Evidence In Cabbie's Death 'Points To Security Forces': Bangkok Unrest 2010

[nurofiend]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

there's a difference between the ability to pick up a knife and stab someone in the chest, which is just a case of being physically able

and

being able to obtain high powered automatic weapons in a few days.

obviously no one was expecting him to go out and get a gun, but i think the ability to obtain something like that depends entirely on the circles you move in.

therefore, i am never arguing with buchholz again..

but jokes aside, i don't think he could get one in a few days, if at all.

Edited July 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[carra]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

and talking about how easy it is to commit a criminal act such as buying a high powered weapon without the ability to back it up is hyperbole at the very least, and there is nothing wrong with highlighting this by other posters

[SuneeTH]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

and talking about how easy it is to commit a criminal act such as buying a high powered weapon without the ability to back it up is hyperbole at the very least, and there is nothing wrong with highlighting this by other posters

But army always argue that some of their weapons were rob / stolen by the red shirts' men in black.

So the kills of 92, mostly can be proved that it was carried out by army weapons, could be done by the hand of the men in black.

[webfact]

Army rebuttals on a taxi driver killed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army on Wednesday issued a statement rebutting its involvement in the killing of a taxi driver during the 2010 political mayhem.

In the statement, the Army said it wanted to clarify a prosecution testimony given at the judicial inquest on the death of Channarong Pholsrila on May 15, 2010 in front of a petrol station on Ratchaprarop Road.

The statement outlined that the incident happened after when the Army had deployed its forces in the live-bullet zone on Rang Nam Road, part of the operations to encircle the Ratchaprasong rally of the red shirts.

But unidentified gunmen launched an attack forcing the Army to retreat to Ratchaprarop 14 Road. This exchange of gunfire was prove about the existence of armed men other than the soldiers.

During the gun battle, the local residents alerted the soldiers about the shooting death of Channarong and another injured journalist.

The Army had dispatched a medic team, accompanied by a news photographer, in a rescue operation.

Before reaching the scene to recover the body and evacuate the injured, the medic team encountered a fierce attack and the news photographer sustained gun-shot wounds.

At the inquest, the witness testified about Channarong being shot at by an assualt rifle. But the testimony made no mention about ballistic checks.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

[carra]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

and talking about how easy it is to commit a criminal act such as buying a high powered weapon without the ability to back it up is hyperbole at the very least, and there is nothing wrong with highlighting this by other posters

But army always argue that some of their weapons were rob / stolen by the red shirts' men in black.

So the kills of 92, mostly can be proved that it was carried out by army weapons, could be done by the hand of the men in black.

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

[SuneeTH]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

and talking about how easy it is to commit a criminal act such as buying a high powered weapon without the ability to back it up is hyperbole at the very least, and there is nothing wrong with highlighting this by other posters

But army always argue that some of their weapons were rob / stolen by the red shirts' men in black.

So the kills of 92, mostly can be proved that it was carried out by army weapons, could be done by the hand of the men in black.

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

The Viphwadi shooting were carried out be Men in Black.

Not friendly fires.

[whybother]

"You go and an illegal act to prove that it can be done" has to be the most idiotic argument of... I don't know, this week?

That I could get up, get a knife and stab someone in the chest is not possible until I do it?

Anyway, of course soldiers shot at people; in all probability some innocent or way outside the scope of the RoE.

The thing is how some... individuals, try to use that to whitewash the actions of the Red Shirts. It doesn't fly.

Just because the Allies bombed Dresden doesn't absolve the Nazi regime from what they did.

Cue the usual suspects rushing in screaming Godwin's Law!!!!

and talking about how easy it is to commit a criminal act such as buying a high powered weapon without the ability to back it up is hyperbole at the very least, and there is nothing wrong with highlighting this by other posters

They didn't need to go out and buy high powered weapons. They already had them.

[SuneeTH]

Army rebuttals on a taxi driver killed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army on Wednesday issued a statement rebutting its involvement in the killing of a taxi driver during the 2010 political mayhem.

In the statement, the Army said it wanted to clarify a prosecution testimony given at the judicial inquest on the death of Channarong Pholsrila on May 15, 2010 in front of a petrol station on Ratchaprarop Road.

The statement outlined that the incident happened after when the Army had deployed its forces in the live-bullet zone on Rang Nam Road, part of the operations to encircle the Ratchaprasong rally of the red shirts.

But unidentified gunmen launched an attack forcing the Army to retreat to Ratchaprarop 14 Road. This exchange of gunfire was prove about the existence of armed men other than the soldiers.

During the gun battle, the local residents alerted the soldiers about the shooting death of Channarong and another injured journalist.

The Army had dispatched a medic team, accompanied by a news photographer, in a rescue operation.

Before reaching the scene to recover the body and evacuate the injured, the medic team encountered a fierce attack and the news photographer sustained gun-shot wounds.

At the inquest, the witness testified about Channarong being shot at by an assualt rifle. But the testimony made no mention about ballistic checks.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

See, I told you already.

The men in black did it.

Best prove ever.

[whybother]

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

There were 2 separate incidents. One in which a taxi driver was killed, and one in which a van was shot at and a boy in the van was killed.

The van was speeding towards a check point and the army opened fire when it didn't stop. There was no doubt that the army did this. The boy died because the driver didn't stop at a military check point.

[SuneeTH]

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

There were 2 separate incidents. One in which a taxi driver was killed, and one in which a van was shot at and a boy in the van was killed.

The van was speeding towards a check point and the army opened fire when it didn't stop. There was no doubt that the army did this. The boy died because the driver didn't stop at a military check point.

It think you get it wrong.

I believe it was the men in black using stolen army weapon to blast the van.

Although the bullets found at the scene were army's, it was not them who pull the trigger.

Thai army do not like to kill children, they have no orders to kill children, and they gain nothing by killing children.

[whybother]

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

There were 2 separate incidents. One in which a taxi driver was killed, and one in which a van was shot at and a boy in the van was killed.

The van was speeding towards a check point and the army opened fire when it didn't stop. There was no doubt that the army did this. The boy died because the driver didn't stop at a military check point.

It think you get it wrong.

I believe it was the men in black using stolen army weapon to blast the van.

Although the bullets found at the scene were army's, it was not them who pull the trigger.

Thai army do not like to kill children, they have no orders to kill children, and they gain nothing by killing children.

Get back in your (spare) box.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted nonsensical part of post.

[AleG]

I understand this, but how do you explain nobody from the army witnessing the shooting, surely they would have seen this, the van wasn't just shot once, it was peppered with bullets yet the soldiers nearby saw nothing, don't you thing that is a little strange?

the fact is the army, as was their want at this time, opened up on some innocent people in a van, unarmed and posing no immediate threat. anyone that says the army will not do this i will just remind them of their shooting their own man on viphwadi road when he was coming to help them in convoy with others,

There were 2 separate incidents. One in which a taxi driver was killed, and one in which a van was shot at and a boy in the van was killed.

The van was speeding towards a check point and the army opened fire when it didn't stop. There was no doubt that the army did this. The boy died because the driver didn't stop at a military check point.

Actually, IIRC, the boy had been milling around the checkpoint for some time, in spite of being told to stay away.

He stayed around and unfortunately a stray bullet killed him when, as you said, the van sped up towards the checkpoint.

I don't know or remember the details of how that particular checkpoint was set, probably an unprofessional TiT brand dog's breakfast of what a proper, safe and effective checkpoint should be. For starters children (and adults for that matter) would not be allowed to as much as pick their noses within the potential field of fire; and second Fire-and-Pray would not be an option

But then again, it's jumpy conscripts in a city having a taste of guerrilla warfare, sh## was made to happen and this are the kind of results you get when you push things so far.

[LucidLucifer]

It think you get it wrong.

I believe it was the men in black using stolen army weapon to blast the van.

Although the bullets found at the scene were army's, it was not them who pull the trigger.

Thai army do not like to kill children, they have no orders to kill children, and they gain nothing by killing children.

I don't know how you can say this so categorically unless you were there and directly witnessed who opened fire. Soldiers of any army are prone to trigger happy moments. It is sad, it is often unintentional, but it does happen in the heat of the moment.

Your statement stinks of your inability to face the truth, even when the facts stare you squarely in the face.

[AleG]

It think you get it wrong.

I believe it was the men in black using stolen army weapon to blast the van.

Although the bullets found at the scene were army's, it was not them who pull the trigger.

Thai army do not like to kill children, they have no orders to kill children, and they gain nothing by killing children.

I don't know how you can say this so categorically unless you were there and directly witnessed who opened fire. Soldiers of any army are prone to trigger happy moments. It is sad, it is often unintentional, but it does happen in the heat of the moment.

Your statement stinks of your inability to face the truth, even when the facts stare you squarely in the face.

LucidLucifer, for your reference, the poster you addressed is Thai Visa resident troll. Keeps being banned, keeps coming back under new names.

It's rather amusing though, when one of his own "side" quotes him to show how bad the other "side" is.

[phiphidon]

While possible, I would have expected the OP to indicate that...rather than...

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet"

The "OP" is a news article.

Yes, reporting on court proceedings and statements made by police officials.

.

It's still The Nation, it doesn't matter what it's reporting on, it's how it does it that is the problem..................

[phiphidon]

Appreciate your retraction of claiming I said things in my posting history that I never said.

i made no retraction, nice sarcasm from you there.

Very well then, substantiate your false claim.

11,000 odd posts, could take some time............

[phiphidon]

Army rebuttals on a taxi driver killed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army on Wednesday issued a statement rebutting its involvement in the killing of a taxi driver during the 2010 political mayhem.

In the statement, the Army said it wanted to clarify a prosecution testimony given at the judicial inquest on the death of Channarong Pholsrila on May 15, 2010 in front of a petrol station on Ratchaprarop Road.

The statement outlined that the incident happened after when the Army had deployed its forces in the live-bullet zone on Rang Nam Road, part of the operations to encircle the Ratchaprasong rally of the red shirts.

But unidentified gunmen launched an attack forcing the Army to retreat to Ratchaprarop 14 Road. This exchange of gunfire was prove about the existence of armed men other than the soldiers.

During the gun battle, the local residents alerted the soldiers about the shooting death of Channarong and another injured journalist.

The Army had dispatched a medic team, accompanied by a news photographer, in a rescue operation.

Before reaching the scene to recover the body and evacuate the injured, the medic team encountered a fierce attack and the news photographer sustained gun-shot wounds.

At the inquest, the witness testified about Channarong being shot at by an assualt rifle. But the testimony made no mention about ballistic checks.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

2 years and this is the best defence the army can come up with! - no wonder they wanted this inquest to be held in the army barracks.

[tlansford]

Appreciate your retraction of claiming I said things in my posting history that I never said.

i made no retraction, nice sarcasm from you there.

Very well then, substantiate your false claim.

11,000 odd posts, could take some time............

as it is his claim that he never said that, then he should prove it.

[metisdead]

Some nonsense posts have been removed.

[phiphidon]

I did not say they are easily available. You struggle a great deal with reading with what posters actually say.

I also never mentioned the van incident.

What I DID say was that weaponry is available in Thailand. If you are unaware of that, get out more and read the news more.

.

Selective memory syndrome buchholz?

Identify the model of the "powerful gun" and I could purchase the exact same model within a few days without being a member of the "security forces"

.

[Moruya]

Army rebuttals on a taxi driver killed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army on Wednesday issued a statement rebutting its involvement in the killing of a taxi driver during the 2010 political mayhem.

In the statement, the Army said it wanted to clarify a prosecution testimony given at the judicial inquest on the death of Channarong Pholsrila on May 15, 2010 in front of a petrol station on Ratchaprarop Road.

The statement outlined that the incident happened after when the Army had deployed its forces in the live-bullet zone on Rang Nam Road, part of the operations to encircle the Ratchaprasong rally of the red shirts.

But unidentified gunmen launched an attack forcing the Army to retreat to Ratchaprarop 14 Road. This exchange of gunfire was prove about the existence of armed men other than the soldiers.

During the gun battle, the local residents alerted the soldiers about the shooting death of Channarong and another injured journalist.

The Army had dispatched a medic team, accompanied by a news photographer, in a rescue operation.

Before reaching the scene to recover the body and evacuate the injured, the medic team encountered a fierce attack and the news photographer sustained gun-shot wounds.

At the inquest, the witness testified about Channarong being shot at by an assualt rifle. But the testimony made no mention about ballistic checks.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

2 years and this is the best defence the army can come up with! - no wonder they wanted this inquest to be held in the army barracks.

Like it or not, there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of concrete evidence either way.

[somo]

I did not say they are easily available. You struggle a great deal with reading with what posters actually say.

I also never mentioned the van incident.

What I DID say was that weaponry is available in Thailand. If you are unaware of that, get out more and read the news more.

.

Selective memory syndrome buchholz?

Identify the model of the "powerful gun" and I could purchase the exact same model within a few days without being a member of the "security forces"

.

Buchholz ain't here, he's gone shopping in the hope of redeeming his credibility

[Arkady]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

[philw]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

Oh no...............the men in black are back.........

Save us, save us, save us............

Isn't it strange, that so few of this numerous group have been identified, accused, arrested, convicted etc.

Notwithstanding the massive photographic and witness testimony in the public domain.

How come the RTA have completely failed to identify and bring to charge any of these "men in black" ??

These "men in black" who are supposed to be their principal assailants and the justification for the RTA use of snipers as crowd control.

30,000 troops on the ground in a small area and these mysterious MIB operate with impunity and without ever being identified...

Picture is not quite right, I think.

After all that destruction, the best that can be achieved is the arrest of 2 under age kids and a shoplifter plus, i think 2 others, charged with burning down Central.

Bit farcical, is it not ???

[SuneeTH]

Army rebuttals on a taxi driver killed

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Army on Wednesday issued a statement rebutting its involvement in the killing of a taxi driver during the 2010 political mayhem.

In the statement, the Army said it wanted to clarify a prosecution testimony given at the judicial inquest on the death of Channarong Pholsrila on May 15, 2010 in front of a petrol station on Ratchaprarop Road.

The statement outlined that the incident happened after when the Army had deployed its forces in the live-bullet zone on Rang Nam Road, part of the operations to encircle the Ratchaprasong rally of the red shirts.

But unidentified gunmen launched an attack forcing the Army to retreat to Ratchaprarop 14 Road. This exchange of gunfire was prove about the existence of armed men other than the soldiers.

During the gun battle, the local residents alerted the soldiers about the shooting death of Channarong and another injured journalist.

The Army had dispatched a medic team, accompanied by a news photographer, in a rescue operation.

Before reaching the scene to recover the body and evacuate the injured, the medic team encountered a fierce attack and the news photographer sustained gun-shot wounds.

At the inquest, the witness testified about Channarong being shot at by an assualt rifle. But the testimony made no mention about ballistic checks.

-- The Nation 2012-07-18

2 years and this is the best defence the army can come up with! - no wonder they wanted this inquest to be held in the army barracks.

Like it or not, there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of concrete evidence either way.

Like the burning of Bangkok. Any concrete evident? No.

Like the seizure of both airports. Any concrete evident? No.

[nurofiend]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

Oh no...............the men in black are back.........

Save us, save us, save us............

Isn't it strange, that so few of this numerous group have been identified, accused, arrested, convicted etc.

Notwithstanding the massive photographic and witness testimony in the public domain.

How come the RTA have completely failed to identify and bring to charge any of these "men in black" ??

These "men in black" who are supposed to be their principal assailants and the justification for the RTA use of snipers as crowd control.

30,000 troops on the ground in a small area and these mysterious MIB operate with impunity and without ever being identified...

Picture is not quite right, I think.

After all that destruction, the best that can be achieved is the arrest of 2 under age kids and a shoplifter plus, i think 2 others, charged with burning down Central.

Bit farcical, is it not ???

not to forget that the mib apparently had 6000 high powered guns that they stole out of an army barracks

can you imagine the death toll if it was in fact true that they had this huge weapons cache, 6000 guys spread around bangkok during the protests with high powered weapons.

why hasn't this 6000 gun robbery from the army been properly investigated?

surely they have surveillance footage that can be shown, why is there still no arrests for what would be an easy case to solve.

sounds like a bs story to me.

[tlansford]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

Oh no...............the men in black are back.........

Save us, save us, save us............

Isn't it strange, that so few of this numerous group have been identified, accused, arrested, convicted etc.

Notwithstanding the massive photographic and witness testimony in the public domain.

How come the RTA have completely failed to identify and bring to charge any of these "men in black" ??

These "men in black" who are supposed to be their principal assailants and the justification for the RTA use of snipers as crowd control.

30,000 troops on the ground in a small area and these mysterious MIB operate with impunity and without ever being identified...

Picture is not quite right, I think.

After all that destruction, the best that can be achieved is the arrest of 2 under age kids and a shoplifter plus, i think 2 others, charged with burning down Central.

Bit farcical, is it not ???

This is one of the things I am really really interested to see more information about.

It starts with the RTA being taken by surprise by them in April and ends with your point that not one has been identified.

Why did the army not know about them before they began the dispersal in April? I find it hard to imagine that the army could not have had people inside with the protesters to gather intelligence, right? The protesters had been there 1 month already.

And Philw - it's even bizarre that for 2 years the TFV regulars have not been screaming to have these guys identified brought to justice - instead they lump them all together into on "redmob" and Thaksin's paid army. To me this is the elephant in the room. I mean even if there is no chance in hell of holding specific people in the army / government responsible for their shootings, it seems like the obvious target for "justice" to find the MIB.

[philw]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

Oh no...............the men in black are back.........

Save us, save us, save us............

Isn't it strange, that so few of this numerous group have been identified, accused, arrested, convicted etc.

Notwithstanding the massive photographic and witness testimony in the public domain.

How come the RTA have completely failed to identify and bring to charge any of these "men in black" ??

These "men in black" who are supposed to be their principal assailants and the justification for the RTA use of snipers as crowd control.

30,000 troops on the ground in a small area and these mysterious MIB operate with impunity and without ever being identified...

Picture is not quite right, I think.

After all that destruction, the best that can be achieved is the arrest of 2 under age kids and a shoplifter plus, i think 2 others, charged with burning down Central.

Bit farcical, is it not ???

This is one of the things I am really really interested to see more information about.

It starts with the RTA being taken by surprise by them in April and ends with your point that not one has been identified.

Why did the army not know about them before they began the dispersal in April? I find it hard to imagine that the army could not have had people inside with the protesters to gather intelligence, right? The protesters had been there 1 month already.

And Philw - it's even bizarre that for 2 years the TFV regulars have not been screaming to have these guys identified brought to justice - instead they lump them all together into on "redmob" and Thaksin's paid army. To me this is the elephant in the room. I mean even if there is no chance in hell of holding specific people in the army / government responsible for their shootings, it seems like the obvious target for "justice" to find the MIB.

Of course, but........I doubt they existed and certainly not in any numbers

In the absence of any subsequent evidence, they seem to be a conveniently engineered excuse for what was to come.

Isn't that a bit cynical............

[SuneeTH]

"Sanporn said witnesses and a video recording supported a theory that the man was killed with a high-speed bullet normally fired from weapons issued to government security forces."

This is gibberish. They obviously didn't find the slug and can't say for sure what is was. Even if they could say for sure it was fired from, say, an M16 or an AK47 which should be possible for a half competent pathologist to do, that wouldn't prove anything. The Thai military mainly use M16s but also have AK47s and other high velocity rifles. According to various video clips and eye witness accounts The Men in Black, who were probably serving or retired soldiers anyway, were also armed with both M16s and AK47s and could easily have had other high velocity rifles.

Oh no...............the men in black are back.........

Save us, save us, save us............

Isn't it strange, that so few of this numerous group have been identified, accused, arrested, convicted etc.

Notwithstanding the massive photographic and witness testimony in the public domain.

How come the RTA have completely failed to identify and bring to charge any of these "men in black" ??

These "men in black" who are supposed to be their principal assailants and the justification for the RTA use of snipers as crowd control.

30,000 troops on the ground in a small area and these mysterious MIB operate with impunity and without ever being identified...

Picture is not quite right, I think.

After all that destruction, the best that can be achieved is the arrest of 2 under age kids and a shoplifter plus, i think 2 others, charged with burning down Central.

Bit farcical, is it not ???

not to forget that the mib apparently had 6000 high powered guns that they stole out of an army barracks

can you imagine the death toll if it was in fact true that they had this huge weapons cache, 6000 guys spread around bangkok during the protests with high powered weapons.

why hasn't this 6000 gun robbery from the army been properly investigated?

surely they have surveillance footage that can be shown, why is there still no arrests for what would be an easy case to solve.

sounds like a bs story to me.

Robbed?

More like sold to me.

[Dap]

Identify the model of the "powerful gun" and I could purchase the exact same model within a few days without being a member of the "security forces"

.

No you could not. Rubbish talk/lies like this are just an attempt to hide the truth.

Every time I pick up the paper and see "war" weapons laid out on the table (which seems rather frequent to me) after some drug bust or recently the weapons dealing bust I wonder how the weapons were acquired. Couldn't have been on the black market could it? Nah