If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

.

Edited July 19, 201214 yr by Buchholz

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 ??

Well old hoss, You seem to read a lot more into my post than I wrote, and with your vast (long time status) experience in CM you must not get out and about much. Can not remember being seen as a 'patsy' , grandson did tell me "your awesome" when I bought him a icecream at breakfast time. If you think it would take you 2 weeks to find a 'gun' in Chiang Mai, with the number of policemen on duty at any one time, remind me never to recommend you to a go go bar.

You have a good day, now.

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

.

No it's not, he just refuted your claim to get "the exact same model within a few days". What we talking about here a Tavor 21, M16?

Edited July 20, 201214 yr by phiphidon

Removed one post with an altered quote.

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

No it's not, he just refuted your claim to get "the exact same model within a few days". What we talking about here a Tavor 21, M16?

hahaha... clutching at straws.

philw says couple of weeks, I said a few days.

His line of connections being slightly slower changes precious little except the time involved.

As for what we're "talking about," we don't know as no specific weapon was detailed in the OP, only "powerful gun."

.

As for what we're "talking about," we don't know as no specific weapon was detailed in the OP, only "powerful gun."

.

Like this one.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/571320-machine-gun-attack-on-pattaya-remand-prison-officers-house/

By some peoples logic, the armed forces are now shooting at prison officers.

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

No it's not, he just refuted your claim to get "the exact same model within a few days". What we talking about here a Tavor 21, M16?

hahaha... clutching at straws.

philw says couple of weeks, I said a few days.

His line of connections being slightly slower changes precious little except the time involved.

As for what we're "talking about," we don't know as no specific weapon was detailed in the OP, only "powerful gun."

.

Ah when the questioning gets heavy it's time for the report button eh buchholz, never knowingly apologized for being wrong..........

If the evidence is as crystal clear is in the Fabio Polenghi case

""2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

... ""

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3222

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

.

no according to me, saying that you can get one in a few days is bs and that your post suggested easy availability to anyone - to support your argument that it could have been anyone that did it.

if that's not what you were suggesting, then make your posts clearer.

then you backtrack and say you weren't suggesting they are easily available, so which is it?

i don't believe you for a second, and that's my free choice to do so.

just because i think that, doesn't mean i think they cannot be got... but certainly not within a few days, unless you are already involved with illegal gun smugglers and dealers.

otherwise it would take quite a while to get your hands on one.

if you had just said it is possible for people can get their hands on these weapons, then fine, no argument from me.

you shouldn't care if i don't believe you, that's my business.

so either proving me wrong or stop about 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 can.

derpy derpy derp derp

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

the point of the post was to show you how much i really really reeeeeally don't care how... or why... or anything about it.

just saying 'i can' is pathetically childish.

i can get a nuclear weapon tomorrow too.

i can get a nuclear weapon tomorrow too.

Can you, really, I mean can you?

I went to Cambodia this morning, it isn't a real crossing point, no Passport checks or anything like that, I go there to buy cheap cigarettes (hey, it's my life) it's less than 10km from were I am now, I know most of the border guards by sight and some by name, a couple of them mow my lawn on my land-ladies instructions obviously, not directly from me.

Now, what would you like to buy?

How? would have been a better question instead of that childish twaddle you spouted.

i can get a nuclear weapon tomorrow too.

Can you, really, I mean can you?

I went to Cambodia this morning, it isn't a real crossing point, no Passport checks or anything like that, I go there to buy cheap cigarettes (hey, it's my life) it's less than 10km from were I am now, I know most of the border guards by sight and some by name, a couple of them mow my lawn on my land-ladies instructions obviously, not directly from me.

Now, what would you like to buy?

How? would have been a better question instead of that childish twaddle you spouted.

as i explained, i wasn't interested to hear 'how' or that you can get them.

the only point i've been making is that when buchholz said "i could get one in a few days" (to paraphrase), would suggest to most, that he was saying high grade weapons were easily available to anyone, to prove his point that it could have been anyone.

if it was just him boasting that he personally could do it then i just misunderstood the purpose of his post.

i was never suggesting that no one except for the army could acquire them.

my suspicions were quite simple to understand and i don't think unreasonable at all.

i still honestly don't think he could do it in a couple of days but that's my opinion, and if he proves me wrong, i'll eat my hat or whatever challenge ye want to give me.

the point of me saying i could get a nuclear weapon tomorrow is that, if you say i'm full of it, then the only way to prove you wrong would be for me to prove it.

Edited July 20, 201214 yr by nurofiend

respect mate.

You too, I'll give it when it is due, which it is in your case, I enjoy a reasoned debate.

The OP said:

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. The official said some witnesses claimed security force members were responsible for the death.

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"

.

Bucholz was just trying to point out the flaw in the logical thinking of the OP and the DSI investigator. The weapon used is irrelevant.

Lets go back to Logic 101. I'll even provide a valid argument.

High powered weapons are available only to the military.

A van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver was killed by the military. (what some people might conclude about the relevance of the weapon being used)

All we had to do was prove that the first premise being false, that high powered weapons are NOT only available to the military (no matter how easy or difficult to obtain), would lead to a false conclusion. Bucholz, just turned that valid argument into one having a false conclusion, that's all.

If anyone wants to argue that the first premise is true, good luck with that.

However, I think this is more true.

High powered weapons can be obtained by anyone with the possible means.

The van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver could've been killed by anyone with the possible means in obtaining a high powered weapon.

See? So :A Department of Special Investigation (DSI) official told the Criminal Court yesterday that a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers. Doesn't mean anything.

Edited July 20, 201214 yr by ThaiOats

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...

I don't think anyone has said with certainty that it wasn't the security forces. However, there are many people who don't think there are any other possibilities ie: doubting the existence of the MiB.

You would find that there are many who believe that both the Army and armed militants are responsible for the deaths of civilians. Again however, there are those that can't be bothered with the possibilities of the armed militants being the culprit. Can tlansford, carra, geo473, philw and all the other pro-government/Red admit that there's a possibility that the soldiers are not the culprit or have you already made up your mind?

Suppose I admit that solders were the culprits, that in the worst case scenario, they fired on civilians mercilessly or they didn't follow the rules of engage etc. Could you guys also then, admit that the possibility of armed militants firing on civilians mercilessly are just as likely?

Having one weapon is one too many if you want to doubt that the militants are just as likely to be responsible. 10 weapons, 100 weapons it doesn't matter, the possibility is there just as the possibility of the witnesses being paid to testify. Just as it may seem that the anti-government side brings up possibilities while the pro-government denies or confirm with certainty in almost every situation. Another example would be the Constitution issue where the anti-government side bring up possibilities of it violating Article 68, the pro-government denies the possibility and goes on a rant. Another example would be U-tapao, corruption in funds, and so on, you get the idea.

If i wanted a gun I think i could probably find one, given a couple of weeks

according to neurofiend, that is not "believable" and is "bs".

Expect every-increasing lies to be made about your post from him.

no according to me, saying that you can get one in a few days is bs and that your post suggested easy availability to anyone - to support your argument that it could have been anyone that did it.

if that's not what you were suggesting, then make your posts clearer.

then you backtrack and say you weren't suggesting they are easily available, so which is it?

i don't believe you for a second, and that's my free choice to do so.

just because i think that, doesn't mean i think they cannot be got... but certainly not within a few days, unless you are already involved with illegal gun smugglers and dealers.

otherwise it would take quite a while to get your hands on one.

if you had just said it is possible for people can get their hands on these weapons, then fine, no argument from me.

you shouldn't care if i don't believe you, that's my business.

so either proving me wrong or stop about it.

no one is crying about it. Instead, I am laughing about your double standards.

So it's a minor difference in the time factor that makes my post singularly "bs."

Does philw's "couple of weeks" not also suggest "easy availability to anyone"?

(even though he, like I, didn't post that?)

Does philw's post not also suggest "anyone could have done it?"

There's precious little difference in what he wrote and what I wrote... other than our often opposing positions on political issues which just makes your accusations of "bs" towards me nothing more than personal.

If you are unsure about the clarity of a post, would it not be better to ask what the poster meant in further detail rather than contribute ever-increasing lies about what the poster wrote?

As I said before, it's entirely up to you whether you believe what posters write. It is your free choice, It is not your free choice to lie about what posters write.

"if you had just said it is possible for people can get their hands on these weapons, then fine, no argument from me"

hahaha.... yeah right, no argument from you.

so all of this ongoing diatribe is over the 10 day difference between "a few days" *(eg. 4 days) and a "couple of weeks" (eg. 14 days).

terrific stuff

It is your free choice, It is not your free choice to lie about what posters write

i didn't lie, i paraphrased about what i thought you meant, i didn't lie, so stop with more of the bs.

you seem very concerned with my view that you're lying about being able to acquire these weapons in just a few days.

to paraphrase myself...get over it, let it die and stop whining on.

Edited July 21, 201214 yr by nurofiend

The OP said:

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. The official said some witnesses claimed security force members were responsible for the death.

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"

.

Bucholz was just trying to point out the flaw in the logical thinking of the OP and the DSI investigator. The weapon used is irrelevant.

Lets go back to Logic 101. I'll even provide a valid argument.

High powered weapons are available only to the military.

A van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver was killed by the military. (what some people might conclude about the relevance of the weapon being used)

All we had to do was prove that the first premise being false, that high powered weapons are NOT only available to the military (no matter how easy or difficult to obtain), would lead to a false conclusion. Bucholz, just turned that valid argument into one having a false conclusion, that's all.

If anyone wants to argue that the first premise is true, good luck with that.

However, I think this is more true.

High powered weapons can be obtained by anyone with the possible means.

The van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver could've been killed by anyone with the possible means in obtaining a high powered weapon.

See? So :A Department of Special Investigation (DSI) official told the Criminal Court yesterday that a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers. Doesn't mean anything.

well said

.

It is your free choice, It is not your free choice to lie about what posters write

i didn't lie, i paraphrased about what i thought you meant, i didn't lie, so stop with more of the bs.

you seem very concerned with my view that you're lying about being able to acquire these weapons in just a few days.

When you were told your earlier "paraphrasing" was erroneous, not only did you continue with misrepresenting what I posted, you exaggerated it further and further with successive posts AKA lying.

Especially when other posters say essentially the same thing.

When you do that, expect to get called on it.

.

Edited July 21, 201214 yr by Buchholz

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...

I don't think anyone has said with certainty that it wasn't the security forces. However, there are many people who don't think there are any other possibilities ie: doubting the existence of the MiB.

You would find that there are many who believe that both the Army and armed militants are responsible for the deaths of civilians. Again however, there are those that can't be bothered with the possibilities of the armed militants being the culprit. Can tlansford, carra, geo473, philw and all the other pro-government/Red admit that there's a possibility that the soldiers are not the culprit or have you already made up your mind?

Suppose I admit that solders were the culprits, that in the worst case scenario, they fired on civilians mercilessly or they didn't follow the rules of engage etc. Could you guys also then, admit that the possibility of armed militants firing on civilians mercilessly are just as likely?

Having one weapon is one too many if you want to doubt that the militants are just as likely to be responsible. 10 weapons, 100 weapons it doesn't matter, the possibility is there just as the possibility of the witnesses being paid to testify. Just as it may seem that the anti-government side brings up possibilities while the pro-government denies or confirm with certainty in almost every situation. Another example would be the Constitution issue where the anti-government side bring up possibilities of it violating Article 68, the pro-government denies the possibility and goes on a rant. Another example would be U-tapao, corruption in funds, and so on, you get the idea.

Another excellent post.

Thanks for taking the time to compose it.

.

If the evidence is as crystal clear is in the Fabio Polenghi case

""2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

... ""

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3222

Late Italian Journalist Fabio Polenghi's Case Will Go To Court In July

Next Monday 09:00 to be precise.

The OP said:

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. The official said some witnesses claimed security force members were responsible for the death.

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"

.

Bucholz was just trying to point out the flaw in the logical thinking of the OP and the DSI investigator. The weapon used is irrelevant.

Lets go back to Logic 101. I'll even provide a valid argument.

High powered weapons are available only to the military.

A van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver was killed by the military. (what some people might conclude about the relevance of the weapon being used)

All we had to do was prove that the first premise being false, that high powered weapons are NOT only available to the military (no matter how easy or difficult to obtain), would lead to a false conclusion. Bucholz, just turned that valid argument into one having a false conclusion, that's all.

If anyone wants to argue that the first premise is true, good luck with that.

However, I think this is more true.

High powered weapons can be obtained by anyone with the possible means.

The van driver was killed by a high powered weapon.

Therefore, the van driver could've been killed by anyone with the possible means in obtaining a high powered weapon.

See? So :A Department of Special Investigation (DSI) official told the Criminal Court yesterday that a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers. Doesn't mean anything.

Let us be a little clearer on this subject. The rifles are NOT high-powered, the bullets are high-powered and the rifles are capable of firing them. What's the point? MANY different rifles are designed to accept those rounds.

Personally, I have owned 2 - a Ruger Mini-14 chambered for .223 and which also accepts the 5.56x45mm NATO round, and a Remington .308 carbine which accepts the 7.62x45mm NATO. The Mini 14 is also available using 7.62x39mm round used in the SKS and AK-47. These are semi-auto, and there are many other brands which use the same rounds in semi-auto and bolt action.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

If you have ever been involved with a criminal investigation in Thailand, you would realize how rare it is for witnesses to make such statements, against normal citizens, let alone authorities. They are usually either paid off or scared off.

Or conversely paid or threatened to say what is wanted. It really depends on

who has the 'bigger persuader' at the time of trial, and least morality to stop them using it.

I know someone who's father was killed in his own bar during a scuffle,

a fall caused by two young strong customers. Not being familiar with Thailand ways,

our friend didn't pay for prosecution, but the perpetrators father paid the police

to make it go away, 3 million, our friend didn't realize till too late, he could have

upped the offer to 3.5 mil. and it would have all started again. But might have led to

a bidding war. The witnesses said what they were told to say.

His fathers killer walked, not even an official hearing.

So don't tell me that money and fear doesn't manipulate testimonies.

Edited July 21, 201214 yr by animatic

same pathetic responses from the same people, yes the army killed nobody, they were not even there with their blanks, no live ammunition but that didn't matter anyway as everyone there deserved to be shot blah blah blah ad infinitum,

No doubt if this was a yellow shirt shot then all the witnesses would be stellar and it would be impossible for someone else to buy such a weapon,. he was a nice guy that had just been to 7/11 for his old mother as she needed some milk and he was murdered in cold blood on his way back

some of you need to catch on to yourselves, it is quite sad really that relatively intelligent men can't see past the end of your noses. As for witnesses you will see that the van driver is a witness after having been shot also, and there is a recording of the incident, hey maybe speileberg was paid to make the video, he is secretly a red

If all the above sounds far fetched it is no more far fetched that the drivel written in this thread up to now

Keep up thr good posts. It always appears that there is a small army of posters waiting for every new post so they can influence the direction of the thread to either.

Thaksins a bad man

the men in black

Abhisit the righteous one

boring boring boring

Some on here are on the Abhisit was a draft dodger thread trying to play down the seriousness of buying fake documents. The truth shall set you free.

"some people who claimed to have been there at the time |of incident"

You mean those witnesses?

If you have ever been involved with a criminal investigation in Thailand, you would realize how rare it is for witnesses to make such statements, against normal citizens, let alone authorities. They are usually either paid off or scared off.

Or conversely paid or threatened to say what is wanted. It really depends on

who has the 'bigger persuader' at the time of trial, and least morality to stop them using it.

I know someone who's father was killed in his own bar during a scuffle,

a fall caused by two young strong customers. Not being familiar with Thailand ways,

our friend didn't pay for prosecution, but the perpetrators father paid the police

to make it go away, 3 million, our friend didn't realize till too late, he could have

upped the offer to 3.5 mil. and it would have all started again. But might have led to

a bidding war. The witnesses said what they were told to say.

His fathers killer walked, not even an official hearing.

So don't tell me that money and fear doesn't manipulate testimonies.

The point I would be asking is not about whos being paid for witness testimony but why when Abhisit was still in power for nearly 2 years no facts were uncovered (maybe never investigated) when he could actually have covered up all the truth. Dumb asses thought they would never lose power. 555555555

If the redmob had not marched on Bangkok as a large armed group

i got as far as "as a large armed group"

get real yunla

Yunla 900 posts in 3 months. Subjects close to the heart ummmmm

i can get a nuclear weapon tomorrow too.

Can you, really, I mean can you?

I went to Cambodia this morning, it isn't a real crossing point, no Passport checks or anything like that, I go there to buy cheap cigarettes (hey, it's my life) it's less than 10km from were I am now, I know most of the border guards by sight and some by name, a couple of them mow my lawn on my land-ladies instructions obviously, not directly from me.

Now, what would you like to buy?

How? would have been a better question instead of that childish twaddle you spouted.

as i explained, i wasn't interested to hear 'how' or that you can get them.

the only point i've been making is that when buchholz said "i could get one in a few days" (to paraphrase), would suggest to most, that he was saying high grade weapons were easily available to anyone, to prove his point that it could have been anyone.

if it was just him boasting that he personally could do it then i just misunderstood the purpose of his post.

i was never suggesting that no one except for the army could acquire them.

my suspicions were quite simple to understand and i don't think unreasonable at all.

i still honestly don't think he could do it in a couple of days but that's my opinion, and if he proves me wrong, i'll eat my hat or whatever challenge ye want to give me.

the point of me saying i could get a nuclear weapon tomorrow is that, if you say i'm full of it, then the only way to prove you wrong would be for me to prove it.

He could get one if he had links to the Thai army. But only a Thai could do that

He could get one if he had links to the Thai army.

Thanks for the confirmation

even if it's but one of the possible avenues.

But only a Thai could do that

Not a requisite in that avenue or others.

.

It is your free choice, It is not your free choice to lie about what posters write

i didn't lie, i paraphrased about what i thought you meant, i didn't lie, so stop with more of the bs.

you seem very concerned with my view that you're lying about being able to acquire these weapons in just a few days.

When you were told your earlier "paraphrasing" was erroneous, not only did you continue with misrepresenting what I posted, you exaggerated it further and further with successive posts AKA lying.

Especially when other posters say essentially the same thing.

When you do that, expect to get called on it.

.

i didn't lie... you're just latching onto one word that i said, which was 'anyone' instead of 'you'... it wasn't a vindictive plan on my part to sneak the word anyone in LOL!!....but you just latched onto that one word didn't you, but sorry because i'm afraid all my points still stand.

i don't believe for one second that your first post wasn't meant to mean that anyone can get these guns, not for a second and i think most would agree that that is what it looked like you were suggesting.

so i don't believe your transparent backtracking and i certainly don't believe you could get a military grade gun in a few days.

i bet you'll latch onto 'military grade' now....

Edited July 21, 201214 yr by nurofiend

It is your free choice, It is not your free choice to lie about what posters write

i didn't lie, i paraphrased about what i thought you meant, i didn't lie, so stop with more of the bs.

you seem very concerned with my view that you're lying about being able to acquire these weapons in just a few days.

When you were told your earlier "paraphrasing" was erroneous, not only did you continue with misrepresenting what I posted, you exaggerated it further and further with successive posts AKA lying.

Especially when other posters say essentially the same thing.

When you do that, expect to get called on it.

.

i didn't lie... you're just latching onto one word that i said, which was 'anyone' instead of 'you'... it wasn't a vindictive plan on my part to sneak the word anyone in LOL!!....but you just latched onto that one word didn't you, but sorry because i'm afraid all my points still stand.

i don't believe for one second that your first post wasn't meant to mean that anyone can get these guns, not for a second and i think most would agree that that is what it looked like you were suggesting.

so i don't believe your transparent backtracking and i certainly don't believe you could get a military grade gun in a few days.

i bet you'll latch onto 'military grade' now....

no, you already ran that un-said phrase through earlier in the escalation.

Anyway, we're past done.

You don't believe a "powerful gun" can be obtained by someone in a few days who is not with security forces.

Your opinion has been duly noted.

.

Edited July 21, 201214 yr by Buchholz