rubl Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Of course, it's normally easy to to distinguish soldiers from the "men in black", look at these guys, it's obvious they're soldiers, isn't it? I suppose you missed the fact that Sae Daeng and all his minions where current or former soldiers, gone rogue... Don't confuse militia or other security personnel with 'men in black'. I know, I was just making the point that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to tell who was military/CRES and who was MiB etc, especially when some soldiers appeared to be wearing plain clothes. ... and some red-shirts wearing military apparel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I know, I was just making the point that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to tell who was military/CRES and who was MiB etc, especially when some soldiers appeared to be wearing plain clothes. ... and some red-shirts wearing military apparel Precisely. If only they could've stuck to their own colour codes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 We're moving off topic a bit here, but nowhere did I see an accusation of soldiers or special forces being drunk, or anyone else for what it matters. The position of a single beer can is hardly relevant and I assume you quote from the DSI report provided by k. Jatuporn ? As I mentioned before, let's wait for MP Jatuporn's hour of fame in the censure debate. The speculation here has reached a point where it becomes a bit Kafkaesque The position would likely indicate whether anyone was drinking from it or not. Anyway, I agree, forget about it. Yes, I'm quoting from the DSI report, at the end, as the evidence is summarized by (as named) Pol. Lt. Col. Thoranin Khlangthong, Special Case Investigator, Special Expertise and Ms. Naphatsanan Watthanathatchaphong, Special Case Officer, Special Expertise. Then the document is signed, after a few remarks (which agree with the investigators conclusion that 3 of the cases should be sent on to the police investigators, under section 150 of the criminal code), by Pol. Lt. Col. Wannaphong Khotcharak, Pol. Col. Narat Sawettanan and Tharit Pengdit, Director General, Department of Special Investigations. The fact that it was released by Jatuporn (although Reuters had it first, let's not forget), is irrelevant. But Jatuporn probably wouldn't have released it himself, if it was fabricated, given the possibility of serious charges against him for faking signatures and the like. So the fact that Jatuporn released it, is in this case, evidence that the report is indeed the genuine DSI report, as no case has been filed against him. Anyway, I suppose it'll be brought up in parliament, although what Jatuporn could present regards the deaths at the Wat that's more solid than evidence in this report, I'm not sure of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pi Sek Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I don't know about present times or about the Thai army specifically, but soldiers used to be offered an alcoholic beverage before going onto the front lines. So it's not inconceivable, although I doubt it's tolerated these days, particularly in a civil operation. All speculation though, as emptyset and rubl seem to have finally agreed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I don't know about present times or about the Thai army specifically, but soldiers used to be offered an alcoholic beverage before going onto the front lines. So it's not inconceivable, although I doubt it's tolerated these days, particularly in a civil operation. All speculation though, as emptyset and rubl seem to have finally agreed... In line with the censure debate, I have to say that I'm very happy and much obliged that my esteemed and dear opponent brought up this controversial issue. We had a frank but civilised exchange of thoughts and, if I may say so, wholeheartedly agree we tend to disagree. All in good spirit(s) and with respect for each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If this document is raised during the censure and any part of its integrity is not disputed, I'm clearly going to have to eat my hat. Time will tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) If this document is raised during the censure and any part of its integrity is not disputed, I'm clearly going to have to eat my hat. Time will tell... Obviously the government will try to dispute its integrity. They're going to do that whether the evidence is real or not. So it'll be up to the viewer to decide who's more plausible. Edited March 16, 2011 by Emptyset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timekeeper Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 We're moving off topic a bit here, but nowhere did I see an accusation of soldiers or special forces being drunk, or anyone else for what it matters. The position of a single beer can is hardly relevant and I assume you quote from the DSI report provided by k. Jatuporn ? As I mentioned before, let's wait for MP Jatuporn's hour of fame in the censure debate. The speculation here has reached a point where it becomes a bit Kafkaesque The position would likely indicate whether anyone was drinking from it or not. Anyway, I agree, forget about it. Yes, I'm quoting from the DSI report, at the end, as the evidence is summarized by (as named) Pol. Lt. Col. Thoranin Khlangthong, Special Case Investigator, Special Expertise and Ms. Naphatsanan Watthanathatchaphong, Special Case Officer, Special Expertise. Then the document is signed, after a few remarks (which agree with the investigators conclusion that 3 of the cases should be sent on to the police investigators, under section 150 of the criminal code), by Pol. Lt. Col. Wannaphong Khotcharak, Pol. Col. Narat Sawettanan and Tharit Pengdit, Director General, Department of Special Investigations. The fact that it was released by Jatuporn (although Reuters had it first, let's not forget), is irrelevant. But Jatuporn probably wouldn't have released it himself, if it was fabricated, given the possibility of serious charges against him for faking signatures and the like. So the fact that Jatuporn released it, is in this case, evidence that the report is indeed the genuine DSI report, as no case has been filed against him. Anyway, I suppose it'll be brought up in parliament, although what Jatuporn could present regards the deaths at the Wat that's more solid than evidence in this report, I'm not sure of. as Jatuporn has the benefit of parliamentary privilege and immunity as an MP surely he would be the best man to release it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) If this document is raised during the censure and any part of its integrity is not disputed, I'm clearly going to have to eat my hat. Time will tell... Obviously the government will try to dispute its integrity. They're going to do that whether the evidence is real or not. So it'll be up to the viewer to decide who's more plausible. If / When the document is NOT real there will be no reason for the government to dispute it's integrity. In that case there's not even a good reason for the government to prove the document is a fabrication. It's up to the opposition to prove it's real Edited March 16, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Not bumping this as a "told you so" - far from it; I think the Democrats could of done a much better job of defending the allegations literally shouted out by Juttaporn. Nevertheless: @TAN_Network DSI to slap 3 additional charges on Jatuporn, namely document counterfeiting, disclosing state secret, and defamation.It'll be interesting to know what documents were allegedly counterfeited, and what "state secrets" were revealed... Edited March 18, 2011 by Insight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Not bumping this as a "told you so" - far from it; I think the Democrats could of done a much better job of defending the allegations literally shouted out by Juttaporn. Nevertheless: @TAN_Network DSI to slap 3 additional charges on Jatuporn, namely document counterfeiting, disclosing state secret, and defamation.It'll be interesting to know what documents were allegedly counterfeited, and what "state secrets" were revealed... Sounds like an empty charge to me as Jatuporn has parliamentary immunity for any evidence presented in parliament even if forged, as far as I know. On the counterfeiting charges: I don't know if Jatuporn edited the document or not. Whilst what he said about the Wat Pathumwan deaths was broadly the same as the DSI document that my friend translated for me, he claimed that (a name I forget) XXX ordered the soldiers on the BTS track to shoot. There's no testimony from anyone in the document that anyone ordered them to shoot, although it does say who was giving the orders to move there. So perhaps Jatuporn did twist the evidence in the report or add additional parts. Of course he presented a lot of documents other than the one focusing on Wat Pathumwan, which I haven't seen, so I'm not going to say whether they were real or not, but much of it was from the DSI reports discussed in The Nation by Pravit, but not released anywhere in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 More painfully doctored footage from Jatuporn? The last lot was positively comical. He must have invested all of about 40 baht in a backroom job in Pantip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) We're moving off topic a bit here, but nowhere did I see an accusation of soldiers or special forces being drunk, or anyone else for what it matters. The position of a single beer can is hardly relevant and I assume you quote from the DSI report provided by k. Jatuporn ? As I mentioned before, let's wait for MP Jatuporn's hour of fame in the censure debate. The speculation here has reached a point where it becomes a bit Kafkaesque I was a bit disappointed the beer can, nor the sloshed soldiers were mentioned by MP Jatuporn. He did shout a lot, but if he brought up new revelations I must have missed it. He did say k. Suthep spoke the truth when he said his name, and ended with the suggestion k. Suthep visit a psychiatrist. so much for revealing the validity of a VDO as mentioned in the OP Edited March 18, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emptyset Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) I was a bit disappointed the beer can, nor the sloshed soldiers were mentioned by MP Jatuporn. He did shout a lot, but if he brought up new revelations I must have missed it. He did say k. Suthep spoke the truth when he said his name, and ended with the suggestion k. Suthep visit a psychiatrist. so much for revealing the validity of a VDO as mentioned in the OP Yes, I was surprised he didn't pick up on the beer can too. dam_n it, he would've finished the government for sure if he'd built his case around it. Edited March 18, 2011 by Emptyset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now