Thai Ex-PM Abhisit Grilled Over Deadly Rally Crackdown

[TAWP]

So then, that's a no on corroborating the sole observation by PaulBax who alleges he saw many automatic weapons by PAD at Parliament?

I seem to recall Nick Nostitz (Spelling) remarking a similar observation in a previous thread, so would that be two people who were there.........being doubted by one person who was not?

I wouldn't count on him corroborating that statement in blanco even if I wouldn't put much credit to his observations.

I'm sure that an internationally acclaimed photojournalist who is hugely respected within Thailand will be deeply wounded by the condemnation of an anonymous serial twaddler on an internet message board

'Internationally acclaimed' made me giggle. Liberal with the truth again I see. No-matter, I am sure he doesn't care much about what we post about him. But we care what he posts. And will act on it. And he knows it. But to continue with the topic: So what you are saying is that he cannot corroborate your assertion posted above?

[TAWP]

Abhisit is a Hero. His only mistake was not authorizing the use of deadly force sooner. The Army should have been able to neutralize the terrorist red shirts after they attacked and murdered the general with hand grenades.

Abhisit is the contrary of a hero. He was not able to manage the crisis in a human manner and so he is personally responsible for the death of the people killed in the confrontations. Democracy is other then did Abhisit. Even if the oppositional Red Shirts used at times illegal means, this not justifies the killing of more than 70 protesters. Killing is not an argument.

When religious or political wild animals stage an armed revolution - the second staged by Thaksin - then I appreciate the police for countering this. Since this nation lack a proper police force for actual policing when it comes to riot work, we have to appreciate that the army can take their place.

And if the army tells you to stop occupy a region of the capital after a few weeks it might be advisable to do so. Instead many of them took up more arms and attacked the soldiers. And now we have people blaming everyone but the red shirts, the instigator of the violence, as the reason red shirts died. In addition to civilians and military personal that was wounded and killed.

[animatic]

Why did he lie about using live ammunition?

When did he not lie? What else do you expect from him? Thailand's worst time in terms of economy was whenever democrats were in power. Dont believe in me, look at the stats and history... :jap:

I can thereby presume you neither teach history nor economics here.

Bazinga.

[animatic]

Abhisit is a Hero. His only mistake was not authorizing the use of deadly force sooner. The Army should have been able to neutralize the terrorist red shirts after they attacked and murdered the general with hand grenades.

Abhisit is the contrary of a hero. He was not able to manage the crisis in a human manner and so he is personally responsible for the death of the people killed in the confrontations. Democracy is other then did Abhisit. Even if the oppositional Red Shirts used at times illegal means, this not justifies the killing of more than 70 protesters. Killing is not an argument.

When religious or political wild animals stage an armed revolution - the second staged by Thaksin - then I appreciate the police for countering this. Since this nation lack a proper police force for actual policing when it comes to riot work, we have to appreciate that the army can take their place.

And if the army tells you to stop occupy a region of the capital after a few weeks it might be advisable to do so. Instead many of them took up more arms and attacked the soldiers. And now we have people blaming everyone but the red shirts, the instigator of the violence, as the reason red shirts died. In addition to civilians and military personal that was wounded and killed.

Yes, a spurious cart before the house argument from the Reds.

[OzMick]

All day - automatic rifle fire, grenades exploding - the death toll must have been horrendous!

The difference in the two situation is obvious to all but the most ardent red sycophants or deliberately obtuse.

PPD suggests that the presence of armed men makes you a fair target. He doesn't mention that overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group. They may have been unarmed when their body was recovered, but that is no proof that that was the situation at the time they were shot - in fact, with a limited number of weapons and a restricted supply line, it is only logical that their weapons would have been recovered by their "comrades in arms."

I do not suggest that the prescence of armed men makes you a fair target and you know that, you are using the usual twisting of words/prhrases MO. I was in fact stating that it was the military and democrat apologists use that argument and I was asking whether they would accept that argument for the yellow shirts as well.

I also did not mention that "overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group" because I don't believe that to be the case - I already indicated the majority of the victims were over the age of 30 in another thread, hardly young rebels, and of those who were not passers by or medical people or journalists that were killed, quite representative of the demonstrators, albeit not female.

So next time you make a post use your own comments and don't try and twist mine.

So that would be quite representative of say 50% of the demonstrators, with no children involved, so really not representative at all. In fact, aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men. Whoops, there goes the random slaughter theory.

And of course the black shirts only killed military personnel, none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army. Which makes them what - ex-military mercenaries perhaps? Now you should consider the concept of "an act of war."

[phiphidon]

All day - automatic rifle fire, grenades exploding - the death toll must have been horrendous!

The difference in the two situation is obvious to all but the most ardent red sycophants or deliberately obtuse.

PPD suggests that the presence of armed men makes you a fair target. He doesn't mention that overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group. They may have been unarmed when their body was recovered, but that is no proof that that was the situation at the time they were shot - in fact, with a limited number of weapons and a restricted supply line, it is only logical that their weapons would have been recovered by their "comrades in arms."

I do not suggest that the prescence of armed men makes you a fair target and you know that, you are using the usual twisting of words/prhrases MO. I was in fact stating that it was the military and democrat apologists use that argument and I was asking whether they would accept that argument for the yellow shirts as well.

I also did not mention that "overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group" because I don't believe that to be the case - I already indicated the majority of the victims were over the age of 30 in another thread, hardly young rebels, and of those who were not passers by or medical people or journalists that were killed, quite representative of the demonstrators, albeit not female.

So next time you make a post use your own comments and don't try and twist mine.

So that would be quite representative of say 50% of the demonstrators, with no children involved, so really not representative at all. In fact, aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men. Whoops, there goes the random slaughter theory.

And of course the black shirts only killed military personnel, none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army. Which makes them what - ex-military mercenaries perhaps? Now you should consider the concept of "an act of war."

"aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men" - any evidence of this? 60 - 70 red shirt and others dead bodies had their "weapons" taken away and nobody has photographic or video evidence of this happening?

"none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army" shot by blackshirts" - well to be honest, it looks like the army have been found culpable for the deaths of at least one journalist, two medical workers and several redshirt supporters and that is after investigations into about only 20 cases so far. 70 odd yet to go.

The Blackshirts contribution to these deaths - who knows at this stage

[OzMick]

All day - automatic rifle fire, grenades exploding - the death toll must have been horrendous!

The difference in the two situation is obvious to all but the most ardent red sycophants or deliberately obtuse.

PPD suggests that the presence of armed men makes you a fair target. He doesn't mention that overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group. They may have been unarmed when their body was recovered, but that is no proof that that was the situation at the time they were shot - in fact, with a limited number of weapons and a restricted supply line, it is only logical that their weapons would have been recovered by their "comrades in arms."

I do not suggest that the prescence of armed men makes you a fair target and you know that, you are using the usual twisting of words/prhrases MO. I was in fact stating that it was the military and democrat apologists use that argument and I was asking whether they would accept that argument for the yellow shirts as well.

I also did not mention that "overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group" because I don't believe that to be the case - I already indicated the majority of the victims were over the age of 30 in another thread, hardly young rebels, and of those who were not passers by or medical people or journalists that were killed, quite representative of the demonstrators, albeit not female.

So next time you make a post use your own comments and don't try and twist mine.

So that would be quite representative of say 50% of the demonstrators, with no children involved, so really not representative at all. In fact, aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men. Whoops, there goes the random slaughter theory.

And of course the black shirts only killed military personnel, none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army. Which makes them what - ex-military mercenaries perhaps? Now you should consider the concept of "an act of war."

"aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men" - any evidence of this? 60 - 70 red shirt and others dead bodies had their "weapons" taken away and nobody has photographic or video evidence of this happening?

"none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army" shot by blackshirts" - well to be honest, it looks like the army have been found culpable for the deaths of at least one journalist, two medical workers and several redshirt supporters and that is after investigations into about only 20 cases so far. 70 odd yet to go.

The Blackshirts contribution to these deaths - who knows at this stage

You do have to remember who is carrying out the investigations. The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist.

[phiphidon]

"aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men" - any evidence of this? 60 - 70 red shirt and others dead bodies had their "weapons" taken away and nobody has photographic or video evidence of this happening?

"none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army" shot by blackshirts" - well to be honest, it looks like the army have been found culpable for the deaths of at least one journalist, two medical workers and several redshirt supporters and that is after investigations into about only 20 cases so far. 70 odd yet to go.

The Blackshirts contribution to these deaths - who knows at this stage

You do have to remember who is carrying out the investigations. The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist.

"The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist."

Really, Can you provide a link for that statement - I seemed to have missed it.

[sparebox2]

"aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men" - any evidence of this? 60 - 70 red shirt and others dead bodies had their "weapons" taken away and nobody has photographic or video evidence of this happening?

"none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army" shot by blackshirts" - well to be honest, it looks like the army have been found culpable for the deaths of at least one journalist, two medical workers and several redshirt supporters and that is after investigations into about only 20 cases so far. 70 odd yet to go.

The Blackshirts contribution to these deaths - who knows at this stage

You do have to remember who is carrying out the investigations. The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist.

"The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist."

Really, Can you provide a link for that statement - I seemed to have missed it.

There are men in black. They are terrorists. But no one know who send them. Thaksin, Mark, Yingluck, Army, or someone else? Nobody knows.

[pastitche]

in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc, that others may make when posting.

*other's ..... You're missing an apostrophe of possession there my friend.

=========================================================

Whilst I do not agree wholeheartedly with this website's viewpoints (a bit too conspiracy theorist for my liking) some very interesting points are raised in the below document

http://landdestroyer...ts-tale-of.html

Khun Abhisit was the best thing that ever happened to Thailand. Such a shame his premiership occurred during the GFC, otherwise many things could've occurred differently. Additionally as most of you should know, a lot of policies in politics take quite a few years to filter through to the people; many of his policies would have helped the rural population of Thailand........ had they been given the opportunity to.

But... the apostrophe of possession should of course refer to the plural of other ie others'

[animatic]

"aimed shots at what were quite likely armed men" - any evidence of this? 60 - 70 red shirt and others dead bodies had their "weapons" taken away and nobody has photographic or video evidence of this happening?

"none of the "passers by or medical people or journalists" (or even red shirts) because they are much more accurate marksmen than the army" shot by blackshirts" - well to be honest, it looks like the army have been found culpable for the deaths of at least one journalist, two medical workers and several redshirt supporters and that is after investigations into about only 20 cases so far. 70 odd yet to go.

The Blackshirts contribution to these deaths - who knows at this stage

You do have to remember who is carrying out the investigations. The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist.

"The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist."

Really, Can you provide a link for that statement - I seemed to have missed it.

There are men in black. They are terrorists. But no one know who send them. Thaksin, Mark, Yingluck, Army, or someone else? Nobody knows.

Then you must consider:

a ) Who had the most to gain by sending them?

b ) Who's game plan is best, and most simply furthered,

by having the army be attacked with deadly force,

while confronting the red shirts who were going out of control?

c ) And who has the least compunctions to use such a force of amoral murders?

d ) Who is still using the obvious outcome of this preset ongoing plan of using deadly force against the army, to further an agenda? And going to great lengths to spin the story away from most verifiable facts?

There are facts to be known. But it doesn't take a brain surgeon

or rocket scientists to see which way the logic points.

Edited December 12, 2011 by animatic

[tlansford]

Would you happen to know of any corroboration on that sole observation of yours that PAD had many automatic weapons at Parliament?

To complete the comparison, did you ever observe PAD with grenade launchers at any time?

.

.

Not wishing to get into an off topic argument but really you leave me with no choice.

You and others have asserted in the past that the red shirts as a whole were not peaceful demonstrators as there were armed people (identities to be determined) around them and by extension it was OK for those red shirt demonstrators (armed or not) to be shot and killed by the security forces (in this case the army).

The Yellow shirts also had armed people (who actually were yellow shirts) around them so by yours and other peoples logic were also not peaceful demonstrators. As far as I am aware they were not shot and killed by the army. One woman was shot in the chest by a teargas canister and died. One man was blown up in his own car whilst transporting explosives. Two killed, one by the security forces (in this case the police).

Tell me why so many red shirts were killed compared to the yellow shirts using your strict logic i.e peaceful until having armed people around you and then you are considered OK to shoot dead?

The answer is quite simple - the yellow shirts never attacked the government forces. That leaves them as peaceful protesters. OTOH, when an attack which killed the military commander is planned and carried out, and soldiers armed with riot shields and batons are shot, it looks much more like an armed insurrection.

pure crap & ignorance, but no one here is playing with facts anyway...

[sparebox2]

a ) Who had the most to gain by sending them?

If you ask me, I would say the Army, as it give them the license to shoot with life bullets, and use heavy weapons.

[Siripon]

a ) Who had the most to gain by sending them?

If you ask me, I would say the Army, as it give them the license to shoot with life bullets, and use heavy weapons.

So why were the black shirts able to move freely amongst the red shirt protestors?

The army never wished to get involved with the red shirt protest last year. If the police had done their job there would have been no need to involve the army.

Anupong was extremely reluctant to send the army in to disperse the red shirts- but how the red shirts needed martyrs, without them they would have no cause to protest the last year.

[tukkytuktuk]

Regardless whether the P.A.D were armed or not they did not fire their weapons at other fellow Thai citizens or foreign reporters. This is important to justify why the ex PM authorised the use of lethal force to stop the killing of innocent soldiers trying to keep the peace. The yellow shirts were angry and some maybe had weapons but none were used to harm people. The reds had a well trained armed force which it used to draw the army into conflict. The then government called them terrorists which is what they are not protesters of democracy but people who murder their own country men due to one mans power hungry selfish ambitions. Why isn't Thaksin back in Thailand? Because this issue of the deaths occured duringlast years protests are his making.

[sparebox2]

Regardless whether the P.A.D were armed or not they did not fire their weapons at other fellow Thai citizens or foreign reporters. This is important to justify why the ex PM authorised the use of lethal force to stop the killing of innocent soldiers trying to keep the peace. The yellow shirts were angry and some maybe had weapons but none were used to harm people. The reds had a well trained armed force which it used to draw the army into conflict. The then government called them terrorists which is what they are not protesters of democracy but people who murder their own country men due to one mans power hungry selfish ambitions. Why isn't Thaksin back in Thailand? Because this issue of the deaths occured duringlast years protests are his making.

Correct/ The yellow are mostly educated, while the red are mostly otherwise.

Sure, there are some exceptions.

[waza]

Then you must consider:

a ) Who had the most to gain by sending them?

b ) Who's game plan is best, and most simply furthered,

by having the army be attacked with deadly force,

while confronting the red shirts who were going out of control?

c ) And who has the least compunctions to use such a force of amoral murders?

d ) Who is still using the obvious outcome of this preset ongoing plan of using deadly force against the army, to further an agenda? And going to great lengths to spin the story away from most verifiable facts?

There are facts to be known. But it doesn't take a brain surgeon

or rocket scientists to see which way the logic points.

These were the secretive and heavily armed agent provocateurs whose connections, by their own admission, run to the top of the UDD, also known as the red shirts. My link

Thailand as a pro-Red Shirt activist since 2008. He is also a suspected paramilitary terrorist. The government believes he is the leader the shadowy paramilitary force known as the "Ronin Warriors",My link

As the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army as well as a multi coloured shirt protest in Saladaeng,..........Khattiya Sawasdiphol ("Seh Daeng"), a prominent security advisor to the protesters and alleged leader of the armed "Ronin" guards also known as the black shirts, My link

He said that according to his sources, slain Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi might have been mistaken for a Red Shirt militia (called 'Black Shirts' or 'Ronin') because he was wearing a black outfit over military-style camouflage pants. My link

[Siam Simon]

All day - automatic rifle fire, grenades exploding - the death toll must have been horrendous!

The difference in the two situation is obvious to all but the most ardent red sycophants or deliberately obtuse.

PPD suggests that the presence of armed men makes you a fair target. He doesn't mention that overwhelmingly the red shirts killed were men, and not at all representative of the protesters as a group. They may have been unarmed when their body was recovered, but that is no proof that that was the situation at the time they were shot - in fact, with a limited number of weapons and a restricted supply line, it is only logical that their weapons would have been recovered by their "comrades in arms."

Mick, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think you just make it up as you go along to suit your prejudices.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

[Siam Simon]

I'm sure that an internationally acclaimed photojournalist who is hugely respected within Thailand will be deeply wounded by the condemnation of an anonymous serial twaddler on an internet message board

'Internationally acclaimed' made me giggle. Liberal with the truth again I see. No-matter, I am sure he doesn't care much about what we post about him. But we care what he posts. And will act on it. And he knows it. But to continue with the topic: So what you are saying is that he cannot corroborate your assertion posted above?

Where in my one sentence post did I mention Nick Nostitz corroborating or not corroborating anything? Or are you just fond of non sequiturs?

I know from a few short discussions with Nick Nostitz that he finds the discussions on this forum quite edifying in a similar way to myself. But not in the way that posters such as yourself would hope .

[Buchholz]

I'm sure that an internationally acclaimed photojournalist who is hugely respected within Thailand will be deeply wounded by the condemnation of an anonymous serial twaddler on an internet message board

'Internationally acclaimed' made me giggle. Liberal with the truth again I see. No-matter, I am sure he doesn't care much about what we post about him. But we care what he posts. And will act on it. And he knows it. But to continue with the topic: So what you are saying is that he cannot corroborate your assertion posted above?

Where in my one sentence post did I mention Nick Nostitz corroborating or not corroborating anything? Or are you just fond of non sequiturs?

I know from a few short discussions with Nick Nostitz that he finds the discussions on this forum quite edifying in a similar way to myself. But not in the way that posters such as yourself would hope .

So then, Nostitz hasn't corroborated anything and we're back to having only PaulBax "seeing" what no else managed to see.

"internationally acclaimed" gave me a chuckle too, TAWP.

.

[Siam Simon]

If you asked nicely, he might instruct you on the procedure to look up old threads. Assuming your problem is incompetence rather than laziness...............of course, there is the 3rd possibility that the post doesn't exist.

There is also the fourth possibility (that seems to have gone over your head) that I was pointing out that he is very selective about what he searches for.

Anyway, I'll put y'all out of your misery . It's this thread:

[Siam Simon]

So then, Nostitz hasn't corroborated anything and we're back to having only PaulBax "seeing" what no else managed to see.

"internationally acclaimed" gave me a chuckle too, TAWP.

.

I'm sure that an internationally acclaimed photojournalist who is hugely respected within Thailand will be deeply wounded by the condemnation of an anonymous serial twaddler on an internet message board

'Internationally acclaimed' made me giggle. Liberal with the truth again I see. No-matter, I am sure he doesn't care much about what we post about him. But we care what he posts. And will act on it. And he knows it. But to continue with the topic: So what you are saying is that he cannot corroborate your assertion posted above?

Where in my one sentence post did I mention Nick Nostitz corroborating or not corroborating anything? Or are you just fond of non sequiturs? ///cut

Having comprehension troubles? Or just being selective with your comprehension (as usual)?

[bkkjames]

Perhaps simon and buch can organize a one-on-one game of risk and report back with the findings in say 6 months? Lol

[Buchholz]

If you asked nicely, he might instruct you on the procedure to look up old threads. Assuming your problem is incompetence rather than laziness...............of course, there is the 3rd possibility that the post doesn't exist.

There is also the fourth possibility (that seems to have gone over your head) that I was pointing out that he is very selective about what he searches for.

Anyway, I'll put y'all out of your misery . It's this thread:

I couldn't find anywhere in that thread where Nostitz corroborated PaulBax's "seeing" many automatic weapons and grenade launchers by PAD at Parliament.

Can you direct us to the specific post or provide a quote where you saw that he did that?

.

[Buchholz]

You do have to remember who is carrying out the investigations. The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist.

"The black shirts contribution will be zero - because according to the Minister of Police they did not exist."

Really, Can you provide a link for that statement - I seemed to have missed it.

There are men in black. They are terrorists. But no one know who send them. Thaksin, Mark, Yingluck, Army, or someone else? Nobody knows.

Chalerm knows...

'Men in black' are policemen, Chalerm claims

The armed "men in black", much mentioned during last year's political violence, are in the media limelight again after Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung yesterday claimed those men donned police uniforms during the day.

"I would like to reiterate here that they are policemen," Chalerm said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Men-in-black-are-policemen-Chalerm-claims-30171725.html

[Siam Simon]

If you asked nicely, he might instruct you on the procedure to look up old threads. Assuming your problem is incompetence rather than laziness...............of course, there is the 3rd possibility that the post doesn't exist.

There is also the fourth possibility (that seems to have gone over your head) that I was pointing out that he is very selective about what he searches for.

Anyway, I'll put y'all out of your misery . It's this thread:

I couldn't find anywhere in that thread where Nostitz corroborated PaulBax's "seeing" many automatic weapons and grenade launchers by PAD at Parliament.

Can you direct us to the specific post or provide a quote where you saw that he did that?

.

Oh dear! He's at it again! He just can't help himself. Here is what PaulBax actually wrote:

You obviously did not go and the PAD in action around parliament! I did and saw many armed (with guns and automatic weapons as well as the usual baseball bats etc) wandering around.

Let us get this straight PAD were backed by the army and others and were armed; that is 100% true. unarmed people do not blow themselves up!

As I continually say the majority of you have no clue about what really goes on in this country.:jap:

Why do you do this? Why is "perception management" so important to you that you have to lie and misrepresent to your fellow forum members on little ole Thai Visa Forum?

[Buchholz]

There is also the fourth possibility (that seems to have gone over your head) that I was pointing out that he is very selective about what he searches for.

Anyway, I'll put y'all out of your misery . It's this thread:

I couldn't find anywhere in that thread where Nostitz corroborated PaulBax's "seeing" many automatic weapons and grenade launchers by PAD at Parliament.

Can you direct us to the specific post or provide a quote where you saw that he did that?

Oh dear! He's at it again! He just can't help himself. Here is what PaulBax actually wrote:

You obviously did not go and the PAD in action around parliament! I did and saw many armed (with guns and automatic weapons as well as the usual baseball bats etc) wandering around.

Let us get this straight PAD were backed by the army and others and were armed; that is 100% true. unarmed people do not blow themselves up!

As I continually say the majority of you have no clue about what really goes on in this country.:jap:

Why do you do this? Why is "perception management" so important to you that you have to lie and misrepresent to your fellow forum members on little ole Thai Visa Forum?

Calm down. I inadvertently added the grenade launcher part that was in the descriptive post he was responding to. When it takes more than a dozen posts to simply get to the proof that is claimed, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that over that amount of obfuscation and stonewalling that things get misremembered.

Now then, how about that quote from your provided link thread of Nostitz corroborating what PaulBax said, many armed with guns and automatic weapons by PAD at Parliament.

I noticed you completely avoided that part in my post.

.

.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

cut/// I inadvertently added the grenade launcher part that was in the descriptive post he was responding to. ///cut

How does someone inadvertently add " grenade launcher" to someone else's description?

[philw]

cut/// I inadvertently added the grenade launcher part that was in the descriptive post he was responding to. ///cut

How does someone inadvertently add " grenade launcher" to someone else's description?

Quite.

Perhaps it's like inadvertently peeing on your own foot.............

Happens to some people , some times.

Edited December 13, 2011 by philw

[Buchholz]

cut/// I inadvertently added the grenade launcher part that was in the descriptive post he was responding to. ///cut

How does someone inadvertently add " grenade launcher" to someone else's description?

By mis-rembering what was specifically said by whom after plodding through multiple, multiple posts of stonewalling, which still persists.

Now then, how about that quote from your provided link thread of Nostitz corroborating what PaulBax said, many armed with guns and automatic weapons by PAD at Parliament.

I noticed you completely avoided that part in my post... again.

.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Buchholz