KhaoNiaw Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 BBC got some footage of them in action too: 0.53 in the video report on this page: http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8691486.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMSOBAD Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Hey Jatuporn...who start the fires...looted the stores...jumped out of hotel rooms running from police...grenade bomber the hotel and park...raided the hospital...lit tires...burnt Big C? Oh yeah the peaceful red shirts. What a fat liar!!!!!!! Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect App Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Jatuporn's claim that the black-shirts were organised by the army has as much credible evidence behind it as the claim they were organised by TS Bull Sh#t Now, is it borne out of ignorance or deliberate? Seh Daeng and Thaksin Shinawatra in Dubai.... Seh Daeng has been an embarrassment to and a thorn in the side of his army superiors. Issuing threats and suspected of being involved in a grenade attack on army chief General Anupong Paojinda’s office, Seh Daeng has been vocal in his support for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his red shirt supporters ... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. Ignorance cured, now will you continue to deliberately make things up? "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" has as much credibility as jatuporns claim by a military source. 0 Edited October 22, 2012 by nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? That was the Red Shirt claim at one time, but then they had a Historical Revisionism and claimed they didn't know them....... Now, with even further Historical Revisionism, they are saying they never existed. . Edited October 22, 2012 by Buchholz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomTao Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? That was the Red Shirt claim at one time, but then they had a Historical Revisionism and claimed they didn't know them....... Now, with even further Historical Revisionism, they are saying they never existed. . Next it will be the army that was protesting and the red shirts that dispersed the protest. Sent from my GT-I9003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Bull Sh#t Now, is it borne out of ignorance or deliberate? Seh Daeng and Thaksin Shinawatra in Dubai.... Seh Daeng has been an embarrassment to and a thorn in the side of his army superiors. Issuing threats and suspected of being involved in a grenade attack on army chief General Anupong Paojinda’s office, Seh Daeng has been vocal in his support for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his red shirt supporters ... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. Ignorance cured, now will you continue to deliberately make things up? "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" has as much credibility as jatuporns claim by a military source. 0 I can see why you have a credibility problem... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. "He (Kattiya) has claimed he (Kattiya, again) trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers" If you are going to come to the defense of bulsh#t providers, try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEL1 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 "Key red shirt leader testifies" ______ Incorrect HEADLINE. "Key red shirt leader testicles" -mel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" has as much credibility as jatuporns claim by a military source. 0 I can see why you have a credibility problem... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. "He (Kattiya) has claimed he (Kattiya, again) trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers" If you are going to come to the defense of bulsh#t providers, try harder. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house" - "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" understand? saying that jatuporns claim from unnamed army sources has zero credibility is coming to his defence is it? my point was about unnamed sources, nothing more. ye all slur people about trolling... how is one to respond to sentences like "I can see why you have a credibility problem"? - that's rhetorical btw. too much rage around here, people should relax a bit. Edited October 22, 2012 by nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonclark Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 "Key red shirt leader testifies" ______ Incorrect HEADLINE. "Key red shirt leader testicles" -mel. Nah i'd just call him a c*** 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" has as much credibility as jatuporns claim by a military source. 0 I can see why you have a credibility problem... He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house and he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. "He (Kattiya) has claimed he (Kattiya, again) trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers" If you are going to come to the defense of bulsh#t providers, try harder. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house" - "a claim supported by an unnamed military source" understand? saying that jatuporns claim from unnamed army sources has zero credibility is coming to his defence is it? my point was about unnamed sources, nothing more. ye all slur people about trolling... how is one to respond to sentences like "I can see why you have a credibility problem"? - that's rhetorical btw. too much rage around here, people should relax a bit. It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? That was the Red Shirt claim at one time, but then they had a Historical Revisionism and claimed they didn't know them....... Now, with even further Historical Revisionism, they are saying they never existed. . Next they will be saying,that they didn't try to burn down Bangkok either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" so you don't think the source backed up that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? That was the Red Shirt claim at one time, but then they had a Historical Revisionism and claimed they didn't know them....... Now, with even further Historical Revisionism, they are saying they never existed. . Next they will be saying,that they didn't try to burn down Bangkok either who's the first 'they' and then who's the second 'they'? red shirts? all inclusive yeah? Edited October 22, 2012 by nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" so you don't think the source backed up that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house? Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" so you don't think the source backed up that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house? Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. where did he claim this? anyhow, my point was on the reliability and use of unnamed sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 2010-05-09 "In an interview on Sunday, Seh Daeng denied being responsible for any violence. “I deny!” he cried in English, with a laugh, when asked about the dozens of bombings that have set Bangkok on edge and about the mysterious black-shirted killers who escalated the violence on April 10 that killed 25 soldiers and civilians. “No one ever saw me.”" 2010-05-10 "Seh Daeng: I've talked to Thaksin. Rally will go on with "2nd generation leaders" named -Kwanchai, Arisman, Suporn, Vaipoj" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fstarbkk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Chalerm said a few weeks ago ,that the Black Shirts were members of the Police Force, now we have Jatuporn saying they were members of the Army, so which one one is telling Porkies, one or both? and/or is there a third element being covered up? that nobody dares to point the finger at? The hilarious part is that these yahoos never seem to be able to get their story straight. What's sad is that they may nevertheless be able to hopelessly confuse the situation with all those red herrings. As the old saying goes: If you throw enough camels**t against the wall, some of it will eventually stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 where did he claim this? anyhow, my point was on the reliability and use of unnamed sources. It was the bit you cut out. he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Interesting reading in the somewhat lengthy blog the opening few paragraphs of which I have posted below,seems as there could be serious doubts as to the claims made by the two Red Shirt leaders concerning the matter http://blog.nationmu...05/15/entry-1eh Seh Daeng knows too much May 15, 2010 Circumstantial evidence has pointed to the Reds and a well-known politician, who allies himself with the Reds,?as the mastermind behind the assassination attempt against Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, alias Seh Daeng. Why is it so? Let me try to explain. The sniper who shot Maj-General Khattiya Sawasdipol on Thursday appeared to have used a Winchester rifle with a .308 bullet and fired it from a tall building, most probably the building on Rama IV road adjacent to the Dusit Thani Hotel. Military experts have told me that there are probably not more than 35?Norwegian-made Winchester rifles using .308 bullets in Thailand.?So it is not too difficult to trace the sniper from the use of this kind of rifle. There are not many sharpshooters in Thailand. This sniper is a well-trained professional, who could have?made it to the national sharp-shooting team. His job was to pull one trigger to complete the assignment that would turn the tide of the upheavals to the worst. The?sniper, I was told,?must have placed?his Winchester rifle on a?V-shaped stand while he was lying flat on the floor from a high-rise point. He was looking through the "night-eye" on his rifle and aiming his Winchester at Seh Daeng, who was giving his interview to the foreign reporters below. It was already 7:00 PM. In spite of the street lights, the visibility of Seh Daeng below was good but it might not be good enough for the sniper from atop the high-rise nearby, who had only one chance to pull his trigger.? Seh Daeng?propelled himself into the second generation of the red-shirt leadership after Jatuporn Promphan, Veera Musigapong, Natthawut Saikua and Dr Weng Tojirakarn wavered in the face of growing pressure from the Abhisit government. He was quite carefree during his routine surveillance of the Sala Daeng area, where the red shirts had set up barricades to protect their Rajaprasong encampment. He was in charge of the black-clad guards looking after the rally site of the Red Shirts. I have heard that his fee was Bt1 million a day alone. To read the lengthy full blog you will need to go to the address shown at the top of this post. note change courtesy of Why Bother see below. Link doesn't work. Here is the correct one: http://blog.nationmu...nt.php?id=14305 Edited October 22, 2012 by siampolee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 where did he claim this? anyhow, my point was on the reliability and use of unnamed sources. It was the bit you cut out. he has claimed he trained former para-military rangers as a “people’s army” to protect red shirt leaders and their followers – a claim supported by an unnamed military source. Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. where did he claim this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Interesting reading in the somewhat lengthy blog the opening few paragraphs of which I have posted below,seems as there could be serious doubts as to the claims made by the two Red Shirt leaders concerning the matter http://blog.nationmu...05/15/entry-1eh Seh Daeng knows too much <snip> To read the lengthy full blog you will need to go to the address shown at the top of this post. Link doesn't work. Here is the correct one: http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=14305 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. where did he claim this? It was reported here: http://www.reportageonline.com/2010/06/thailand-a-land-of-smiles-no-more/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" so you don't think the source backed up that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house? Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. His and an assistant being arrested with war weapons at their house and car also back up the claim. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. where did he claim this? It was reported here: http://www.reportage...smiles-no-more/ where did he claim this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. where did he claim this? It was reported here: http://www.reportage...smiles-no-more/ where did he claim this? Ask the reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) It wasn't the accusation that was supported. It was his claim. He claimed it. Someone else supported it. Of course, if you cut enough out, you can state that the source was holding up the house. "He has been publicly accused of keeping war weapons and ammunition in his house ... supported by an unnamed military source" so you don't think the source backed up that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house? Yes. The source backed up Kattiya's claim that he was keeping war weapons and ammo at his house. His and an assistant being arrested with war weapons at their house and car also back up the claim. . they found a few grenades in his home in a military compound in a search headed by his good buddy anupong according to the nation anyway. but "war weapons and ammunition" sounds so much more colourful doesn't it... Edited October 22, 2012 by nurofiend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ask the reporter. and again, where did he claim this? your linked article is not proving your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ask the reporter. and again, where did he claim this? your linked article is not proving your point. And again "ask the reporter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Were not the canon fodder under the impression the black shirts were there to protect them? That was the Red Shirt claim at one time, but then they had a Historical Revisionism and claimed they didn't know them....... Now, with even further Historical Revisionism, they are saying they never existed. . Next they will be saying,that they didn't try to burn down Bangkok either who's the first 'they' and then who's the second 'they'? red shirts? all inclusive yeah? They! meaning the Red shirts,not difficult to work out as they were the only ones doing the burning. Edited October 22, 2012 by MAJIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now