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

[nurofiend]

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

Now who's lying......

[rubl]

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

Now who's lying......

No idea who's lying, but the question seems unanswered

[nurofiend]

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

Now who's lying......

No idea who's lying, but the question seems unanswered

i think the moral of the story is, not anybody can get military issued guns but buchholz can get them in just a few days.

the evidence is overwhelming, so i guess i must admit defeat.

[rubl]

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

Now who's lying......

No idea who's lying, but the question seems unanswered

i think the moral of the story is, not anybody can get military issued guns but buchholz can get them in just a few days.

the evidence is overwhelming, so i guess i must admit defeat.

No offence, dear fiend. May I dare to point out that there may be a difference between 'obtain a powerful gun' and 'obtain a military issued gun'?

[Buchholz]

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

Now who's lying......

That is what I said 186 posts ago and you've said you don't believe me.

.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

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

Now who's lying......

That is what I said 186 posts ago and you've said you don't believe me.

.

yes, i don't believe YOU could get one.

there's a huge difference.

i think top level gangsters could among others, but i don't see them as people with 11k posts on an internet forum, that's just my opinion.

but get it right, i never said nobody could do it.

[Thaddeus]

Enough already.

An ordinary farang (law abiding tourist, secular condo dweller etc) cannot obtain a gun without extreme difficulty, a domiciled farang who knows who to ask can with a bit of difficulty, that is a given, and I do have personal experience of this.

For a Thai, it is very easy.

Summation.... all the high powered weaponry here is not only in the hands of the security forces.

End of.

Next.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Thaddeus

[Thaddeus]

all the high powered weaponry here is not only in the hands of the security forces.

and that was never disputed.

In that case, why don't you take issue with "Evidence In Cabbie's Death 'Points To Security Forces': Bangkok Unrest 2010" .... the topic.... instead of pointless and endless gum banging about one post from one poster?

[metisdead]

Nonsense bickering posts and replies have removed. Please stick to the topic: Evidence in Cabbies Death 'Points to Security Forces',,,,,

[phiphidon]

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.

I suppose you realise that

"a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers"

was probably not the full extent of the account of the DSI investigation and was more than likely just a paraphrase of such by the notoriously badly written The Nation?

Just saying.

[gemini81]

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

Now who's lying......

No idea who's lying, but the question seems unanswered

i think the moral of the story is, not anybody can get military issued guns but buchholz can get them in just a few days.

the evidence is overwhelming, so i guess i must admit defeat.

Red shirts were taking them from the army left, right and center! Where the heck were you? Take a look at 'em firing them on a slew of videos available on youtube. Others were caught with them in their cars, and if you recall (which you sound like you weren't here at the time) arms were going missing at Army posts. The army is better trained than the red shirt thugs and rogues who were stealing them.

This case doesn't show who killed the taxi driver.

[nurofiend]

edit..........nvm

Edited July 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[Thaddeus]

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.

I suppose you realise that

"a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers"

was probably not the full extent of the account of the DSI investigation and was more than likely just a paraphrase of such by the notoriously badly written The Nation?

Just saying.

Just saying what?

[phiphidon]

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.

I suppose you realise that

"a taxi driver killed during Bangkok unrest in May 2010 was shot dead with a powerful gun belonging to state security officers"

was probably not the full extent of the account of the DSI investigation and was more than likely just a paraphrase of such by the notoriously badly written The Nation?

Just saying.

Just saying what?

Just saying what a fine contributor to the discussion you are.

[davidstipek]

snip

So the DSI have done a full investigation and made a conclusion, are you doubting the validity of the investigation? Are you saying the investigation was flawed or even corrupt?

If you believe the DSI are not competent or even corrupt, do you then also agree that any investigation by the DSI into Thaksin, his family, TRT, PTP, the red shirts can also be flawed or even as a result of corruption within the DSI?

Now I will st you a challenge, I look forward to seeing your picture in a few days with a high powered weapon that you have just purchased in Thailand, they are easily available according to you (although quite why that means someone would want to buy one, and then shoot up a van is beyond me, the army did it we both know this, even you deep down haha)

Your logic doesn't make sense.

The fact is: Thaksin is super corrupted. I have proof as he is confirmed convicted and jail by Thai judges.

This fact is: Army are not there to kill people (especially children). Their order were to shoot only at legs. I have video of solider shooting a Canadian journalist legs.

What was the Canadian doing to deserve a bullet?

Probably either filming or taking notes on something the Military felt they would be threatened by if it got exposed..... Journalist's have alway had somesort of ID plastered on them selves to Identify they are not the target and to point your scope elsewhere.. It has been this way in every War or conflict for the past 70+ years??

But apparently it doesn't work if the shooter can't READ!

"Maybe he had pictures or film that showed the High Powered Rifle being fired (face of Soldier) and cabby being hit with bullet and the back of his head being blown off..."

Take no prisoners... leave no footprints.... distroy all proof... High powered so bullet could not be traced by rifling signature, also surely the rifle disapeared right after incident...just in case..

Edited August 9, 2012 by davidstipek