Thai Court accepts trial of 'Men in Black' perpetrators during anti govt rallies in 2010

[Pi Sek]

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

[Pi Sek]

This topic has gone off the rails a little... although little surprise to that, all these topics on political violence tend to. I don't think anyone is denying the RTA shot a lot of people... it may sound callous, but whether or not the army was justified depends on your opinion (however, I do notice that it's only the UDD cheerleaders who seem to believe that the army were doing all of the shooting).

I find it very hard to believe that people who have enough intellectual resources to turn on a computer can still maintain that they believe the MiB were not acting in collusion with the Red Shirts in 2010. The question in this thread should not be "were the MiB working for the Abhisit-led coalition or the UDD?". We know very well that they were acting in collusion with the UDD, there is plenty of red-handed evidence that shows they were, even on this thread.

The question should be "are the people shown in the OP the "real" MiB who were responsible for attacks... and for exactly which attacks were they responsible?".

I find it very hard to believe that people who have enough intellectual resources to turn on a computer can still maintain that they believe the MiB were not acting in collusion with the Red Shirts in 2010.

I find it very hard to find a post which claims what you are claiming. Just for the record.

On the contrary, the existence of the MiB was denied at first... then came the UDD claims were that they were "fake" Red Shirts installed at the protests by the army...

If you look back at topics closer to the time, such claims are manifest. Even on the first page of this topic, there's one or two making the same claims.

The very informed jayboy (I accept he knows what he's talking about, even if we disagree) points out above that he doesn't think there are "serious" people making this claim... but the claim is not only out there, it's common (even if only non-serious people claim it!).

But it pleases me to see that people who do know what they're talking about unanimously acknowledge the presence of an organised paramilitary wing within the UDD.

[jayboy]

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

[Pi Sek]

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

Actually there's not much to disagree with in your first paragraphs though I'm unaware there are any serious people disputing there was an armed redshirt element.The questions I hope the trial clarifies are why it's taken so long to arrest them,who paid for them,who are they and what were they aiming to achieve.All this presupposes these are right people - very far from being proven.

You have got yourself in a muddle in your last paragraph.You might want to reread the relevant posts so you don't repeat the error.

Well, we definitely do agree that the trial MUST clarify the points you make here - especially that they are the right people, which has to be answered before the other ones. I'm naive, but not naive enough to believe anything in the Thai political pantomime without hard facts and complete transparency.

You are correct in that the dressing-up of the suspects influences public opinion and, while there isn't a jury system in Thailand, the dressing-up game was clearly intended to create some kind of emotional response and make their indictment a little harder to argue against. Unfortunately, as happens so often with the Law in Thailand, their decision to do this had the opposite effect!

Still, I stand by my comment - expert opinions coming from laminers aren't helpful, and they're everywhere (not you, jayboy ). The Churchill phrase "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations" comes to mind... we were all uneducated once.

[Pi Sek]

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion if it's honest, jayboy.

Personally I think they're both brave photojournalists, Yon brave enough to embed himself with US forces on the front line (I think he served as an Army Ranger too?) and Nostitz brave enough to put himself in harm's way during Thai political protests. In terms of impartiality, they're probably on a par with each other too.

I have no doubt that they both have had plenty of donations from political movements too, although I will give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I feel he doesn't disclose everything he witnesses because he believes in the Red Shirt cause a little too strongly. Yon is a little bit of a redneck, and that comes out when he talks about gun legislation, empowerment to police, and his views on the Gaza conflict, ISIS and the Comfort Women issue. But he clearly picks a side and sticks with it - maybe because that's what he's received payment for!

[jayboy]

as DPM he was responsible for the security actions. Please don't tell me that you don't know that.

How does Suthep being in charge of security have anything do with the organisation of the "blue shirts"?

The Blue Shirt incident was in April 2009. As head of CRES (not as DPM), Suthep was responsible for security... in early- to mid-2010. And he got replaced in this position by Anupong Paojinda on Abhisit's orders mid April 2010.

Direct quote from The Nation on 1 May 2009: "most analysts believe that the new blue-clad political group was playing a game at making political changes." - i.e. they were trying to force Abhisit to resign (although it did also say that the Blue Shirts could have also been goading the Reds into violence). With Suthep as Abhisit's #2, it's fairly unlikely Newin cleared this with Suthep, and it's even more unlikely that Suthep was involved in the organising at all.

There's some real BS being thrown around in this thread. Even on this page, we have someone making reference to the non-existent jury system in Thailand, and others trying to back-peddle to try and make some point that the jury reference was some kind of metaphor. No it wasn't. It was someone who doesn't know what they're talking about making an ass out of themselves.

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion if it's honest, jayboy.

Personally I think they're both brave photojournalists, Yon brave enough to embed himself with US forces on the front line (I think he served as an Army Ranger too?) and Nostitz brave enough to put himself in harm's way during Thai political protests. In terms of impartiality, they're probably on a par with each other too.

I have no doubt that they both have had plenty of donations from political movements too, although I will give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I feel he doesn't disclose everything he witnesses because he believes in the Red Shirt cause a little too strongly. Yon is a little bit of a redneck, and that comes out when he talks about gun legislation, empowerment to police, and his views on the Gaza conflict, ISIS and the Comfort Women issue. But he clearly picks a side and sticks with it - maybe because that's what he's received payment for!

Fair enough.Perhaps there is a pre Thailand back story to Yon which casts him in a better light.But his record here is quite deplorable and his appeals for money turn the stomach - zero accountability.Essentially he is feeding on the gullible Thai middle class.Quite why an educated man like Abhisit finds time for him is one of those strange mysteries - possibly because no serious foreign journalist buys into the Democrat "case".

[AleG]

This topic has gone off the rails a little... although little surprise to that, all these topics on political violence tend to. I don't think anyone is denying the RTA shot a lot of people... it may sound callous, but whether or not the army was justified depends on your opinion (however, I do notice that it's only the UDD cheerleaders who seem to believe that the army were doing all of the shooting).

I find it very hard to believe that people who have enough intellectual resources to turn on a computer can still maintain that they believe the MiB were not acting in collusion with the Red Shirts in 2010. The question in this thread should not be "were the MiB working for the Abhisit-led coalition or the UDD?". We know very well that they were acting in collusion with the UDD, there is plenty of red-handed evidence that shows they were, even on this thread.

The question should be "are the people shown in the OP the "real" MiB who were responsible for attacks... and for exactly which attacks were they responsible?".

I find it very hard to believe that people who have enough intellectual resources to turn on a computer can still maintain that they believe the MiB were not acting in collusion with the Red Shirts in 2010.

I find it very hard to find a post which claims what you are claiming. Just for the record.

For the record you are wrong again, from this very thread on the very first page:

Links to how many the red shirt militia killed. The biggest crux of many arguments here was that the army were justified in a heavy response because of things like the men in black were shooting at them. From this reports it would appear the men in black were batting for the khakis or the incumbent government ie...Democrats

[tbthailand]

CRES, sure, that is understood - lack of attention to 'detail' in my writing. It was obvious that it was not part of the DPM responsibilities, but as DPM, he was in charge of the security at the time, etc, ... OK?

2009, that was already clear to the people discussing the topic. It can be hard to follow the thread discussion with the quote limits.

But are you quoting the Nation to make a suggestion that the blue shirts were some kind of political group and working against the AV government?

That would be a rather odd thing to say.

Yes, that is exactly what was suggested... not by me, by the way, by "most analysts" (according to Somroutai Sapsomboon of The Nation).

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/01/politics/politics_30101785.php

Not really odd to me either, as BJT are the epitome of opportunistic politics... they ditched PPP to get the Interior Ministry in a Democrat-led government, after all, so it doesn't sound like such a stretch of the imagination that they would try to use any situation to try and strengthen their position at the trough. All the Thai political dinosaurs who "control factions" tried to have some sort of say in the aftermath of the protests... Sanoh, Banharn, the list is very long, and their collective aim was to show how good they were as individual politicians by getting opposing sides to see eye to eye (or at least show the public they tried).

Also, the scope of responsibilities of DPM does not normally cover security. And, at the time, I don't think Suthep was in charge of security (in fact, as BJT got the Interior Ministry, I'm pretty sure one of the Chidchobs were - which probably explains why Newin tried to deny any involvement in the Blue Shirts, who were supposedly "civilian" but got their blue shirts directly from the Interior Ministry!). The only source I can find that anyone higher than the Interior Ministry was involved is a vague comment attributed to Nick Nostitz in Chris Askew's book "Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand"; I'm sure Nick's a nice guy, but I don't find him credible for reasons that I've put to him myself. But, hey, I don't find Michael Yon credible either and I get on fine with him.

I have a feeling I will regret posting this.But Nick Nostitz and Michael Yon are scarcely to be compared.Both make no secret of their allegiances.But one is a brave well informed reporter on the ground with considerable analytical capacity.The other is essentially a money minded huckster deplorably ignorant though with a certain feral cunning.Guess which one the Bangkok middle class adores.

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion if it's honest, jayboy.

Personally I think they're both brave photojournalists, Yon brave enough to embed himself with US forces on the front line (I think he served as an Army Ranger too?) and Nostitz brave enough to put himself in harm's way during Thai political protests. In terms of impartiality, they're probably on a par with each other too.

I have no doubt that they both have had plenty of donations from political movements too, although I will give Nick the benefit of the doubt because I feel he doesn't disclose everything he witnesses because he believes in the Red Shirt cause a little too strongly. Yon is a little bit of a redneck, and that comes out when he talks about gun legislation, empowerment to police, and his views on the Gaza conflict, ISIS and the Comfort Women issue. But he clearly picks a side and sticks with it - maybe because that's what he's received payment for!

re: nostitz, I understand that he claims to be neutral. He has been accused by the yellow shirts of being a red shirt support and was beat up earlier this year for that. But afaik, the only bias that he ever expressed was based on his upbringing as a German which favors democracy and doesn't care much for fascism -- as for reporting, he seems to photgraph and report the red shirt violence as much as he does the yellow shirt violence. For that, he seems to be the least biased around - oh yeah, and he doesn't seem to be rolling in the dough, so maybe he isn't on anyone's payroll.