[fab4]

If your theory (not explicitly written but clear) is correct, how you would explain the policeman dead and more than 10 policeman wounded by gun shots?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Can you link to where more than 10 police have been injured by gun shots? it wouldn't be Thai Rath by any chance?

I have seen threads with injuries to policemen, some stating that they were inflicted accidentally by other police. Thanks

and there is the pic of the RTP using makeup to fake gunshot wounds

Yes, there is that

[Emptyset]

I'm against conspiracy theories.

What I think for now is maybe they were policemen deployed in a strategic position to cover police forces on the ground.

I believe that live bullet weren't used and what we saw were anti riot police weapons used.

But I don't exclude anything else.

Ok I guess we're good and I can go on drinking my coffee...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You believe that live bullets weren't used, despite the fact that people were shot, and from a height. Did they pop in from another dimension? Perhaps those wounded/killed were carrying bullets which exploded spontaneously, in a downward direction?

How can anyone be sure they were shot from a height? You're assuming the guy was standing up straight when he was shot, but if you see the police in action, you'll see them crouching, leaning forward etc. You'd have to know his exact position at the time he was shot to determine the bullet trajectory, wouldn't you?

Like Newcomer says, perhaps there's no great mystery here. They're anti-riot police working out in the open. The real men in black are not police, nor would they be operating so openly on a roof top. Not to say one of these police didn't fire a hand gun in anger towards the protesters and kill one of his own by mistake. It is possible. But these are definitely not the fabled men in black.

Also, what JR says about someone wanting to paint the protesters as violent. Well, that's a possibility, but any violence seems to work in the favour of those that oppose the government, and I think they know this. But there are perhaps more than two forces involved...

[Emptyset]

Anyone that says that the police have been professional and well trained . Here's a reminder:

It has been all over the news but. hey they are wearing black.

Yes and they did make an arrest of a young fellow who had allegedly stolen a riot officers uniform and was masquerading as an officer...

Are you rolling your eyes at the idea that the police had arrested a protester dressed as a police officer or that the police claim that protesters dressed as police bashed up the vehicles? If the former, most likely true - at least one protester was pictured wearing a police uniform, and they looted a police van and took at least a few police vests. If the latter, total nonsense of course. One thing for protesters to wear police vests and a few other bits and bobs and another for them to be dressed in full gear, angrily breaking windows of vans.

Even mad Mike Yon got the real story, apparently a 'senior' police officer admitted to them that it was police that did it, but then gave the excuse that they were angry because they believed one of these vans interfered with them trying to help an injured colleague. That's possibly not true either, but police are obviously being asked to show restraint and as weeks of attacks are now taking their toll, it's inevitable that frustration is building. Even so, that doesn't excuse this. They're supposed to be professionals.

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

The real men in black are not police, nor would they be operating so openly on a roof top. Not to say one of these police didn't fire a hand gun in anger towards the protesters and kill one of his own by mistake. It is possible. But these are definitely not the fabled men in black.

Who, then, are the "fabled" men in black?

Perhaps that might lead to understanding why you think these men in black couldn't be THE men in black.

[GrantSmith]

Anyone that says that the police have been professional and well trained . Here's a reminder:

It has been all over the news but. hey they are wearing black.

Yes and they did make an arrest of a young fellow who had allegedly stolen a riot officers uniform and was masquerading as an officer...

Are you rolling your eyes at the idea that the police had arrested a protester dressed as a police officer or that the police claim that protesters dressed as police bashed up the vehicles? If the former, most likely true - at least one protester was pictured wearing a police uniform, and they looted a police van and took at least a few police vests. If the latter, total nonsense of course. One thing for protesters to wear police vests and a few other bits and bobs and another for them to be dressed in full gear, angrily breaking windows of vans.

Even mad Mike Yon got the real story, apparently a 'senior' police officer admitted to them that it was police that did it, but then gave the excuse that they were angry because they believed one of these vans interfered with them trying to help an injured colleague. That's possibly not true either, but police are obviously being asked to show restraint and as weeks of attacks are now taking their toll, it's inevitable that frustration is building. Even so, that doesn't excuse this. They're supposed to be professionals.

I think you and I both know - through our banter throughout other threads - where I was leading with my quip.

Appreciate you give the opportunity to either confirm nor deny this though...

Please don't mention mike yon, you know as well as i where he sits on the spectrum of credibility.

Lest I point it out and we debate - once again - credibility of certain farang journalists...

It's rather droll, would you not agree?

Though, I'd agree with your earlier theory that if you take his side, coupled with old mates side, one should - in theory - be able to get a really good idea of the situation.

[brownbear]

As the video is only a few seconds long is it not a bit academic to analyse what was or was not fired ONLY during those few seconds? What happened before or after?

Surely the simple point is that there were unidentified (so far at least) men seen on top of a government building overlooking the protest sight and that allegations that they may have been responsible for some of the injuries need a formal response and explanation rather than s simple bland rebuttal?

I have seen videos of the police charging the protesters and vandalising the cars and the suggestion that these were protesters in disguise seems ludicrous to me. JMHO.

[Local Drunk]

Sounds the same at R.U. which is why the military came in because the police knew there was a sniper though no sniper was ever found. Basically any Navy Seal, SAS or troop of baboons could run circles around the Thai police.

[Nowhereman60]

Looks like maintenance people to me. Too far way I don't see an guns. Only workers.

Yeah and Thai workers are going to wear black suits in the full sun??

get a life and stay out of things you do not know about, you might get hurt yourself.

And are you the one planning to do the hurting? I can't understand why so many idiots here want to make threats against other members because of this. Some people here are too caught up in this I have my opinion just like you have yours. You are no better than those who used violence during these protest.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Nowhereman60

[dighambara]

YET, no one notices how all the strange goings on tend to support Thaksin's political position..??

[Maha Sarakham Marty]

Two days on, has Chalerm clarified yet who the men in black are that were running around on his roof?

[khunken]

Two days on, has Chalerm clarified yet who the men in black are that were running around on his roof?

No, but he did say - possibly with the assistance of ear-medicine - that the infamous Men In Black (2010 edition) were police.

Edited December 29, 2013 by khunken

[Mosha]

Two days on, has Chalerm clarified yet who the men in black are that were running around on his roof?

He's probably getting ready for Tuesday. Sharpening his cleaver and what not

[joy16]

As the video is only a few seconds long is it not a bit academic to analyse what was or was not fired ONLY during those few seconds? What happened before or after?

Surely the simple point is that there were unidentified (so far at least) men seen on top of a government building overlooking the protest sight and that allegations that they may have been responsible for some of the injuries need a formal response and explanation rather than s simple bland rebuttal?

I have seen videos of the police charging the protesters and vandalising the cars and the suggestion that these were protesters in disguise seems ludicrous to me. JMHO.

See this for longer video. It was filmed by drone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s16JLXoJaFo&feature=player_detailpage

Edited December 29, 2013 by joy16

[brownbear]

Joy16: thanks I had not seen that video which seems to be from a different source from that shown earlier in this thread. At risk of sounding pig-headed however does it at all change the point I was trying to make? If so appreciate your further advices?

Cheers