Bangkok 'Popcorn gunman' denies weapons charges

[AleG]

Your argument reads like: "but they started it", to which my mum would always say: "but you are responsible for how you react to it".

That is what i was told when i was about 10 years old, and it still applies today.

The PDRC started it? they started assembling bands of armed thugs to seek out and murder political rivals?

Did your mother teach you the meaning of intellectual honesty too?

It seems you did not understand my argument, so let me spell it out:

It does not matter who started it. If the other party starts it and you react by shooting a rifle into a crowd of people then you should be convicted for that. Or you disagree? You think this sort of action is normal in a civilized society?

And this is a conflict that is going on longer than this one incident. It is therefore very difficult to indicate who exactly started, how it started, and when it started. It has been escalating for decades already (as the PDRC represent the old elite) so simply saying "they started it" is quite useless.

Then you didn't even bother to read my reply since I quite clearly said that the shooter should be prosecuted.

Anyway, the fact that you :"liked" a post containing deliberate falsehoods (to put it delicately) tells everything that needs to know of your ability to asses facts.

[Prbkk]

I thank him for defending Mr Suthep and his group when the police would do absolutely nothing and now we all know how much the Thaksin supporters wanted to create havoc and acts of terrorism .

He should be given an award for bravery for helping to save lives.

You thank him for shooting and paralysing an unarmed grandfather. Weird morality you have.

[AleG]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

You are the one rewriting history, this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi, the "Popcorn Gunman" was not there to attack people attempting to vote, that's a complete distortion of the facts.

This shooter should face the law, obviously, but his actions were to defend people from murderous thugs not to attack voters, in case you forgot not long before another PDRC group was ambushed and their leader murdered in plain daylight by Red Shirts, that, surprise surprise, the police failed to prevent and arrest.

By the way, the same Ko Tee took his merry men to at least one other ambush after the incidents at Laksi, were they murdered one protestor and injured three other. Still police was unable to arrest him or any other member of his band of thugs.

Now tell us, since the police obviously proved to be ineffective (to put it very mildly, they actually helped Ko Tee escape from Laksi) stopping Red Shirts from murdering anti-PTP protesters, what recourse did they have to protect themselves?

For those non partisan TVF members, or even partisan ones who will at least allow themselves to consider sources other than PDRC websites and without resorting to inflammatory language such as "murderous thugs", perhaps this report from someone who was there will shed some light on what actually happened. Yes, I know it was written by Nick Nostitz but the people who immediately brand him and his articles as biased or red propaganda will not read it anyway - this link is for the other, more open minded members of TVF

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/

So what? The Red Shirt went there with the intention to attack the PDRC, just as I said in my previous post.

They deliberately chose to have an armed confrontation with the protesters at Laksi, it was a plain act of aggression led (in part) by a man that made no secret of his intentions to use violence against his enemies.

Now Fab4, shows some modicum of intellectual honesty and answer this, did groups of Red Shirts deliberately attack with deadly force anti-PTP protesters yes or no?

Hint, the answer is yes.

If you don't like when people that deliberately seek out to attack and kill their opponents are called "murderous thugs"; suck it up, that's what you have to deal when you choose to be an apologist for such groups.

Edited August 26, 2014 by AleG

[EnglishJohn]

The mention of the yellows is a response to Ricardo's post. It seems that you see no difference between a protest and blocking access to ballot boxes with an automatic rifle. That is why some of us cannot really take the arguments here very seriously.

Every time a red-shirt posts nonsense like this, it lowers my opinion of anything else they say by one more notch. Thailand has no chance to get out of the red-shirt/yellow shirt mess if people swallow propaganda without any intelligent filtering.

As a farang watching everything as it happened, it was quiet clear that the popcorn shooter was a paid guard who was there because the police did absolutely nothing to protect protesters from frequent armed terrorist attacks from red-shirts. It was also quite clear that they were under attack by a group of these red-shirts who discovered they didn't have a turkey-shoot this time.

The question we all want answered is who ordered these attacks : it must have come from the very top.

On a separate note - what is Chalerm doing these days ?.

[city]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

The PDRC were very obviously under attack, there is plenty of video footage supporting this - so you are wrong

and again I'm not saying I approve in any way of what happened, but since the PDRC had to provide their own protection it is no surprise some of them were armed for defence only - I assume you understand the difference between defence and offence - being attacked and doing the attacking - passive and aggressive ......right ?

If you watch The RT Channel account on utube you will see the reporter saying that both groups had retired to different ends of the street about 400m apart. It was the Suthep gunman who came with mates on a truck who were looking to cause death and mayhem...allowing the army to justify its coup. Fortunately the Reds did not respond to such provacation.

Now the world saw this and we assume the Thai Army saw this so why did they not come out and crush the Suthep mob then return to the barracks and support the democratically elected government. Silly me I forget...

[citizen33]

The mention of the yellows is a response to Ricardo's post. It seems that you see no difference between a protest and blocking access to ballot boxes with an automatic rifle. That is why some of us cannot really take the arguments here very seriously.

Now there's a post that really is hard to follow

Smedly has edited his post to correct his mistaken attribution of the phrase 'yellow side' to me rather than Ricardo, and then has the cheek to say he doesn't understand my post! Not untypical I guess. Looking at the thread many of the posters who continually harp on about uneducated Isaan peasants struggle to comprehend the Queen's English and probably didn't enjoy an education of their own much beyond sixteen.

This incident took place on the day before the scheduled election, when it was becoming clear that there would be a coordinated effort to disrupt the vote. The key point that still isn't clear in the thread and which was widely reported at the time is as follows:

'The daytime clash broke out in the district of Lak Si after opposition demonstrators blocked ballot boxes from being delivered for a general election.'

The quote comes from this article that also contains other relevant background for anybody who really cannot remember.

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/thai-popcorn-gunman-says-he-was-hired-by-protest-leader.html

But the story was and is all over the internet.

[Dogmatix]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

The PDRC were very obviously under attack, there is plenty of video footage supporting this - so you are wrong

and again I'm not saying I approve in any way of what happened, but since the PDRC had to provide their own protection it is no surprise some of them were armed for defence only - I assume you understand the difference between defence and offence - being attacked and doing the attacking - passive and aggressive ......right ?

It is very clear that the PDRC were been shot at. Nearly all the reporters and cameramen were with the PDRC and got a good view of the PDRC shooters but not the red shirt ones. Even Nick Nostitz, who was with Kotee's red shirt mob, said he saw a red shirt gunman firing at the PDRC, although he said he wasn't fast enough to get a picture of him. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/ .

This was also only 6 days after the police watched Kotee's killers murder Sutin at Wat Bangna, beat someone to a pulp and then melt away. Despite video clips clearly showing the Sutin's shooter standing in the road repeatedly firing a hand gun into Sutin's truck

, until the junta took power, police continued to insist that Sutin had been murdered by his close friend who was on the same truck.

Carrying and using guns, particularly war weapons, in public is not defensible but it does help to understand the background to this. Police aiding and abetting murders is also not defensible.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Dogmatix

[citizen33]

The above is a rare acknowledgement that there were people on the yellow side firing weapons - in this case not as an offshoot of some legally-sanctioned popular demonstration or even an armed clash in a neutral space of the city, but to stop people gaining access to ballot boxes stored nearby, and so have a chance to vote in a legitimate election authorised by HM. In the rush to re-write history these little details are forgotten by many.

Maybe you should reread the article. I believe that he is denying the charges. Not acknowledging them. You have taken all out of context and changed it to suit your needs which is typical of some who don't look at all the facts or only want to see what they have been brainwashed to see. Im not sayin you are thinking like someone who is brainwashed. Only that you twisted this article to make your point of view correct.

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Please review the thread and consider what is 'above' my post. It is of course the post written by Ricardo.

[fab4]

For those non partisan TVF members, or even partisan ones who will at least allow themselves to consider sources other than PDRC websites and without resorting to inflammatory language such as "murderous thugs", perhaps this report from someone who was there will shed some light on what actually happened. Yes, I know it was written by Nick Nostitz but the people who immediately brand him and his articles as biased or red propaganda will not read it anyway - this link is for the other, more open minded members of TVF

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/02/07/the-laksi-gunfight/

So what? The Red Shirt went there with the intention to attack the PDRC, just as I said in my previous post.

They deliberately chose to have an armed confrontation with the protesters at Laksi, it was a plain act of aggression led (in part) by a man that made no secret of his intentions to use violence against his enemies.

Now Fab4, shows some modicum of intellectual honesty and answer this, did groups of Red Shirts deliberately attack with deadly force anti-PTP protesters yes or no?

Hint, the answer is yes.

If you don't like when people that deliberately seek out to attack and kill their opponents are called "murderous thugs"; suck it up, that's what you have to deal when you choose to be an apologist for such groups.

You didn't read the article, as I predicted. If you had, you would have seen that the first person shot was a red shirt. If that equates, in your small world, to "groups of red shirts deliberately attack(ing) with deadly force anti-PTP protesters" there is very little point in further discussion.

[AleG]

So what? The Red Shirt went there with the intention to attack the PDRC, just as I said in my previous post.

They deliberately chose to have an armed confrontation with the protesters at Laksi, it was a plain act of aggression led (in part) by a man that made no secret of his intentions to use violence against his enemies.

Now Fab4, shows some modicum of intellectual honesty and answer this, did groups of Red Shirts deliberately attack with deadly force anti-PTP protesters yes or no?

Hint, the answer is yes.

If you don't like when people that deliberately seek out to attack and kill their opponents are called "murderous thugs"; suck it up, that's what you have to deal when you choose to be an apologist for such groups.

You didn't read the article, as I predicted. If you had, you would have seen that the first person shot was a red shirt. If that equates, in your small world, to "groups of red shirts deliberately attack(ing) with deadly force anti-PTP protesters" there is very little point in further discussion.

Indeed, once again you clearly demonstrated your total lack of intellectual honesty, no point in talking with such a person.

[fab4]

So what? The Red Shirt went there with the intention to attack the PDRC, just as I said in my previous post.

They deliberately chose to have an armed confrontation with the protesters at Laksi, it was a plain act of aggression led (in part) by a man that made no secret of his intentions to use violence against his enemies.

Now Fab4, shows some modicum of intellectual honesty and answer this, did groups of Red Shirts deliberately attack with deadly force anti-PTP protesters yes or no?

Hint, the answer is yes.

If you don't like when people that deliberately seek out to attack and kill their opponents are called "murderous thugs"; suck it up, that's what you have to deal when you choose to be an apologist for such groups.

You didn't read the article, as I predicted. If you had, you would have seen that the first person shot was a red shirt. If that equates, in your small world, to "groups of red shirts deliberately attack(ing) with deadly force anti-PTP protesters" there is very little point in further discussion.

Indeed, once again you clearly demonstrated your total lack of intellectual honesty, no point in talking with such a person.

I'm not sure how I demonstrated my "total lack of intellectual honesty" by providing information from an eyewitness that your interpretation of events was incorrect, but if it makes you happy, fine.

Happiness without critical thinking is encouraged by certain people so you could go far.

[Bob12345]

Then you didn't even bother to read my reply since I quite clearly said that the shooter should be prosecuted.

Anyway, the fact that you :"liked" a post containing deliberate falsehoods (to put it delicately) tells everything that needs to know of your ability to asses facts.

Let me assess some facts:

1. you have no idea why i liked that post, you assume it is because i totally agree with it but fact is that you don't know that.

2. you have no idea if the post i liked contains "deliberate falsehoods". It is a fact that the post is not completely correct, but you have no idea if that was deliberate or not.

3. you have no idea if i bothered to read your reply or not.

So how am i scoring on your "ability to assess facts" scaling system?

[Bob12345]

What........ you are still 10 years old?

You might want to consider limiting your online presence to just reading only as this is not adding much.

[belg]

how did that gun suddenly appear there, certainly not mine... i didn't do it ...

looooooooooooooooooooooool

every thief, even caught red handed, will give you the same story

[Loles]

And where is his big master from Surat ?

[metisdead]

A post of nonsensical and obfuscation nature has been removed as well as a reply.

[khunken]

So what? The Red Shirt went there with the intention to attack the PDRC, just as I said in my previous post.

They deliberately chose to have an armed confrontation with the protesters at Laksi, it was a plain act of aggression led (in part) by a man that made no secret of his intentions to use violence against his enemies.

Now Fab4, shows some modicum of intellectual honesty and answer this, did groups of Red Shirts deliberately attack with deadly force anti-PTP protesters yes or no?

Hint, the answer is yes.

If you don't like when people that deliberately seek out to attack and kill their opponents are called "murderous thugs"; suck it up, that's what you have to deal when you choose to be an apologist for such groups.

You didn't read the article, as I predicted. If you had, you would have seen that the first person shot was a red shirt. If that equates, in your small world, to "groups of red shirts deliberately attack(ing) with deadly force anti-PTP protesters" there is very little point in further discussion.

Indeed, once again you clearly demonstrated your total lack of intellectual honesty, no point in talking with such a person.

I'm not sure how I demonstrated my "total lack of intellectual honesty" by providing information from an eyewitness that your interpretation of events was incorrect, but if it makes you happy, fine.

Happiness without critical thinking is encouraged by certain people so you could go far.

Intellectual dishonesty is demonstrated by posting so-called information from a source that is not credible. Nick Nostitz is a biased source who clearly demonstrated his pro-red shirt slant on this forum and pissed off when his mis-information was getting nowhere. He is not a credible source.

The accused will have his day(s) in court, unlike Ko Tee who has more blood on his hands than a dozen popcorn shooters. He was protected by the police during his numerous attacks on the PDRC protestors and instead of being charged or arrested he was allowed to do a "Thaksin' before the army got the police to do they job they're paid for.

[AleG]

Then you didn't even bother to read my reply since I quite clearly said that the shooter should be prosecuted.

Anyway, the fact that you :"liked" a post containing deliberate falsehoods (to put it delicately) tells everything that needs to know of your ability to asses facts.

Let me assess some facts:

1. you have no idea why i liked that post, you assume it is because i totally agree with it but fact is that you don't know that.

2. you have no idea if the post i liked contains "deliberate falsehoods". It is a fact that the post is not completely correct, but you have no idea if that was deliberate or not.

3. you have no idea if i bothered to read your reply or not.

So how am i scoring on your "ability to assess facts" scaling system?

You are not assessing facts, you are obfuscating to save face.

1 So why did you "like" the post if you don't agree with it?

2 It contains an obvious falsehood, namely that the Popcorn Shooter went to Laksi to shoot at people that wanted to cast their votes, do you agree that is a falsehood yes or no?

3 Did you read my reply yes or no?

You are scoring pretty badly.

[Robespiere]

Then you didn't even bother to read my reply since I quite clearly said that the shooter should be prosecuted.

Anyway, the fact that you :"liked" a post containing deliberate falsehoods (to put it delicately) tells everything that needs to know of your ability to asses facts.

Let me assess some facts:

1. you have no idea why i liked that post, you assume it is because i totally agree with it but fact is that you don't know that.

2. you have no idea if the post i liked contains "deliberate falsehoods". It is a fact that the post is not completely correct, but you have no idea if that was deliberate or not.

3. you have no idea if i bothered to read your reply or not.

So how am i scoring on your "ability to assess facts" scaling system?

You are not assessing facts, you are obfuscating to save face.

1 So why did you "like" the post if you don't agree with it?

2 It contains an obvious falsehood, namely that the Popcorn Shooter went to Laksi to shoot at people that wanted to cast their votes, do you agree that is a falsehood yes or no?

3 Did you read my reply yes or no?

You are scoring pretty badly.

Obvious falsehood??

A man heads out on election day, takes a loaded weapon, conceals it in a popcorn bag, wears a balaclava to hide his identity, has a spotter accompany him - seems to me he had but one, single, solitary intention - to shoot at people that wanted to cast their vote.

Surprise, surprise - he actually did shoot and grievously wound voters.

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths.

What chance has humanity when there exists so many hateful fools amongst us.

[AleG]

You didn't read the article, as I predicted. If you had, you would have seen that the first person shot was a red shirt. If that equates, in your small world, to "groups of red shirts deliberately attack(ing) with deadly force anti-PTP protesters" there is very little point in further discussion.

Indeed, once again you clearly demonstrated your total lack of intellectual honesty, no point in talking with such a person.

I'm not sure how I demonstrated my "total lack of intellectual honesty" by providing information from an eyewitness that your interpretation of events was incorrect, but if it makes you happy, fine.

Happiness without critical thinking is encouraged by certain people so you could go far.

Your total lack of intellectual honesty is demonstrated by the fact that you chose to ignore the direct question in my post, you know the answer is yes but you won't admit it because that would go against your agenda.

Furthermore by claiming that my "interpretation" of the facts differs from what the linked article, which incidentally I did read, today and some time ago.

The Red Shirts gathered with the purpose of violently confronting the PDRC at Laksi, that Nick Nostitz, who happened to be within the Red Shirt group, first saw a bullet wound within that group is immaterial to that fact, because A) it doesn't mean that it was the first gun injury during the clash and B ) even if it was the first person injured by gunfire it doesn't mean that the shooting began from the PDRC side and, more relevantly, C) it doesn't disprove that the Red Shirts assembled and marched with the explicit intent of confronting the PDRC in the first place. I can go and get some crayons to explain it better if need be.

So do tell (expecting some more BS) where does the report you linked at proves that what I wrote ("this man showed up after an armed group of Red Shirts assembled by Ko Tee moved in to attack the PDRC protesters at Laksi") is incorrect.

Can you do that or are you going to weasel around some more?

It is also demonstrated by the way you targeted me for allegedly misrepresenting the facts instead of the post I originally referred to (#3), why don't you go and pester Citizen33 for creating "facts" out of whole cloth instead? Because the lies fit with the same narrative you want to perpetuate?

Regarding that here's another question you will ignore: did the Popcorn Gunman go to Laksi to shoot at people trying to cast their votes yes or no?

[NeilSA1]

What........ you are still 10 years old?

You might want to consider limiting your online presence to just reading only as this is not adding much.

I considered keeping my comments short, because i could not believe that you were equating a time honored saying, applicable to children aged 10 years, with the dangerous and life threatening action which was taking place in Thailand at the time.

[AleG]

You are not assessing facts, you are obfuscating to save face.

1 So why did you "like" the post if you don't agree with it?

2 It contains an obvious falsehood, namely that the Popcorn Shooter went to Laksi to shoot at people that wanted to cast their votes, do you agree that is a falsehood yes or no?

3 Did you read my reply yes or no?

You are scoring pretty badly.

Obvious falsehood??

A man heads out on election day, takes a loaded weapon, conceals it in a popcorn bag, wears a balaclava to hide his identity, has a spotter accompany him - seems to me he had but one, single, solitary intention - to shoot at people that wanted to cast their vote.

Surprise, surprise - he actually did shoot and grievously wound voters.

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths.

What chance has humanity when there exists so many hateful fools amongst us.

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

[bangrak]

It must be my old age, but I can't remember seeing a M16 in that corn bag, looked like a Tavor to me, but, hey, both are 'light army rifle' chambering the same 5.56mm NATO, leathal war weapons, but no 'machinegun' anyway (as some write), it won't change much when you are hit by a bullet, but would it have been a machinegun, with its much faster (bursts) rate of firing it would have made the consequences a lot worse. When I'd be right(?) about the rifle's type though, the suspect (that's what he still is) would technically be very right to deny knowing anything about the M16... Wrong evidence, bad journalism, my mistake...?

Oh, and Surrathani = 'yellow' = Suthep, is not any more a right statement than, f.i., ChiangMai = 'red' = Thaksin, but some people would like to keep the country 'polarised' to further persue their vindictive goals and dominant interests, I would call them 'the enemies of reconciliation'...

[Robespiere]

You are not assessing facts, you are obfuscating to save face.

1 So why did you "like" the post if you don't agree with it?

2 It contains an obvious falsehood, namely that the Popcorn Shooter went to Laksi to shoot at people that wanted to cast their votes, do you agree that is a falsehood yes or no?

3 Did you read my reply yes or no?

You are scoring pretty badly.

Obvious falsehood??

A man heads out on election day, takes a loaded weapon, conceals it in a popcorn bag, wears a balaclava to hide his identity, has a spotter accompany him - seems to me he had but one, single, solitary intention - to shoot at people that wanted to cast their vote.

Surprise, surprise - he actually did shoot and grievously wound voters.

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths.

What chance has humanity when there exists so many hateful fools amongst us.

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

[AleG]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

What an utterly pathetic answer.

[Robespiere]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

What an utterly pathetic answer.

How so?

[NeilSA1]

You are not assessing facts, you are obfuscating to save face.

1 So why did you "like" the post if you don't agree with it?

2 It contains an obvious falsehood, namely that the Popcorn Shooter went to Laksi to shoot at people that wanted to cast their votes, do you agree that is a falsehood yes or no?

3 Did you read my reply yes or no?

You are scoring pretty badly.

Obvious falsehood??

A man heads out on election day, takes a loaded weapon, conceals it in a popcorn bag, wears a balaclava to hide his identity, has a spotter accompany him - seems to me he had but one, single, solitary intention - to shoot at people that wanted to cast their vote.

Surprise, surprise - he actually did shoot and grievously wound voters.

It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths.

What chance has humanity when there exists so many hateful fools amongst us.

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

Were all the voters 'red' supporters ? i understood that voters of other persuasions also went to the polls, albeit to spoil their votes.

[Bob12345]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

What an utterly pathetic answer.

It is the exact same reasoning as you are using, so please enlighten us why this reply is different from your reply?

[Robespiere]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

Were all the voters 'red' supporters ? i understood that voters of other persuasions also went to the polls, albeit to spoil their votes.

Not all the voters were Red, but all the Reds were voters.

[AleG]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

What an utterly pathetic answer.

How so?

This so: "It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths."

Instead of facing the simple truth that the man went there to counteract the Red Shirts that marched against the PDRC you chose to believe the newly minted lie that he went there to shoot at people merely for going to a poll station to cast their votes.

The notion is not only ridiculous, it is not supported by any facts or reasonable argument, only by blind "bigotry, prejudice and fanaticism".

As with Fab4, absolute lack of intellectual honesty.