Probe intensifies to find out if politicians and officials were involved in assassination plot

[Get Real]

45 minutes ago, debate101 said:

 

Well, for starters, the burden of proof is on the party making the extraordinary claim, not the people questioning it. The fact that most in Thailand do not seem to understand this simple concept is what makes authoritarianism so (apparently) successful here as a rationale for governance. Many people will believe them simply because they are in positions of authority and are the "good people."

 

Not only that, but military dictatorships in Thailand, as well as in other countries, have long histories of planting evidence to go after opponents. You really should be skeptical of any and all claims they make unless clear evidence is forthcoming.

OK! Let history, statistics and authority set the rules for the line of truth.

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

If you look at the detailed account (see link below, there is the same description in other sources, see Google), only one guy was identified as wearing black clothes (if the picture is reliable). It is at most a clue, not a proof that "black shirts were red shirts".

Repeating it in nearly every post you make will not make it more valid than what it is: only your personal opinion. Additionally, the fact the 5 suspects were paraded in black clothes and forced to do a public reconstruction of the killings after one week during which they claim to have been tortured (of course it never happens in Thailand ;)), is not particularly a clue of fair process.

http://www.thephuketnews.com/two-men-in-black-get-10-years-three-others-freed-60858.php#8W3k0rFziRHkpXci.97

In today’s verdict, the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants by witnesses at the scene, including an undercover police officer, and could not provide alibis proving otherwise.  (so the court said this in their verdict). Then its a fact.. so you better change your alternative facts. 

[sjaak327]

49 minutes ago, halloween said:

Doh. It was a comment on your rule numbers 2 and 3 - insinuating that it would be less than intelligent to store weapons where they were found.

Never mind that. Care to explain why weapons alledgely stolen in 2010 are just now found at the home of someone who publicly talked about armed resistence more than three years ago. And the icing on the cake is that the people from the flying saucer in Phatum Thani are "linked" to this weapons find.

 

Me thinks some people have left their brains at BKk or DMK or whatever airport they used to arrive in this kingdom of utter bullshit. When something sounds too good to be true, it always is.

Edited March 21, 2017 by sjaak327

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, jaywalker said:

Fake news as in I have Trump's tax returns!

 

It really is crazy how the media will make a mountain out of a molehill if it doesn't fir their agenda.

 

Seeing how we get not much other than USSR style Pravda (otherwise it's off to the galag), I'd wager this news piece is aimed to help the powers that currently be.

 

 

Happens here on TV as well

[candide]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

In today’s verdict, the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants by witnesses at the scene, including an undercover police officer, and could not provide alibis proving otherwise.  (so the court said this in their verdict). Then its a fact.. so you better change your alternative facts. 

Which today's verdict? The source you quoted is from January. What you call my alternative facts have been published in several sources.

Edited March 21, 2017 by candide

[robblok]

29 minutes ago, candide said:

Which today's verdict? The source you quoted is from January. What you call my alternative facts have been published in several sources.

Yes you got alternative news, i posted an article from the Khaosod a pro red newspaper. In that article it clearly states that the judges stated in the verdict (real important) that the people convicted were seen at the riots armed in black.

 

So you can moan all you want a pro red newspaper quoted the verdict of the judges and they stated it proven that these men were the armed blackshirts at the riots. So could you please stop denying it and stop with your alternative news. The judgement itself mentioned it as proven. Done.. end of discussion. Its a fact.  Now I know you don't like it but from now on its proven in court that the redshirts were the armed blackshirts that shot at the army. 

 

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/01/31/blackshirt-suspects-acquitted-court-returned-jail/

 

From the article :

 

In today’s verdict, the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants by witnesses at the scene, including an undercover police officer, and could not provide alibis proving otherwise.

Edited March 21, 2017 by robblok

[jaywalker]

2 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Happens here on TV as well

My point exactly.

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes you got alternative news, i posted an article from the Khaosod a pro red newspaper. In that article it clearly states that the judges stated in the verdict (real important) that the people convicted were seen at the riots armed in black.

 

So you can moan all you want a pro red newspaper quoted the verdict of the judges and they stated it proven that these men were the armed blackshirts at the riots. So could you please stop denying it and stop with your alternative news. The judgement itself mentioned it as proven. Done.. end of discussion. Its a fact.  Now I know you don't like it but from now on its proven in court that the redshirts were the armed blackshirts that shot at the army. 

 

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/01/31/blackshirt-suspects-acquitted-court-returned-jail/

 

From the article :

 

In today’s verdict, the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants by witnesses at the scene, including an undercover police officer, and could not provide alibis proving otherwise.

"the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants"

That's your absolute proof? Is it written they were convicted of murder as the black shirts who shot at the army as you state in your posts? It is nowhere in your source or in others. Actually they have been cleared of the initial charge from the army's conspiracy theory that they were the ones who shot.

It is only your inference (opinion) that you present as proven fact.

[robblok]

32 minutes ago, candide said:

"the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants"

That's your absolute proof? Is it written they were convicted of murder as the black shirts who shot at the army as you state in your posts? It is nowhere in your source or in others. Actually they have been cleared of the initial charge from the army's conspiracy theory that they were the ones who shot.

It is only your inference (opinion) that you present as proven fact.

Its 100% proof that redshirts were armed blackshirts at the protest area's. 

 

Its written in the verdict itself that they were identified as armed black shirts in the protest area.. you can't deny that its done. Now stop spreading false news.

 

The only thing that i havent proven 100% is that they fired at the army. But its already proven that the redshirts were the blackshirts and were armed. Now its a small step to accept they also fired on the army. You on the other hand deny that without ANY proof that there was an other group of blackshirts. So according to Ocams razor my theory is far more likely then yours of an other group of armed blackshirts without any proof.

 

So please give up in dignity. 

[candide]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its 100% proof that redshirts were armed blackshirts at the protest area's. 

 

Its written in the verdict itself that they were identified as armed black shirts in the protest area.. you can't deny that its done. Now stop spreading false news.

 

The only thing that i havent proven 100% is that they fired at the army. But its already proven that the redshirts were the blackshirts and were armed. Now its a small step to accept they also fired on the army. You on the other hand deny that without ANY proof that there was an other group of blackshirts. So according to Ocams razor my theory is far more likely then yours of an other group of armed blackshirts without any proof.

 

So please give up in dignity. 

It is written that that they were the ''armed militants". It is a very vague sentence. On the various detailed accounts, two guys convicted of weapon possession, one of them formerly identified with black clothes, in a case that was conducted in a manner that may be contested. A clue,  not an irrefutable proof.

You may repeat your claim in every post you make, it will not become a proof for that.

 

As far as I am concerned I don't have a favorite scenario in the absence of proof. Nobody knows who were the men in black, it may be these guys or other people. As you mentioned when people have their head covered you cannot know who they are. It means that the culprits can easily pretend it was not them, and also that anybody saying that someone is a man in black cannot be proven wrong either.

 

However, my experience of various claims by the current authorities involving "ill- intentioned people", findings that conveniently occur at the requested time, etc...make me very dubious

 

PS By the way, the popcorn gunman was also a man in black. A red shirt too?

[robblok]

2 hours ago, candide said:

It is written that that they were the ''armed militants". It is a very vague sentence. On the various detailed accounts, two guys convicted of weapon possession, one of them formerly identified with black clothes, in a case that was conducted in a manner that may be contested. A clue,  not an irrefutable proof.

You may repeat your claim in every post you make, it will not become a proof for that.

 

As far as I am concerned I don't have a favorite scenario in the absence of proof. Nobody knows who were the men in black, it may be these guys or other people. As you mentioned when people have their head covered you cannot know who they are. It means that the culprits can easily pretend it was not them, and also that anybody saying that someone is a man in black cannot be proven wrong either.

 

However, my experience of various claims by the current authorities involving "ill- intentioned people", findings that conveniently occur at the requested time, etc...make me very dubious

 

PS By the way, the popcorn gunman was also a man in black. A red shirt too?

Its not vague at all your clutching at straws because a judge finally made a ruling that they were the armed black shirts at the protest sites. He made this remark in the verdict.. you know verdict what your charged for and what is proven.. that is what a verdict is.

 

So that is 100% proof of them being at the protest sites in black armed, they are redshits.. so its 100% correct when i state that the redshirts were the blackshirts and its backed up by a court VERDICT.  

 

You can wiggle all you want its proof and you can try to change it with your alternate news but that would make you a liar.

 

You are now floating a theory that there were more groups of blackshirts.. this is HIGHLY unlikely it just shows how far you go to not have to point a finger at your redshirts.

 

Its actually quite sad that you try to keep it up going against a court verdict, that is absolute proof.

 

Your theory... is funny.. you know that these redshirts were the men in back.. as its proven can't be denied.. but now your saying there might have been others too. Yea.. sure... just study Ocam's razor and you might learn something.

 

The closeness of the blackshirts to the redshirts on the pictures would give you hints too.. do you think the redshirts would let unknown people so close to them without knowing they were theirs.. 

 

But nothing I can say can persuade you because you got a closed mind and will go for any scenario.. no matter how unlikely it is with the proof of this verdict to exonerate the redshirts. Your boring.. good thing that people who read posts can see what is more likely.

 

As for the pop corn man, he was not a redshirt.. and you got your dates all wrong (no wonder your arguments are weak). Popcorn man was years later and it was clear that he was yellow because he was in the middle of a group of anti government supporters. Just like the blackshirts were among the redshirts... do you understand ?.. Anyway that guy is now in jail where he should be, funny though that they could not catch any of the red killers but could find him so fast. Talk about bias of looking for people.. see your beloved PTP was doing exactly the same thing. Not going after the criminals that helped them but only those on the other side.  Did not hear any of your red supporters moan about that. But now .. moaning about going after the reds.. feels different when the shoe is on the other foot doesnt it.

 

Anyway I am happy the popcorn man got caught he risked countless of people and killed someone, though in all fairness if the CAPO had done its work and arrested the red shirts under KO Tee... funny how he pops up at Chang Wattana that were shooting at the protesters there would not have been need for the pop corn man.

 

 

 

 

[jerojero]

Insisting it was not staged. Why would this have to be mentioned? Something's suspicious in light of such an assertion!

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Its not vague at all your clutching at straws because a judge finally made a ruling that they were the armed black shirts at the protest sites. He made this remark in the verdict.. you know verdict what your charged for and what is proven.. that is what a verdict is.

 

So that is 100% proof of them being at the protest sites in black armed, they are redshits.. so its 100% correct when i state that the redshirts were the blackshirts and its backed up by a court VERDICT.  

 

You can wiggle all you want its proof and you can try to change it with your alternate news but that would make you a liar.

 

You are now floating a theory that there were more groups of blackshirts.. this is HIGHLY unlikely it just shows how far you go to not have to point a finger at your redshirts.

 

Its actually quite sad that you try to keep it up going against a court verdict, that is absolute proof.

 

Your theory... is funny.. you know that these redshirts were the men in back.. as its proven can't be denied.. but now your saying there might have been others too. Yea.. sure... just study Ocam's razor and you might learn something.

 

The closeness of the blackshirts to the redshirts on the pictures would give you hints too.. do you think the redshirts would let unknown people so close to them without knowing they were theirs.. 

 

But nothing I can say can persuade you because you got a closed mind and will go for any scenario.. no matter how unlikely it is with the proof of this verdict to exonerate the redshirts. Your boring.. good thing that people who read posts can see what is more likely.

 

As for the pop corn man, he was not a redshirt.. and you got your dates all wrong (no wonder your arguments are weak). Popcorn man was years later and it was clear that he was yellow because he was in the middle of a group of anti government supporters. Just like the blackshirts were among the redshirts... do you understand ?.. Anyway that guy is now in jail where he should be, funny though that they could not catch any of the red killers but could find him so fast. Talk about bias of looking for people.. see your beloved PTP was doing exactly the same thing. Not going after the criminals that helped them but only those on the other side.  Did not hear any of your red supporters moan about that. But now .. moaning about going after the reds.. feels different when the shoe is on the other foot doesnt it.

 

Anyway I am happy the popcorn man got caught he risked countless of people and killed someone, though in all fairness if the CAPO had done its work and arrested the red shirts under KO Tee... funny how he pops up at Chang Wattana that were shooting at the protesters there would not have been need for the pop corn man.

 

 

 

 

Can't you read my posts instead of being closed in your obsession. Where did I mention an alternate theory of your invention (I quote you: You are now floating a theory that there were more groups of blackshirts")?

Can't you read this: (self-quote) " As far as I am concerned I don't have a favorite scenario in the absence of proof. Nobody knows who were the men in black, it may be these guys or other people "? I don't know, OK?

So there was one guy in black with arms. Maybe 2, I never found any detail stating that he has been identified in black, only about him carrying weapons in a van - you can check. But OK, I give you 2 if it pleases you. So what? Two guys dressed in black with weapons (if the process was fair despite suspect conditions like 5 guys paraded in black clothes after being alledgly tortured_-And please don't tell me it never happens in Thailand, i.e. the B2, the people who mysteriously disappear or die in prison, etc...). So again, if it is true, you have a clue not a proof as nobody has identified the men in black who shot. Up to my knowledge there is not an official office providing black clothes only to accredited people and checking they belong only to a specific group.

 

You are absolutely entitled to draw your opinion from it, but it remains an opinion. Not more.

 

As for the popcorn gunman, you should have noticed that I was being sarcastic. It shows that anyone can hide under black clothes or another colour if he doesn't want to be identified.

 

As we talk about it, this stupid guy was caught and convicted. What about the people who provided him with an illegal weapon? How is it that the Thai judiciary that you seem to trust so much did not enquire about it and follow the trail of the network providing illegal weapons?

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Its not vague at all your clutching at straws because a judge finally made a ruling that they were the armed black shirts at the protest sites. He made this remark in the verdict.. you know verdict what your charged for and what is proven.. that is what a verdict is.

 

So that is 100% proof of them being at the protest sites in black armed, they are redshits.. so its 100% correct when i state that the redshirts were the blackshirts and its backed up by a court VERDICT.  

 

You can wiggle all you want its proof and you can try to change it with your alternate news but that would make you a liar.

 

You are now floating a theory that there were more groups of blackshirts.. this is HIGHLY unlikely it just shows how far you go to not have to point a finger at your redshirts.

 

Its actually quite sad that you try to keep it up going against a court verdict, that is absolute proof.

 

Your theory... is funny.. you know that these redshirts were the men in back.. as its proven can't be denied.. but now your saying there might have been others too. Yea.. sure... just study Ocam's razor and you might learn something.

 

The closeness of the blackshirts to the redshirts on the pictures would give you hints too.. do you think the redshirts would let unknown people so close to them without knowing they were theirs.. 

 

But nothing I can say can persuade you because you got a closed mind and will go for any scenario.. no matter how unlikely it is with the proof of this verdict to exonerate the redshirts. Your boring.. good thing that people who read posts can see what is more likely.

 

As for the pop corn man, he was not a redshirt.. and you got your dates all wrong (no wonder your arguments are weak). Popcorn man was years later and it was clear that he was yellow because he was in the middle of a group of anti government supporters. Just like the blackshirts were among the redshirts... do you understand ?.. Anyway that guy is now in jail where he should be, funny though that they could not catch any of the red killers but could find him so fast. Talk about bias of looking for people.. see your beloved PTP was doing exactly the same thing. Not going after the criminals that helped them but only those on the other side.  Did not hear any of your red supporters moan about that. But now .. moaning about going after the reds.. feels different when the shoe is on the other foot doesnt it.

 

Anyway I am happy the popcorn man got caught he risked countless of people and killed someone, though in all fairness if the CAPO had done its work and arrested the red shirts under KO Tee... funny how he pops up at Chang Wattana that were shooting at the protesters there would not have been need for the pop corn man.

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't popcorn gunman get caught because someone photographed him with his mask off, and he was identified from that?

[halloween]

13 hours ago, sjaak327 said:

Never mind that. Care to explain why weapons alledgely stolen in 2010 are just now found at the home of someone who publicly talked about armed resistence more than three years ago. And the icing on the cake is that the people from the flying saucer in Phatum Thani are "linked" to this weapons find.

 

Me thinks some people have left their brains at BKk or DMK or whatever airport they used to arrive in this kingdom of utter bullshit. When something sounds too good to be true, it always is.

So your denial is based on a view that the RTP are far too experienced and efficient to have taken this long?

As usual you deny and obfuscate, and claim proven facts are mere opinion, because they don't suit your agenda.

[sjaak327]

9 hours ago, halloween said:

So your denial is based on a view that the RTP are far too experienced and efficient to have taken this long?

As usual you deny and obfuscate, and claim proven facts are mere opinion, because they don't suit your agenda.

What proven facts ? Pray tell where exactly is the proof that links the flying saucer with this weapons find ? The only fact is they found weapons, all the rest has not been proven, we will have to take their word for it. Since they have shown tl be compulsive liars, I take all of this with a pinch of salt. By the way, my only agenda is democracy, so any chance to get these undemocratic clowns out of the picture is justified.

[robblok]

16 hours ago, candide said:

Can't you read my posts instead of being closed in your obsession. Where did I mention an alternate theory of your invention (I quote you: You are now floating a theory that there were more groups of blackshirts")?

Can't you read this: (self-quote) " As far as I am concerned I don't have a favorite scenario in the absence of proof. Nobody knows who were the men in black, it may be these guys or other people "? I don't know, OK?

So there was one guy in black with arms. Maybe 2, I never found any detail stating that he has been identified in black, only about him carrying weapons in a van - you can check. But OK, I give you 2 if it pleases you. So what? Two guys dressed in black with weapons (if the process was fair despite suspect conditions like 5 guys paraded in black clothes after being alledgly tortured_-And please don't tell me it never happens in Thailand, i.e. the B2, the people who mysteriously disappear or die in prison, etc...). So again, if it is true, you have a clue not a proof as nobody has identified the men in black who shot. Up to my knowledge there is not an official office providing black clothes only to accredited people and checking they belong only to a specific group.

 

You are absolutely entitled to draw your opinion from it, but it remains an opinion. Not more.

 

As for the popcorn gunman, you should have noticed that I was being sarcastic. It shows that anyone can hide under black clothes or another colour if he doesn't want to be identified.

 

As we talk about it, this stupid guy was caught and convicted. What about the people who provided him with an illegal weapon? How is it that the Thai judiciary that you seem to trust so much did not enquire about it and follow the trail of the network providing illegal weapons?

How many times do i have to tell you its not an opinion its fact.

 

The judge mentioned in the verdict that they were identified on the site by witnesses and an undercover cop. 

 

When a judge states that in a verdict its fact.. could you please just acknowledge that.

[candide]

37 minutes ago, robblok said:

How many times do i have to tell you its not an opinion its fact.

 

The judge mentioned in the verdict that they were identified on the site by witnesses and an undercover cop. 

 

When a judge states that in a verdict its fact.. could you please just acknowledge that.

They have been cleared of the initial accusation of being the ones who shot, and charged for weapon possession and carrying . How many times do I have to tell you.

 

As for the details they are in the link I provided. They are very clear as to who saw what exactly.The same details are given in other newspapers (i.e. BP). Just google two 'men in black' get jail

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

They have been cleared of the initial accusation of being the ones who shot, and charged for weapon possession and carrying . How many times do I have to tell you.

 

As for the details they are in the link I provided. They are very clear as to who saw what exactly.The same details are given in other newspapers (i.e. BP). Just google two 'men in black' get jail

How many times do I have to tell you that my link a pro red shirt newpaper shows that the judge specifically stated in his verdict that they were identified as the men in black at the scene by witnesses and an undercover police. 

 

That trumps your article because it does not state a thing about the verdict.

[candide]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

How many times do I have to tell you that my link a pro red shirt newpaper shows that the judge specifically stated in his verdict that they were identified as the men in black at the scene by witnesses and an undercover police. 

 

That trumps your article because it does not state a thing about the verdict.

I have nothing particular against your source except that it is not precise. 

Ex. "Two other defendants, Kittisak Soomsri and Preecha Yooyen, were found guilty of firearm charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison each". The other sources are more precise as to what they have been exactly sentenced

Ex. "the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants" Not very precise: the armed militants identified by the witnesses? The armed militants who shot? The other sources (phuketnews, bp, etc....) give a more precise account as to who saw what exactly. 

A clue, not a proof that they may be the ones who shot.

[robblok]

59 minutes ago, candide said:

I have nothing particular against your source except that it is not precise. 

Ex. "Two other defendants, Kittisak Soomsri and Preecha Yooyen, were found guilty of firearm charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison each". The other sources are more precise as to what they have been exactly sentenced

Ex. "the court said Kittisak and Preecha were identified as the armed militants" Not very precise: the armed militants identified by the witnesses? The armed militants who shot? The other sources (phuketnews, bp, etc....) give a more precise account as to who saw what exactly. 

A clue, not a proof that they may be the ones who shot.

No.. there is no proof that they were the ones that shot anyone.. it was just proven that they were black shirts at the protests. The shooting is not proven.. but not a big step to conclude that all the black shirts were red shirts and that they were the one shooting. 

Because this proves that they were at the scene and I don't buy it that there are two groups of blackshirts that is highly unlikely.

[namasata]

If I was going to be shooting at a resistance gathering ( like in the picture with the guy and a rifle) I would never stop shooting ...
They would have to kill me ..
I would be a martyr.
I DEFINATELY WOULD NOT GO TO PRISON