Court confirms armed ‘men in black’ fought in 2010 riots

[George Graham]

10 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Wonder where all those members are who said these people never existed.  Hmmmm....

Wonder who murdered the ninety plus protesters...

[George Graham]

9 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I don't trust the Thai judicial system.  But I do respect HRW.  And saw enough to know what they were reporting was true.

You saw with your own eyes, really? Where exactly were you?

[Artisi]

Appears to be similar as   -  "It has now been confirmed that the sun will rise tomorrow morning"

[Artisi]

3 minutes ago, George Graham said:

You saw with your own eyes, really? Where exactly were you?

Probably in Thailand, not like a lot of other experts in here commenting.

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, George Graham said:

Wonder who murdered the ninety plus protesters...

That is hard to say given that now its clear there were black shirts and they used the same weapons as the army. Plus that the whole army action started because of these same black shirts shooting at the army. The actual bullets may be military but the reason is those armed black shirts. 

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Then please give me some links.. love to see the proof its been outed.. 

 

But the best thing is .. the red shirts have been shown to be the black shirts. Clearly showing they are the violent terrorist organisation many think they are. You can't even deny that anymore.

Fight fire with fire. The Democrats have their armed wing with far more guns and personel than the Black Shirts. 

[khunken]

3 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Fight fire with fire. The Democrats have their armed wing with far more guns and personel than the Black Shirts. 

More conspiracy crap. Here's another for you: Thaksin has 2 armed wings viz: the police & the red shirts.

Any advance?

[smutcakes]

Just now, khunken said:

More conspiracy crap. Here's another for you: Thaksin has 2 armed wings viz: the police & the red shirts.

Any advance?

Both smaller and less well armed than the Democrats enforcers.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Fight fire with fire. The Democrats have their armed wing with far more guns and personel than the Black Shirts. 

Oh dear your getting real desperate in your replies, the democrats have no armed wing. 

 

If you are referring to the army.. wonder how you can compare an army with terrorists  only desperate people make such comparisons because they know their side employs terrorists and have a hard time defending that. I won't even begin explaining the differences because you know them yourself but are so desperate you will even fight those remarks. Must be hard morally now to have to admit that your sides terrorist wing has started the fight that ended in so many deaths on your side. 

[Artisi]

6 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Both smaller and less well armed than the Democrats enforcers.

You need to attend to your attire, your red underwear is showing.

[smutcakes]

 

Just now, Artisi said:

Do some unbiased research (if that's possible) and you might just learn something.

If you read the HRW report which was cited here as a good and independent source, it is fairly damning on the the army for use of indiscriminate unnessecary lethal force against unarmed civilians. There were obviously armed elements involved and no one can complain if they were targeted with lethal force. However reading that report, it seems that in a number of cases, clearly unarmed people were deliberately targeted and killed.

[khunken]

7 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Both smaller and less well armed than the Democrats enforcers.

It was just another conspiracy allegation just like yours. Pretty meaningless.

[Artisi]

8 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

If you read the HRW report which was cited here as a good and independent source, it is fairly damning on the the army for use of indiscriminate unnessecary lethal force against unarmed civilians. There were obviously armed elements involved and no one can complain if they were targeted with lethal force. However reading that report, it seems that in a number of cases, clearly unarmed people were deliberately targeted and killed.

It's all, he said she said - over and over. However, what is clear and what this posting is about is, the black shirts were operating at the behest of the red shirts and all associated with them - end of discussion.

[candide]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

 

Yes Suthep claimed once that he had the army's agreement to stage a coup and you believe him? No doubt there are some who support the conspiracy but their opinion doesn't amount to fact.

Your last sentence is another perfect example of conspiracy crap as the police were supporting the red shirt militias who were actually overdoing the police's job of prevention of law breaking as well as killing innocent protestors.

There are no facts that particularly support the non-conspiracy fairy tale, quite the contrary. Just the words of Junta leaders, who don't really have a track record of telling the truth, do they?. So Prayuth claims there was no conspiracy and you believe him?

And about "some" who support the conspiracy explanation,  it is not some, it is "most" reliable sources. This is currently the most frequently held hypothesis.

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

It's all, he said she said - over and over. However, what is clear and what this posting is about is, the black shirts were operating at the behest of the red shirts and all associated with them - end of discussion.

Well if its all he said she said, why are things like the HRW being used as a version of the truth earlier in the thread. The HRW also makes it pretty clear that the Black Shirts although inter mingling with the Red Shirts were not part of the red shirts, and operated independently from them, and the structure and control of them was completely separate to the red shirts. As was pointed out earlier you cannot accept some things as fact and then disregard the parts that don't fit your narrative.

 

Anyway its fairly irrelevant. The black shirts were clearly operating against the authorities, i thought this was widely accepted anyway prior to this ruling. Its amazing when normally in Thailand people squeal like piggies when arrested that these people have not been made to 'confess' who were the bigger players and controllers of the black shirts.

[khunken]

1 minute ago, candide said:

There are no facts that particularly support the non-conspiracy fairy tale, quite the contrary. Just the words of Junta leaders, who don't really have a track record of telling the truth, do they?. So Prayuth claims there was no conspiracy and you believe him?

And about "some" who support the conspiracy explanation,  it is not some, it is "most" reliable sources. This is currently the most frequently held hypothesis.

Rubbish - there is no reliable or frequently held hypothesis. It's just opinion which you want to translate into fact.

It has always been a two-sided argument: Shin & red shirt supporters on one side & anti- both of those on the other. It's not rocket science so 'expert', 'academic' or any source touting the conspiracy crap is no better than those who don't believe it.

I don't believe everything I read on TVF or even what's reported in the press. But I will say that Prayuth is just a fraction more credible than Suthep, or you or any red/shin supporter. I love it when red/shin followers believe Suthep, someone they hate with a vengence.

 

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Well if its all he said she said, why are things like the HRW being used as a version of the truth earlier in the thread. The HRW also makes it pretty clear that the Black Shirts although inter mingling with the Red Shirts were not part of the red shirts, and operated independently from them, and the structure and control of them was completely separate to the red shirts. As was pointed out earlier you cannot accept some things as fact and then disregard the parts that don't fit your narrative.

 

Anyway its fairly irrelevant. The black shirts were clearly operating against the authorities, i thought this was widely accepted anyway prior to this ruling. Its amazing when normally in Thailand people squeal like piggies when arrested that these people have not been made to 'confess' who were the bigger players and controllers of the black shirts.

That was before it was proven the black shirts were red shirts.. now its a different story. All this violence cause by the redshirt. The army had no other choice then to respond. Of course these people don't talk about the bigger people.. their families would be killed, we have seen that the red shirts kill children so what do you think they would do with people who talk... 

[candide]

19 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Well if its all he said she said, why are things like the HRW being used as a version of the truth earlier in the thread. The HRW also makes it pretty clear that the Black Shirts although inter mingling with the Red Shirts were not part of the red shirts, and operated independently from them, and the structure and control of them was completely separate to the red shirts. As was pointed out earlier you cannot accept some things as fact and then disregard the parts that don't fit your narrative.

 

Anyway its fairly irrelevant. The black shirts were clearly operating against the authorities, i thought this was widely accepted anyway prior to this ruling. Its amazing when normally in Thailand people squeal like piggies when arrested that these people have not been made to 'confess' who were the bigger players and controllers of the black shirts.

However, they did try, i.e. 

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2014/09/15/1410784549/

[candide]

23 minutes ago, khunken said:

Rubbish - there is no reliable or frequently held hypothesis. It's just opinion which you want to translate into fact.

It has always been a two-sided argument: Shin & red shirt supporters on one side & anti- both of those on the other. It's not rocket science so 'expert', 'academic' or any source touting the conspiracy crap is no better than those who don't believe it.

I don't believe everything I read on TVF or even what's reported in the press. But I will say that Prayuth is just a fraction more credible than Suthep, or you or any red/shin supporter. I love it when red/shin followers believe Suthep, someone they hate with a vengence.

 

I would really like to know the reliable sources and academics who believe the non-conspiracy theory.....

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

I would really like to know the reliable sources and academics who believe the non-conspiracy theory.....

Reading problem? 'those' I referred to were just people who didn't believe the crap. There may well have been 'experts' or 'academics' among them but that's not the point.

 

I won't bother to ask you who were the 'reliable sources' or 'academics' as there were none of the former and red/Shin supporting academics are not noted for their independence of thought.

[candide]

22 minutes ago, khunken said:

Reading problem? 'those' I referred to were just people who didn't believe the crap. There may well have been 'experts' or 'academics' among them but that's not the point.

 

I won't bother to ask you who were the 'reliable sources' or 'academics' as there were none of the former and red/Shin supporting academics are not noted for their independence of thought.

For example a few I just googled (I don't keep a reference list of them):

http://fpif.org/class-war-thailands-military-coup/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28029977

Other sources openly involve a specific Thai institution in their analysis so I preferred not to provide a link

[khunken]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

For example a few I just googled (I don't keep a reference list of them):

http://fpif.org/class-war-thailands-military-coup/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28029977

Other sources openly involve a specific Thai institution in their analysis so I preferred not to provide a link

OK I respect Walden Bello but he has always had a class conflict bias (extreme some would say) & he goes overboard here but it is all just his opinion & I disagree with it.

I have absolutely no respect for Jonathan Head who is a very biased rep for the BBC in Thailand. Again just his opinion which IMO is worthless.

Thanks for the links - I read both of them. That concludes my contribution to this thread.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, George Graham said:

Wonder who murdered the ninety plus protesters...

Hard to say unless you were there.  But they seem to have been killed in a variety of way.  From a variety of sources.  Not sure I'd call it murder as many were there to incite violence, as has already been shown.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, George Graham said:

You saw with your own eyes, really? Where exactly were you?

All over Bangkok.  During both protests.  Though I did avoid the main Rajprasong protest site as it was just too dangerous.

[billd766]

18 hours ago, George Graham said:

Wonder who murdered the ninety plus protesters...

 

Did you deliberately forget that in those 90 plus people there were quite a few Army people, or would that not suit your agenda?

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Did you deliberately forget that in those 90 plus people there were quite a few Army people, or would that not suit your agenda?

Please don't ask or pose difficult questions - in most cases it doesn't suit the particular posters intent.