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

[Buchholz]

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.

no problem, we can compromise, when I see you with the high powered weapon that is oh so easy to get I will retract that comment, however I will still submit that you are blinkered and have no ability to show impartiality on these matters, this is a fact that will not get any retraction.

Now to the questions I asked you, how about you answer them, or can't you answer them without blowing one of you theories out of the water?

Actually I can see your game here, so i retract my comment, this now leaves you no chance to cherry pick parts of my post, so there it is retracted, now you can continue with the rest of my post that you have edited and answer the questions I posed you.

Chop chop

my, my, my... the emotion. You really do get carried away with over-personalizing so much. It results in distortions and outright misquotes... as the above reflects.

Never said it was easy availability, which according to your quote morphed into "easy"... now then, let's hyperbolic up a notch to "oh so easy".

For you and neurofiend's benefit, buying a pack of Marlboro is easy. Buying a weapon is not easy, but it's certainly doable if you have the cash. I can buy a pack of Marlboro within 4 minutes from my home. That's "easy."

As you and somo don't seem to heed the advice to inform yourself of the reality of things here, let's take a sampling of what's out there on the market. It's quite diverse... quite a number of "powerful guns" (from the OP)

If you have the cash, one can obtain something along these lines.... with the right series of connections.

To think the proceeds of these activities are not available for the right money, is the pinnacle.... of the aforementioned, naivety.

It happens with quite regularity... and with as an added-on kicker.... involves by both Red Shirts and the Army as marketeers, and which also include more direct and discreet procurement.

2010-03-07

6,000 guns and explosives stolen from barracks

BANGKOK: -- Acting Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn confirmed on Sunday that an urgent investigation was being conducted into “a massive loss of weapons and explosives” from an army base in the southern province of Phattalung.

According to Mr Panitan, a police report was filed last Thursday and investigators are attempting to determine whether the weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents in the south, or the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), aka the red-shirts, who plan to hold its million man march and rally commencing this Friday, March 12, in an attempt to oust the government.

Informed sources claim about 6,000 assault rifles and a large amount of explosives were taken from Engineering Regiment 401, part of the Fourth Army Region, in Phatthalung Province, and the theft was only discovered on Tuesday.

http://www.thaivisa....-army-barracks/

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

2010-09-20

Army chief confirms arms disappearance from Lopburi arsenal

BANGKOK: -- Thai Army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda on Monday conceded that some 30 rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) disappeared from a military armoury in Lopburi province over a week ago, while the defence minister said the stolen grenades may be destined for use in possible violence.

Gen Anupong said a forensic investigation to find the suspects implicated in the missing RPG case will take 6-8 days, adding that the army is tracking the whereabouts of the stolen arms and is trying to bring them back.

He said that army regulations clearly impose punishment measures for those held responsible for the arms theft and that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has already been informed about the case.

Defence Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, meanwhile, said the stolen RPGs may be used to encourage violence, but urged the public not to worry as the army will closely monitor the situation.

Following criticism over the army's lax security in light of repeated thefts of munitions, Gen Prawit gave assurance's that the army's security measures have been 'very tight' and such a disappearance did not frequently occur.

http://www.thaivisa....opburi-arsenal/

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

2011-03-04

Hundreds of weapons allegedly stolen from an army depot

An infantry corps headquarters in Prachuab Khiri Khan province on Friday filed a complaint with police that its hundreds of weapons have been stolen from its depot.

Among them were 130 M16 assault rifles, motars, 11-mm pistols and Minimi rifles.

http://www.thaivisa....hai-army-depot/

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

For the last, a Twitter Tweet produced this graphic of what was taken in the final tally

Nice selection, what would you like?

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Actually I can see your game here, so i retract my comment

As for the above, it reflects your whole attack is personal... by now admitting to casting false claims on another poster.

That you now dismiss your self-admitted falsehood so cavalierly and flippantly is self-evident... and yet, you quickly launch into some other absurd demand says it all.

YOU are the "game" player here.

.

[Buchholz]

"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.

Precisely, which has been my point all along.

Red Shirts have them.

Southerners have them.

Gold store thieves have them.

Gun enthusiasts have them.

Drug gangs have them.

Army rogues have them, and

Army regulars have them.

The OP says the DSI is assigning culpability on the Army regulars as if no one else has these weapons.

An obvious shortcoming is the exclusivity to any other possibilities in the OP text's declarative and definitive:

was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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..................

uhhhhh....that's rather redundant.

It's what we have to work with unless you or others provide other sources for Sanporn's quotes and/or court proceedings that either contradict or amplify what is in The Nation.

.

.

[473geo]

Are the army not culpable for being so negligent in 'misplacing' the weapons in the first place?

Interesting the 'where are they now' pontifications are all geared up to make out adversaries of the army are armed to the teeth.....when in fact if the where abouts of the weapons are known they would surely have been recovered

Edited July 18, 2012 by 473geo

[Buchholz]

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............

He already had retracted it when you posted.

He admitted he had nothing to substantiate his false claim.

Is it ok to toss out any sort of nonsense against a member based on post count?

What's your 3,000 posts entitle posters to falsely say what you post?

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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.

the quacky-est logic ever

How about don't make an unprovoked false claim about a poster in the first place?

btw, He had already retracted his statement and admitted to his false claim before you posted, too.

.

[Buchholz]

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"

not selective at all, phiphi.

Buying ice cream is easy.

Buying a "powerful gun" takes more effort.... and more time... and more money.

It doesn't mean it's impossible if it's not "easy" (a word I've never said, no matter how often its erroneously assigned to me).

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

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"

not selective at all, phiphi.

Buying ice cream is easy.

Buying a "powerful gun" takes more effort.... and more time... and more money.

It doesn't mean it's impossible if it's not "easy" (a word I've never said, no matter how often its erroneously assigned to me).

.

saying that you could get it in a few days suggests that they are easily available, how can you deny that as a reasonable conclusion of what you said?

[473geo]

Buchholz have you ever bought a powerful gun for your own use?

[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"

.

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

well stated.

ahhh....it's nice to see not all posters are as naive as those denying reality or at least feigning unbelievability of what's around them (at least those in Thailand).

.

[nurofiend]

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

well stated.

ahhh....it's nice to see not all posters are as naive as those denying reality or at least feigning unbelievability of what's around them (at least those in Thailand).

.

no, i don't think anyone is naive enough to think drug dealers aren't able to acquire these weapons.

but you're not a drug dealer buchholz, so what contacts do you have that can get you military grade weaponry in a few days?

[Buchholz]

not selective at all, phiphi.

Buying ice cream is easy.

Buying a "powerful gun" takes more effort.... and more time... and more money.

It doesn't mean it's impossible if it's not "easy" (a word I've never said, no matter how often its erroneously assigned to me).

.

saying that you could get it in a few days suggests that they are easily available, how can you deny that as a reasonable conclusion of what you said?

Why the absurd, repeated pedantic fixation on "easy"?

I can buy a house in a few days time, as well, but I wouldn't call that "easy", either.

I guess it's all relative as to what one considers as easy or not and I guess we differ on that. Not surprising giving the vagueness of the word "easy."

Anyway,

Guns are available.

Not all guns are in the hands of the "security forces".

Those are the only two points.

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Buchholz have you ever bought a powerful gun for your own use?

Without trying to start some new pedantic tangent on the definition of "powerful" and deferring not to become the thread's topic, I would just simply say yes to that question without elaborating.

.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

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

well stated.

ahhh....it's nice to see not all posters are as naive as those denying reality or at least feigning unbelievability of what's around them (at least those in Thailand).

no, i don't think anyone is naive enough to think drug dealers aren't able to acquire these weapons.

but you're not a drug dealer buchholz, so what contacts do you have that can get you military grade weaponry in a few days?

Are you sure some posters aren't naive enough to believe its impossible for anyone to obtain weapons?

There's a few dozen posts in this thread that refute your contention.

The DSI conclusion in the OP is another naivety source.

My contacts are my contacts.

It can be done.

Irregardless, if you believe I personally can or can not is immaterial to the main point 104 posts ago that absolutely other than security forces can.

.

[nurofiend]

Are you sure some posters aren't naive enough to believe its impossible for anyone to obtain weapons?

There's a few dozen posts in this thread that refute your contention.

The DSI conclusion in the OP is another naivety source.

My contacts are my contacts.

It can be done.

Irregardless, if you believe I personally can or can not is immaterial to the main point 104 posts ago that absolutely other than security forces can.

.

"Are you sure some posters aren't naive enough to believe its impossible for anyone to obtain weapons?"

yes.

"There's a few dozen posts in this thread that refute your contention."

no there's not, show me one.

"Irregardless, if you believe I personally can or can not is immaterial to the main point 104 posts ago that absolutely other than security forces can."

i don't believe you for a second.

[nurofiend]

not selective at all, phiphi.

Buying ice cream is easy.

Buying a "powerful gun" takes more effort.... and more time... and more money.

It doesn't mean it's impossible if it's not "easy" (a word I've never said, no matter how often its erroneously assigned to me).

.

saying that you could get it in a few days suggests that they are easily available, how can you deny that as a reasonable conclusion of what you said?

Why the absurd, repeated pedantic fixation on "easy"?

I can buy a house in a few days time, as well, but I wouldn't call that "easy", either.

I guess it's all relative as to what one considers as easy or not and I guess we differ on that. Not surprising giving the vagueness of the word "easy."

Anyway,

Guns are available.

Not all guns are in the hands of the "security forces".

Those are the only two points.

.

it's not absurd... saying you can get military grade guns in a few d....

oh forget it.

[Buchholz]

i don't believe you for a second.

wonderful.

don't then.

as said, it's immaterial whether you do or not... all that really matters is that it can be done and the DIS assertion that it can't is false.

.

[nurofiend]

i don't believe you for a second.

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

[Buchholz]

not selective at all, phiphi.

Buying ice cream is easy.

Buying a "powerful gun" takes more effort.... and more time... and more money.

It doesn't mean it's impossible if it's not "easy" (a word I've never said, no matter how often its erroneously assigned to me).

.

saying that you could get it in a few days suggests that they are easily available, how can you deny that as a reasonable conclusion of what you said?

Why the absurd, repeated pedantic fixation on "easy"?

I can buy a house in a few days time, as well, but I wouldn't call that "easy", either.

I guess it's all relative as to what one considers as easy or not and I guess we differ on that. Not surprising giving the vagueness of the word "easy."

Anyway,

Guns are available.

Not all guns are in the hands of the "security forces".

Those are the only two points.

.

it's not absurd... saying you can get military grade guns in a few d....

oh forget it.

Probably best as you've already added another un-said word with the new introduction of "military grade" guns.... the pedantic switch from the un-said "easy" ramped up to the unsaid "oh so easy."

And it's all immaterial to the point made that it can be done by other than security forces.

.

[Buchholz]

i don't believe you for a second.

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

so says you....

.

[nurofiend]

last word! last word! last word!

just let it die buchholz, let it die.

Edited July 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[Yunla]

And it's all immaterial to the point made that it can be done by other than security forces.

.

DSI may have been thinking of these guns:

http://en.wikipedia....er_(Judge_Dredd)

"A Lawgiver can only be operated by its designated Judge owner, whose palm print is programmed into the gun's memory."

Edited July 18, 2012 by Yunla

[carra]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

[Reasonableman]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

Speculation, Your Honor.

[carra]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

Speculation, Your Honor.

Indeed, on both sides

[OzMick]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

Even if it was an RTA rifle that was used to shoot the cabbie, that is NOT proof that it was done by RTA, as red shirts took it upon themselves to relieve soldiers of their rifles and ammunition - a crime in itself, with a penalty of years in the slammer.

[Reasonableman]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

Speculation, Your Honor.

Indeed, on both sides

So, in summary, your opinion = personal experience + bias + "color"? You could understand why some might disagree with your opinion, if it should be swayed by "bias and color". And for those without bias or color, only personal experience, who also saw what happened, what value should we place on their opinions?

[TempleTiger]

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

Please everyone, if I'm going to be shot the I want it to be with a SLOW SPEED BULLET.

[carra]

So is it easy to buy a high powered gun or hard? maybe when he said he could get one in a few days he means it is hard, maybe getting one in a few hours would be seen as easy, who knows?

I think we can just all agree that is was hyperbole designed to prove a point when in fact it has done nothing of the sort and left the poster open to ridicule for attempting such a lame argument, if said poster stuck to facts rather than silliness then this discussion would not have prevailed. The fact is it may be easy or it may be hard, however there is no proof whatsoever that is it what happened in this instance, it is just as likely he was shot by the army, in fact it is more likely he was shot by the army, it has already been shown that on more than one ocassion unarmed people posing no threat were shot by soldier so it is not beyond the realms of probability that the army shot this guy.

Speculation, Your Honor.

Indeed, on both sides

So, in summary, your opinion = personal experience + bias + "color"? You could understand why some might disagree with your opinion, if it should be swayed by "bias and color". And for those without bias or color, only personal experience, who also saw what happened, what value should we place on their opinions?

Not at all, I have no colour, my avatar is strictly for my football club. I do however have an opinion but that does not mean i am a supporter of anyone side, however when certain people try and whitewash the crimes committed by the army it is only fair that someone has a dissenting voice and plays devils advocate, a number of other posters do it much better than I do but i enjoy the cut and thrust and offering different opinions. before you say it I do not try and whitewash the crimes committed by the reds either.

My posting history will show criticism of PTP and the reds when it is warranted and criticism of the dems and the yellows when warranted. What annoys me on this forum is a certain group of posters that use lies and misinformation to try and get their point across, and when this happens I try and counter it.

One thing I am though and that is a supporter of democracy, and right now there is a democratically elected government and they should be allowed to govern. I am against coups in any form, I can see bias for what it is in the processes in Thailand also, but some posters fail to see this, of course unless it would be bias against the dems or yellows then of course the courts will be seen to be corrupt etc etc etc. in the eyes of these posters,

In my opinion if the dems want to govern thailand then they need the mandate, they need to do much better in the next election, these are the facts, and before anyone pipes up with its not a democracy, votes are bought etc that is just nonsense, both sides do it, just one does it better than the other.