Bangkok: Armed men in black seen on both sides

[webfact]

Armed men in black seen on both sides
Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation



Protesters, police say assailants shot at them on Tuesday

BANGKOK: -- INJURED protesters and police have both said they saw armed men dressed in black mingling among opposing sides during the deadly clash at Phan Fah Bridge on Tuesday.

Five people were killed and 69 injured in the bloody melee.

Forensic police have been investigating the scene where a grenade was mysteriously thrown at police during the operation to recover roads from protest sites at the bridge. This was carried out after an order from the caretaker government's Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order.

Dhamma Army security guard Krisada Penchamra, 35, said he was shot while trying to use iron fences and tyres to build a barricade to protect protesters from objects being thrown at them. He was shot in the chest, arms and legs, and is awaiting surgery to have the bullets removed.

"I was shot while I was about to turn my back against the company of police. So I was quite sure about the trajectory of the bullets," he said. Krisada travelled from Songkhla to join the protests to overthrow the government. He has been in the capital since December 20.

On Tuesday, he was instructed to take care of protesters and stop them from getting into clashes with police.

The clash between police and protesters started around 10am when police used a tractor to destroy sandbags which formed a temporary wall.

Krisada said that once police saw the number of protesters was increasing, after another group of protesters from the Student and People's Network for Thailand's Reform joined in, they started firing tear gas. At around noon, a mysterious grenade was thrown at police at the bridge, he said.

"After the explosion, I saw two police holding M16 rifles and they jumped into the area under the bridge," Krisada said. "A few minutes later, I heard the sound of gunshots from that area."

Kitti Seubbukaew, 41, said he was shot in his left leg while leaning against a wall on Rajdamnoen Avenue.

On Tuesday, he travelled from Wat Prasri Mahathat Worawihan to join the demonstration at the Rajdamnoen rally site.

"The moment when I was shot it was like thunder. It was a storm," he said.

"I just heard the sound. At that time, I did not think that I was shot. I thought a person standing beside me was shot. But when I turned my head to the left side, unfortunately it was me."

He said he heard police announce that they would shoot protesters who moved on them.

Chon Buri resident Suraphon Wanichtat, 57, was shot in the right side.

He said he saw a group of men wearing black suits among police under the bridge near the Queen's Gallery.

"They were wearing black suits and walking with the police but they did not have police written on their suits," he said.

Police Sergeant Chaowalit Ritmongsoongnoen, whose right arm was injured by the grenade explosion, said he saw three men wearing black dresses and knitted wool hats walking among protesters and hiding under tamarind trees. They were also holding guns.

"These men in black had appeared from the Nang Lerng intersection," he said.

Chaowalit said the men in black Suraphon saw, under the bridge, were riot control police.

He said protesters threw tear gas at police first and it was a different type to what police used.

Police Corporal Witoon Suwansri, who was also injured by the explosion, claimed he also saw men in black hiding among protesters. He said they appeared after two M79 grenades were thrown at police.

Witoon said that even though he was instructed to disperse protesters, they were Thai like his relatives.


-- The Nation 2014-02-22

[Halion]

M79 grenades are fired from the barrel of a weapon, not thrown. To throw a M79 grenade would be a totally useless exercise. Just more erroneous reporting.

[NongKhaiKid]

Have Gun, Will Travel ( well not too far )

[Yunla]

He said protesters threw tear gas at police first and it was a different type to what police used.

It was a milder version called "very unhappy gas."

[rogerdee123]

The old style explosive M79 grenades looked like balls .... the grenade I saw in that video before it exploded didn't look like a ball. The explosion also wasn't as big as I would have thought (for an M79). Maybe it's a new version .. I don't know ... I admit I don't keep up with armaments etc. But given all the mistakes being made by police in their statements, or the interpreters or the reporters or whoever, or all the above .... I'm still not convinced it was an M79. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The point is .. can we believe what we are being told.

Edited February 22, 2014 by rogerdee123

[pisico]

"Mysterious grenade". The Media are not only whorish but also ludicrous.

Maybe unhappy spirits are throwing the grenades.

Both camps are detestable in their lack of respect for the law. Do either side cares what this crisis of 3 months is doing to the country?

Both sides are self absorbed in their Thainess and could not care less about the country although each camp claims to be doing so.

Meanwhile, while up North in Lilliput they quibble over on which end to crack the egg, down South children, teachers, monks and innocent people continue being assassinated, rangers maimed and killed by road side bombs. Does anybody care about this? Not really, bombs have not exploded daily in Bangkok yet, no roadside bombs, no drive bys... Everybody knows that Bangkok IS Thailand.

Edited February 22, 2014 by pisico

[In Town]

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

[bigbamboo]

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

New In Town are we?

Seeing as you seem to know so much already perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us on exactly where all the rice pledging money went.

[In Town]

Corrupt politicians? I've been around long enough not to be too foolish, and see everything in terms of black and white. How about you?

[Macrohistory]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

So you're saying that in April 2010, it was Suthep sympathizers who killed Col. Romklao? I'd love to see you spell out the logic of that one, given everything we know about Col. (now, posthumously, Gen.) Romklao's position in the Thai political firmament; who the really importantly people likely to be supporting Suthep are now (and were then); etc. Go ahead: Let's have your interpretation. Looking forward to it -- should be entertaining!

[Scamper]

" They were wearing black suits and walking with the police but they did not have police written on their suits," he said. "

As both sides try to pin blame on the other, there is mounting evidence that both sides were aided - either by invitation or anonymously. It is hard to imagine that the four protesters who were killed were killed by one of their own. And it is equally hard to imagine that the policeman who was killed was killed by one of their own. Therefore, it is more plausible to imagine that there was armed engagement on both sides. And the accounts and evidence - both photographic and physical - seems to bear this out. But at the end of the day, there was loss of life, and that is unacceptable. And also at the end of the day absolutely nothing was accomplished by any of this. If Chalerm thinks this is a winning strategy, perhaps he should consider deporting himself to India.

[casualbiker]

The old style explosive M79 grenades looked like balls .... the grenade I saw in that video before it exploded didn't look like a ball. The explosion also wasn't as big as I would have thought (for an M79). Maybe it's a new version .. I don't know ... I admit I don't keep up with armaments etc. But given all the mistakes being made by police in their statements, or the interpreters or the reporters or whoever, or all the above .... I'm still not convinced it was an M79. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The point is .. can we believe what we are being told.

Not sure your correct. The US M67 and Russian RGb 5 are ball shaped. The M79 is projectile shaped.

[Stan7444]

M79 grenades are fired from the barrel of a weapon, not thrown. To throw a M79 grenade would be a totally useless exercise. Just more erroneous reporting.

Absolutes correct since I was using the M79 during the Vietnam conflict. One important fact is the shell does not arm itself for the first 30 meters to protect the shooter. Also, the range is up to 300+ meters. Therefore, the distance from a protest site can be significant and doubful that someone would even see the person who would fire this weapon, inclding the "men in black".

[In Town]

Maybe. As I recall there was a lot of speculation that he had been killed by friendly fire. Of course, we need to remember as well that Seh Deng was shot in the head by a sniper stationed in an eighth floor window of a hospital overlooking the park, another of those "mysterious" men in black. Face it; Suthep's entire plan from day one has been to stoke violence to justify military intervention. To achieve that end he is willing to sacrifice supporters (particularly dark-skinned southerners) for the greater good. Thats just a fact.

[telecom]

Forensic police have been investigating the scene where a grenade was mysteriously thrown at police during the operation to recover roads from protest sites at the bridge. This was carried out after an order from the caretaker government's Centre for Maintaining Peace and Order.

I notice that no investigation has been ordered for the 4 protesters shot dead and the 70 injured.

So even if the protesters were armed, they have a right to be. They are in a lawless and unprotected situation. If they have no protection from the police, then they have the right to defend themselves.

Also funny to point out that there seems to be plenty of evidence available for a fairly decent investigation. But zero desire to conduct one.

Also funny to point out that the police are giving their identification of the protestor's 'men in black' as identical to those of the photos floating around from Feb 2nd..... Yeah right, like they would put on the exact same clothing as all the photos of them are showing.... Hardly inconspicuous as they make their way there.

For anyone about to lambast this Nation report as one sided, please note it is 100% balanced with accounts from both sides.

[retsdon]

Why an undercover shadow force whose goal is to promote conflict would all dress uniformly so as to be instantly recognizable, rather than say dressing as ordinary protestors or fake police, iis of course never explained.

Half the Thais I know believe that they or someone they know has seen a ghost. Go figure, as my American friens would say.

[In Town]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why an undercover shadow force whose goal is to promote conflict would all dress uniformly so as to be instantly recognizable, rather than say dressing as ordinary protestors or fake police, iis of course never explained.

Half the Thais I know believe that they or someone they know has seen a ghost. Go figure, as my American friens would say.

Half the people on TVF believe in little green... ugh, I mean, men in black. Mysterious fellows always there to take the blame when any untoward event might otherwise implicate PAD or the Democrat Party, who we all know are corruption free and pure of heart.

[noitom]

Maybe it's the specialist Thahan Prahan the Thai killers in the south now subcontracted out to "arrange" shootings in Bangkok. Like last time in 2010 there were "men in black" and rumours and some experts on Thai military had it then that the MO of the killings and snipers was Thahan Prahan but nothing ever came of it.

[rogerdee123]

The old style explosive M79 grenades looked like balls .... the grenade I saw in that video before it exploded didn't look like a ball. The explosion also wasn't as big as I would have thought (for an M79). Maybe it's a new version .. I don't know ... I admit I don't keep up with armaments etc. But given all the mistakes being made by police in their statements, or the interpreters or the reporters or whoever, or all the above .... I'm still not convinced it was an M79. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The point is .. can we believe what we are being told.

Not sure your correct. The US M67 and Russian RGb 5 are ball shaped. The M79 is projectile shaped.

m67.jpg

rgd5_1.jpg

m79.jpg

The explosive grenade projectile which is seated in the 40mm cartridge is ball shaped .. or so I thought . I could be wrong. I'm no expert....remember I'm talking about the explosive round

the other poster who talks about the round needing to spin to arm itself is also correct ... if it impacts before arming, say for instance it's accidentally fired into the ground, it won't explode. And these little round balls that the kids find in the ground (in the old battlefields in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) are deadly.

Edited February 22, 2014 by rogerdee123

[rogerdee123]

OK I was wrong ... M79 grenade is oblong ... not ball shaped ...

[whybother]

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

You could just as easily say that the "MIB" seen in these protests are red shirt supporters acting as "agents provocateur.

We do know that the red shirts started a fire in Central World in 2010. I'm not sure what they were trying to justify.

Which protester was shot by his own side?

Edited February 22, 2014 by whybother

[casualbiker]

The old style explosive M79 grenades looked like balls .... the grenade I saw in that video before it exploded didn't look like a ball. The explosion also wasn't as big as I would have thought (for an M79). Maybe it's a new version .. I don't know ... I admit I don't keep up with armaments etc. But given all the mistakes being made by police in their statements, or the interpreters or the reporters or whoever, or all the above .... I'm still not convinced it was an M79. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The point is .. can we believe what we are being told.

Not sure your correct. The US M67 and Russian RGb 5 are ball shaped. The M79 is projectile shaped.

m67.jpg

rgd5_1.jpg

m79.jpg

The explosive grenade projectile which is seated in the 40mm cartridge is ball shaped .. or so I thought . I could be wrong. I'm no expert....remember I'm talking about the explosive round

the other poster who talks about the round needing to spin to arm itself is also correct ... if it impacts before arming, say for instance it's accidentally fired into the ground, it won't explode. And these little round balls that the kids find in the ground (in the old battlefields in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) are deadly.

You are correct. my apologies.

[AleG]

Maybe. As I recall there was a lot of speculation that he had been killed by friendly fire. Of course, we need to remember as well that Seh Deng was shot in the head by a sniper stationed in an eighth floor window of a hospital overlooking the park, another of those "mysterious" men in black. Face it; Suthep's entire plan from day one has been to stoke violence to justify military intervention. To achieve that end he is willing to sacrifice supporters (particularly dark-skinned southerners) for the greater good. Thats just a fact.

A fact? what fact? I see no fact in any of the unsupported assertions in your posts. For example: "Seh Deng was shot in the head by a sniper stationed in an eighth floor window of a hospital overlooking the park", cite?

To ask for a cite means for you to provide credible evidence that validates your assertion.

You do that and then we can talk about facts.

[In Town]

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

You could just as easily say that the "MIB" seen in these protests are red shirt supporters acting as "agents provocateur.

We do know that the red shirts started a fire in Central World in 2010. I'm not sure what they were trying to justify.

Which protester was shot by his own side?

Actually, we don't quite "know" the fire was started by red shirts. Most available evidence points to military officers who deliberately started the fire to deflect attention from and justify their murderous suppression of peaceful democracy demonstrators.

To understand who was shot by their own side, read (between the lines of) the article above. Its very clear.

[Mrjlh]

Sounds too simple...why not arrest anyone "dressed in Black"? On either side. Or is that too easy?

[rogerdee123]

I think they are now saying it was a (hand-thrown) M67 grenade ... but I get the feeling this may be incorrect also.

[whybother]

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

You could just as easily say that the "MIB" seen in these protests are red shirt supporters acting as "agents provocateur.

We do know that the red shirts started a fire in Central World in 2010. I'm not sure what they were trying to justify.

Which protester was shot by his own side?

Actually, we don't quite "know" the fire was started by red shirts. Most available evidence points to military officers who deliberately started the fire to deflect attention from and justify their murderous suppression of peaceful democracy demonstrators.

To understand who was shot by their own side, read (between the lines of) the article above. Its very clear.

Actually, most evidence, ie photos, show the red shirt protesters throwing stuff on fires in the building. Plenty of conspiracy theories talk about the army doing it. Not much evidence of that though.

Sent from my phone ...

[Goat Roper]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

You could just as easily say that the "MIB" seen in these protests are red shirt supporters acting as "agents provocateur.

We do know that the red shirts started a fire in Central World in 2010. I'm not sure what they were trying to justify.

Which protester was shot by his own side?

Actually, we don't quite "know" the fire was started by red shirts. Most available evidence points to military officers who deliberately started the fire to deflect attention from and justify their murderous suppression of peaceful democracy demonstrators.

To understand who was shot by their own side, read (between the lines of) the article above. Its very clear.

Actually, most evidence, ie photos, show the red shirt protesters throwing stuff on fires in the building. Plenty of conspiracy theories talk about the army doing it. Not much evidence of that though.

Sent from my phone ...

With all the publicity the MIB will soon become the men in ?????????????.

[Dap]

He said protesters threw tear gas at police first and it was a different type to what police used.

It was a milder version called "very unhappy gas."

Still laughing! Great reply Yunla

[icommunity]

It is very clear to me. The protesters were not protesters. They were there to violate the rights of others. The police have the duty to clear obstruction and maintain law and order and enforcing the rule of law but they were faced with resistance and obstruction. The fact that they were bomb thrown at them and gun fight proved the protesters were not protesting anything but trying to create a situation for seizing power from a democratically elected government.