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

Moruya · July 19, 2012

i don't believe you for a second.

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

All you need in any city in the world to buy a gun is the money and a man who knows.

Assuming money is no object, you just need to find someone who knows someone who knows someone.

I've never done it but I'm sure if you wanted to badly enough, you could.

The danger would be having it all go pear shaped and losing your money, your life or having an unlawful relationship with the BIBs.

phiphidon · July 19, 2012

"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.

Curiously enough the other paper was reporting the Army Spokesmen saying that there were 500 "terrorists" mingling with the red shirts who were ready to defend the camp - this was on the 13th May. A good excuse to explain away or lessen the impact of any "collateral" damage - it certainly seems to have worked on more than a few on here.

Moruya · July 19, 2012

"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.

Curiously enough the other paper was reporting the Army Spokesmen saying that there were 500 "terrorists" mingling with the red shirts who were ready to defend the camp - this was on the 13th May. A good excuse to explain away or lessen the impact of any "collateral" damage - it certainly seems to have worked on more than a few on here.

You, for one, seem to succumb to red propaganda sans resistance PPD.

Do you doubt the existence of the "men in black"? Do you doubt Seh Daeng's well documented role?

SuneeTH · July 19, 2012

The 500 men in black change their shirts into all sort of colors, hence a new group call multi-colors shirt was born.

They are the one that use stolen army weapon to kill most of the 92.

They are the one that set fire and burn bangkok to the ground.

They are the one that shoot M-79 into the Yellow shirt gathering, and Wat phra kaew.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SuneeTH

Buchholz · July 19, 2012

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?

who knows?

Indeed, when you insert your own words and ascribe them to other's posts with ever-escalating un-said descriptions.

Try sticking what was said by the posters rather than inserting your own adjectives and adverbs that were never said.

While you struggle with the simple statement that weapons can be obtained in Thailand without adding all your added descriptions, you overlook entirely the reality that weapons can be obtained by other than security forces.

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

And the fact that weapons can be procured by other groups and individuals other than the Army raises reasonable doubt as to DSI definitive conclusion that it was security forces.

As said, hopefully there's something more concrete than this disproved assertion before convictions are handed out to anyone, Army or anyone else.

.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Buchholz

whybother · July 19, 2012

<snip>

"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.

Are you suggesting that security forces are the only people that can buy war weapons?

whybother · July 19, 2012

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.

It was clear during the protests that the red shirts (or their armed militia) had war weapons. So to suggest that just because the cabbie was shot with a bullet from a high powered rifle it must have been the security forces that did it is, at best, naive, but bordering on stupid.

tlansford · July 19, 2012

"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.

Curiously enough the other paper was reporting the Army Spokesmen saying that there were 500 "terrorists" mingling with the red shirts who were ready to defend the camp - this was on the 13th May. A good excuse to explain away or lessen the impact of any "collateral" damage - it certainly seems to have worked on more than a few on here.

The timing of the crackdown seemed to be fairly well planned. There was the offer for elections which fell apart and was immediately followed by Seh Daeng's assassination, with the 6 day crackdown commencing immediately.

Of course we don't know, but I don't believe (at this point) that the government ever had a doubt about the plan for that week. IMO, it is why they did not work harder on the election deal. Even if the violent elements of the protest were not ready to accept the election deal as it was offered, other factions appeared ready to take the deal. But instead, it was a sniper bullet for Seh Daeng and a 6 day assault. End of story.

phiphidon · July 19, 2012

You, for one, seem to succumb to red propaganda sans resistance PPD.

Do you doubt the existence of the "men in black"? Do you doubt Seh Daeng's well documented role?

If you stop putting words into my mouth moruya you might get a bit more respect from me, not that it worries you I am sure.

I do not doubt that there are men in black, but that is not what I said was it?

I certainly doubt the army spokesman statement that there were 500 of them mingling with the redshirts waiting to defend the camp.

I've said nothing about Seh Daeng in my post so cannot see why you bring the subject up other than trolling.

I took you off my ignore list, I can now see this was a mistake. See ya.

tlansford · July 19, 2012

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.

It was clear during the protests that the red shirts (or their armed militia) had war weapons. So to suggest that just because the cabbie was shot with a bullet from a high powered rifle it must have been the security forces that did it is, at best, naive, but bordering on stupid.

to employ your technique for debate, ...

Are you saying that the DSI is stupid?

The point is made in the OP. This is not a definitive statement on who is guilty but the conclusion of an investigation...

whybother · July 19, 2012

to employ your technique for debate, ...

Are you saying that the DSI is stupid?

The point is made in the OP. This is not a definitive statement on who is guilty but the conclusion of an investigation...

"Are you saying that the DSI is stupid?"

No Comment.

tlansford · July 19, 2012

So TVF has come full circle.

It wasn't the security forces...

A DSI investigation was started, evidence collected, witness interviewed, videos examined, conclusions delivered in court. TVF reaction :

it wasn't the security forces...

Open parachute, bail out of thread...

Edited July 19, 2012 by tlansford

whybother · July 19, 2012

So TVF has come full circle.

It wasn't the security forces...

A DSI investigation was started, evidence collected, witness interviewed, videos examined, conclusions delivered in court. TVF reaction :

it wasn't the security forces...

Open parachute, bail out of thread...

Incorrect. The evidence doesn't show that it WAS the security forces.

Moruya · July 19, 2012

You, for one, seem to succumb to red propaganda sans resistance PPD.

Do you doubt the existence of the "men in black"? Do you doubt Seh Daeng's well documented role?

If you stop putting words into my mouth moruya you might get a bit more respect from me, not that it worries you I am sure.

I do not doubt that there are men in black, but that is not what I said was it?

I certainly doubt the army spokesman statement that there were 500 of them mingling with the redshirts waiting to defend the camp.

I've said nothing about Seh Daeng in my post so cannot see why you bring the subject up other than trolling.

I took you off my ignore list, I can now see this was a mistake. See ya.

You'll do doubt be pleased to know that I have never placed anyone on my "ignore" list. I enjoy the forum.

Who knows how many "Men in Black" there were? Who knows where they were? Who knows if they worked shifts or not?

If the Red Shirts truly wanted "reconciliation" they would come clean on the MiB actions. I don't see a queue of them looking for "The Truth" from any place except the ranting radio broadcasts they listen to.

I sincerely hope the facts come out about it - but I doubt they ever will. The truth is not a one sided thing here - and everyone needs to recognise it.

Many on here make ridiculous statements on here along the lines that Abhisit and/or Suthep asked the army to open fire on the protesters. I firmly believe that to be bullshit of the highest order and something that helps to propagate hatred.

Many on here want to blame Abhisit/Suthep for the deaths - but fail to accept that by the same token, Thaksin is also responsible for serveral thousand.

Dap · July 19, 2012

i don't believe you for a second.

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

A rather blunt statement considering you have no idea what this man can or cannot do. Relax mate, anything is possible when you have enough money.

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

<snip>

"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.

Are you suggesting that security forces are the only people that can buy war weapons?

if i was suggesting that, i'd say that.

Edited July 19, 2012 by nurofiend

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

i don't believe you for a second.

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

A rather blunt statement considering you have no idea what this man can or cannot do. Relax mate, anything is possible when you have enough money.

i am relaxed.

i just think he's full of it.

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

whybother · July 19, 2012

<snip>

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

The point is, people other than security forces CAN get "army issued weaponry", so saying that the bullet came from "army issued weaponry" doesn't mean that it was the security forces that killed him.

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

<snip>

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

The point is, people other than security forces CAN get "army issued weaponry", so saying that the bullet came from "army issued weaponry" doesn't mean that it was the security forces that killed him.

is that what i was taking issue with?

no.

did i ever say because it was an army gun that it is definitive proof?

no.

my issue was this whole "oh i could get this kind of gun in a few days" bs, that makes it out like they are available to everyone and anyone.

Edited July 19, 2012 by nurofiend

Reasonableman · July 19, 2012

Will you take a break from the nitpicking FCS. If you want a gun in Bangkok, you can get one. Easily, with difficulty, with extreme difficulty, whatever! End result.... If you have money, you CAN get a gun. Give it a flippin rest. Who fired the bullet is still undetermined. Whether it was deliberate, or accidental undetermined. Squabble and speculate as you wish, that appears to be the case, as well. Believe what you wish, imagine whatever scenarios and attribute fault to whoever you wish, the jury is still out, and there is no definitive conclusion.

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

Will you take a break from the nitpicking FCS. If you want a gun in Bangkok, you can get one. Easily, with difficulty, with extreme difficulty, whatever! End result.... If you have money, you CAN get a gun. Give it a flippin rest. Who fired the bullet is still undetermined. Whether it was deliberate, or accidental undetermined. Squabble and speculate as you wish, that appears to be the case, as well. Believe what you wish, imagine whatever scenarios and attribute fault to whoever you wish, the jury is still out, and there is no definitive conclusion.

i'm not nitpicking at all.

why would you make a post that continues the discussion and ask me to give it a rest... makes sense to you i suppose.

i was giving it a rest but if posters quote me and ask me a question or direct a post at me, i'll respond to it.

so ever so politely i'll ask you to mind your own... thank you.

Edited July 19, 2012 by nurofiend

slapout · July 19, 2012

I have been offered both AK 47, and M 16 in Chiang Mai and on the Thai side of two border towns in the past These offers were made without any inquiry from me for either, nor the other items offered. In my time in Thailand having observed what can be brought, lost, and forgotten with the exchange of money, I would not rule out any possibility.

Having said that, this whole exercise will more than likely be an exercise in furtility, witness/even the surviors statements are probably distorted, coached or discounted by those involved. A witness or a casuality of a firefight see and hear the same incident differently. This is as true as "you never hear the shot that hits kills you". The person most likely to know some of the answers to questions being asked is the shooter and he could be wrong.

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

I have been offered both AK 47, and M 16 in Chiang Mai and on the Thai side of two border towns in the past These offers were made without any inquiry from me for either, nor the other items offered. In my time in Thailand having observed what can be brought, lost, and forgotten with the exchange of money, I would not rule out any possibility.

Having said that, this whole exercise will more than likely be an exercise in furtility, witness/even the surviors statements are probably distorted, coached or discounted by those involved. A witness or a casuality of a firefight see and hear the same incident differently. This is as true as "you never hear the shot that hits kills you". The person most likely to know some of the answers to questions being asked is the shooter and he could be wrong.

in chiang mai? how did that come about?

i'm just interested to know in what circumstance you were in that someone offered you an ak or an m16 there without you asking about it.

it probably will be an exercise in futility, the army are untouchable.

Edited July 19, 2012 by nurofiend

philw · July 19, 2012

I've lived in Chiangmai about 23 years and nobody has ever, out of the blue, offered to sell me either an ak47 or an m16.

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks, but sorry I just do not believe that an unsolicited stranger offered to supply you a weapon in Chiangmai.

Not even 30 years ago.

Slapout, you must be one awesome character to attract offers like that.

Or they perceive you as a patsy..........

Wanna buy a bridge ??

Babcock · July 19, 2012

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.

I seiously doubt any medic team was sent!

Babcock · July 19, 2012

"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,

I've watched the video of the incident.

The team on motorbikes overtake a bus and run slap bang into a road block manned by the army.

It's an elevated road I recall, anyway no civilians about and they shoot down their own man.

It's all filmed from behind the bikes like using a telephoto lens.

Thaddeus · July 19, 2012

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

I can.

nurofiend · July 19, 2012

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

I can.

derpy derpy derp derp

Thaddeus · July 19, 2012

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

I can.

derpy derpy derp derp

Instead of making a pathetically childish comment, how? would have been a better.

Buchholz · July 19, 2012

all that really matters is that it can be done

but not by you.

A rather blunt statement considering you have no idea what this man can or cannot do. Relax mate, anything is possible when you have enough money.

i am relaxed.

i just think he's full of it.

he made a flippant statement about anyone being able to get army issued weaponry in a few days, and now it's snowballed, so he has to make out like he could do it.

he can't.

I never said "anyone" can obtain one.

I never said "army issued weaponry."

The only thing that has snowballed is the lies you continually make about my post.

.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US