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

[AleG]

Yesterday a poster posted a link to a Washington Times article "Thai Government freezes assets of suspected backers of the Red Shirts", apparently to prove the Red Shirts were not bankrolled by Thaksin Shinawatra.

I had a good read of the article last night and wondered why anyone would use this article as proof that other "parties" were the financial backers, and not Thaksin.

There is a blacklist of names and companies who are suspected backers.

Part of the article included -

"Featured on the blacklist is the former wife of Thaksin Shinawatra, the exiled former prime minister who was toppled in a bloodless coup in 2006 and subsequently convicted in absentia of corruption.

According to the blacklist:

• Pojaman Damapong, Thaksin’s former wife, withdrew 54 million baht ($1.6 million) between September and May.

• Thaksin’s and Mrs. Pojaman’s son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, and their unmarried daughter Pinthongta Shinawatra withdrew a combined total of nearly 11 billion baht ($330 million).

The blacklist notes withdrawals by more than a dozen politicians who are perceived as having supported Thaksin. Among them, the largest appear to have been made by Sudarat Keyuraphan, a former executive of Thaksin’s political party."

"The blacklist also identifies seven Red Shirt leaders who deposited large sums of money into their own accounts between September and May, but it says the information about the deposits is “not available.” Three of those Red Shirt leaders were very outspoken during the protests: Veera Musikhapong, Kwanchai Praipana and Weng Tojirakarn."

I Googled some of the 13 companies listed and guess what, they are part of the Shin Group.

So thanks to that poster, as I am even more convinced now who backed the terrorism in 2010.

Wow Mikey you are really something special! The finest lawyers, accountants and investigators Abhisit & Suthep could buy couldn't pin anything on any of those people you quoted, but you Mikey the super sleuth have cracked it. Quick ring up your buddy General Dufus & tell him that you've uncovered the backers.

Ignore him.He doesn't really understand any of this and his childish posts indicates his forensic skills are rudimentary.By his own admission he gets his information from his wife's friends.Not to be taken seriously- though his simple minded posts will no doubt continue.

But it is frustrating because there is a genuine debate to be had on the MIB.I take the view that There was an armed redshirt element and the reputable reports such as that of HRW confirm this.Other details are obscure and the forthcoming trial will be fascinating.

I wish there was a way to block the nonsense from all sides but sadly that seems impossible.

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

Right...

I don't like the LM laws and I'm limited to the extent I can express that, yet, funnily enough I don't use that as an excuse to shoot at people. People that condone violence will always find a pretext for it.

[whybother]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

[rubl]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

I guess some still believe the Abhisit "kill me some" tape put together in 2009.

[tbthailand]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

do you remember/know the background of the blue shirts? Creating a fake 'counter-protest' group consisting of navy personnel and PAD guards and then pretending they had nothing to do with the AV government... (btw, it's a connection that Suthep has kept as there were navy personnel 'protesters' this last spring, too)

do you understand what that would have meant to the UDD as just one example of the AV government's actions prior to 2010?

in that light, it is not hard to understand how the violence over the course of the years escalated, nor is it difficult to understand that protesters prepared for more violent reactions to the demonstrations from the AV government.

[tbthailand]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

I guess some still believe the Abhisit "kill me some" tape put together in 2009.

that tape was debunked a long time ago.

[tbthailand]

Ignore him.He doesn't really understand any of this and his childish posts indicates his forensic skills are rudimentary.By his own admission he gets his information from his wife's friends.Not to be taken seriously- though his simple minded posts will no doubt continue.

But it is frustrating because there is a genuine debate to be had on the MIB.I take the view that There was an armed redshirt element and the reputable reports such as that of HRW confirm this.Other details are obscure and the forthcoming trial will be fascinating.

I wish there was a way to block the nonsense from all sides but sadly that seems impossible.

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

Right...

I don't like the LM laws and I'm limited to the extent I can express that, yet, funnily enough I don't use that as an excuse to shoot at people. People that condone violence will always find a pretext for it.

LM; well at least we found a point in common.

[whybother]

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

do you remember/know the background of the blue shirts? Creating a fake 'counter-protest' group consisting of navy personnel and PAD guards and then pretending they had nothing to do with the AV government... (btw, it's a connection that Suthep has kept as there were navy personnel 'protesters' this last spring, too)

do you understand what that would have meant to the UDD as just one example of the AV government's actions prior to 2010?

in that light, it is not hard to understand how the violence over the course of the years escalated, nor is it difficult to understand that protesters prepared for more violent reactions to the demonstrations from the AV government.

You didn't actually answer the question. But you did raise a good point. Given the attacks on anti-Thaksin protests over the years, it's not surprising that they had the likes of the "popcorn gunman" this year. Protecting yourself from opposition protesters is a bit different than using a militia with grenades to attack authorities though.

[AleG]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

do you remember/know the background of the blue shirts? Creating a fake 'counter-protest' group consisting of navy personnel and PAD guards and then pretending they had nothing to do with the AV government... (btw, it's a connection that Suthep has kept as there were navy personnel 'protesters' this last spring, too)

do you understand what that would have meant to the UDD as just one example of the AV government's actions prior to 2010?

in that light, it is not hard to understand how the violence over the course of the years escalated, nor is it difficult to understand that protesters prepared for more violent reactions to the demonstrations from the AV government.

Oh I do, they were organized by Newin, not Suthep.

[gemini81]

Lets see if they have the balls to check the paper records, the account transactions and all activity linked to a bitter little square faced man in Dubai.

[rametindallas]

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

[jdinasia]

Would be interesting to know who was the mastermind...

Give you a clue. Authorization using live rounds must come from the government.

You are saying that the government gave the men in black the OK to use grenade launchers?

[jdinasia]

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

[greenchair]

Then it says they denied all charges during interrogation. But were willing to accept the harshest punishment. Dont quite understand this.

[jayboy]

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

[whybother]

Then it says they denied all charges during interrogation. But were willing to accept the harshest punishment. Dont quite understand this.

The prosecutor said they denied all charges and the prosecutor requested the punishment.

[jdinasia]

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

No the general point doesn't remain. There's no jury system to taint.

[tbthailand]

regarding man in black / armed elements among the red shirt 2010 protesters, there are reporters who were out there every day and they know that there were armed elements in the protests. They also understood that the violence between protesters and government forces had been escalating for years. They also noted that the AV government had used extreme force in the years before while trying to not let it get linked to the government. (Suthep's "Blue Shirts").

Given all of this, it was not surprising to the reporters in the field that there were higher and higher levels of violence.

More recently, although applicable throughout the recent conflicts, one Thai observer noted that when societies have differences, there are 2 ways to resolve them: talking or fighting. He follows with the fact that the LM laws - used as a political persecution tool - prohibit discussion of the most basic political points in Thailand. Given that Thais are not able to openly discuss their differences, it leaves only the second option. In my opinion, his point applies very well to 2014 & 2010.

As for the forthcoming trial, under the current conditions, I do not expect honest information to come out. Under the best of conditions, the MIB are a politicized topic. Under martial law and the 'NCPO', it seems unlikely to me that it will be as illuminating as you are expecting.

But I am willing to wait.

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

do you remember/know the background of the blue shirts? Creating a fake 'counter-protest' group consisting of navy personnel and PAD guards and then pretending they had nothing to do with the AV government... (btw, it's a connection that Suthep has kept as there were navy personnel 'protesters' this last spring, too)

do you understand what that would have meant to the UDD as just one example of the AV government's actions prior to 2010?

in that light, it is not hard to understand how the violence over the course of the years escalated, nor is it difficult to understand that protesters prepared for more violent reactions to the demonstrations from the AV government.

Oh I do, they were organized by Newin, not Suthep.

you are correct that newin apparently did the organizing. maybe it was even his idea and not Suthep's. That's possible. But Suthep was running the show, was he not?

[whybother]

Oh I do, they were organized by Newin, not Suthep.

you are correct that newin apparently did the organizing. maybe it was even his idea and not Suthep's. That's possible. But Suthep was running the show, was he not?

No, he wasn't. Which is just as provable as saying he was.

[tbthailand]

"extreme force" ... "Suthep's Blue Shirts"

A couple of riots in Pattaya is "extreme force"????

do you remember/know the background of the blue shirts? Creating a fake 'counter-protest' group consisting of navy personnel and PAD guards and then pretending they had nothing to do with the AV government... (btw, it's a connection that Suthep has kept as there were navy personnel 'protesters' this last spring, too)

do you understand what that would have meant to the UDD as just one example of the AV government's actions prior to 2010?

in that light, it is not hard to understand how the violence over the course of the years escalated, nor is it difficult to understand that protesters prepared for more violent reactions to the demonstrations from the AV government.

You didn't actually answer the question. But you did raise a good point. Given the attacks on anti-Thaksin protests over the years, it's not surprising that they had the likes of the "popcorn gunman" this year. Protecting yourself from opposition protesters is a bit different than using a militia with grenades to attack authorities though.

isn't it possible to answer a question with a question? You do that so well.

I do not try to twist the escalation of violence as you just did in that post. There are many events which occurred from 2005 until today and there has been an increasing level of violence and force used. It's wrong and it's shameful for those who use it. The point of my previous post is still the same.

[tbthailand]

Oh I do, they were organized by Newin, not Suthep.

you are correct that newin apparently did the organizing. maybe it was even his idea and not Suthep's. That's possible. But Suthep was running the show, was he not?

No, he wasn't. Which is just as provable as saying he was.

??

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

[jayboy]

If they show up at trial dressed as they are in this photo, I'm going to have to vote 'guilty'. I mean, really, don't they look like genuine 'men in black'? /sarcasm

Seriously, this is a good way to taint a jury pool.

There is no jury system here.

No there's not but the general point remains valid given the implicit assumption of guilt the ludicrous circus suggested.Still the details to be revealed at the trial will be fascinating.I retain an open mind.

If the trial or any parts of it are "closed" uncertainties will remain.

No the general point doesn't remain. There's no jury system to taint.

Don't be silly.There's no jury system but the absurd dressing up of the accused was prejudicial to their case, and was widely condemned at the time.The general point stands that this was bad practice.

[whybother]

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"?

[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?".

[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.

[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.

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.

[mikemac]

Yesterday a poster posted a link to a Washington Times article "Thai Government freezes assets of suspected backers of the Red Shirts", apparently to prove the Red Shirts were not bankrolled by Thaksin Shinawatra.

I had a good read of the article last night and wondered why anyone would use this article as proof that other "parties" were the financial backers, and not Thaksin.

There is a blacklist of names and companies who are suspected backers.

Part of the article included -

"Featured on the blacklist is the former wife of Thaksin Shinawatra, the exiled former prime minister who was toppled in a bloodless coup in 2006 and subsequently convicted in absentia of corruption.

According to the blacklist:

• Pojaman Damapong, Thaksin’s former wife, withdrew 54 million baht ($1.6 million) between September and May.

• Thaksin’s and Mrs. Pojaman’s son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, and their unmarried daughter Pinthongta Shinawatra withdrew a combined total of nearly 11 billion baht ($330 million).

The blacklist notes withdrawals by more than a dozen politicians who are perceived as having supported Thaksin. Among them, the largest appear to have been made by Sudarat Keyuraphan, a former executive of Thaksin’s political party."

"The blacklist also identifies seven Red Shirt leaders who deposited large sums of money into their own accounts between September and May, but it says the information about the deposits is “not available.” Three of those Red Shirt leaders were very outspoken during the protests: Veera Musikhapong, Kwanchai Praipana and Weng Tojirakarn."

I Googled some of the 13 companies listed and guess what, they are part of the Shin Group.

So thanks to that poster, as I am even more convinced now who backed the terrorism in 2010.

Wow Mikey you are really something special! The finest lawyers, accountants and investigators Abhisit & Suthep could buy couldn't pin anything on any of those people you quoted, but you Mikey the super sleuth have cracked it. Quick ring up your buddy General Dufus & tell him that you've uncovered the backers.

Ignore him.He doesn't really understand any of this and his childish posts indicates his forensic skills are rudimentary.By his own admission he gets his information from his wife's friends.Not to be taken seriously- though his simple minded posts will no doubt continue.

But it is frustrating because there is a genuine debate to be had on the MIB.I take the view that There was an armed redshirt element and the reputable reports such as that of HRW confirm this.Other details are obscure and the forthcoming trial will be fascinating.

I wish there was a way to block the nonsense from all sides but sadly that seems impossible.

I posted my opinion and beliefs, which I am entitled to do, and you and your buddy respond with insults, which proves to me you are both on the back foot, ant that the truth does hurt.

At least you were brave enough to admit that there was an armed redshirt "element" ( and luckily HRW confirmed this. ) I must admit I was a bit shocked when you made that statement.

I may never be able to prove my claims, and you will certainly never disprove them.

[Stradavarius37]

Well TV Red Shirts - Here are some of those "mythical" men in black - the ones you claim were NOT shooting at the Army. If they were not shooting live ammo at the army, I imagine the whole protest would not have escalated - but of course that is exactly what Thaksin wanted - an escalation/overreaction...

The blood is on many people's hands for this situation, but some more than others...To not accept that is to be blind, deaf and dumb.

[tbthailand]

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.

[tbthailand]

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.

[mikemac]

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.

I find it very hard to believe that at one stage the very existence of the MIB was denied by many red fans on TVF (and the PTP & UDD) , now I am hearing from some quarters that not only did they exist but they were part of the Thai Military !!!!!!!!

Not surprising that the PTP and the UDD wanted to distance themselves from these MIB, cannot really carry off the ruse regarding the 2010 protests being "peaceful protests" if it were known these killers were batting for them.