Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,467 Excellent

About candide

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,224 profile views
  1. "Meanwhile, a DSI source said police requests to search Boonraksa Building inside the temple had been rejected because there were weapons belonging to the red-shirt leaders hidden there. The temple only permitted a search after the weapons had been moved out of the building, the source claimed." The DSI forgot to mention that the temple was encircled by 4000 policemen and soldiers!
  2. For repeated fraud (interesting to note that people who use fight against corruption as a leitmotiv share the characteristic of being corrupt themselves). Meanwhile, as concerns the charges for occupying the airport and shutting down parliament, the trial against him and other Yellowshirt leaders has hardly moved forward. Additionally, if you do some research, you will find out that he had been in conflict with someone close to Prem.(Not to mention the claims made by his son as to who was behind Sondhi's assassination attempt.)
  3. Meanwhile, PAD and PDRC leaders.....
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. That was the objective anyway. They cannot get people extradited for LM, so they have to create other charges, hoping it will work this time.
  7. And of course they other guys just stared and did nothing to prevent it.....
  8. 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?
  9. 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?
  10. "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.
  11. Which today's verdict? The source you quoted is from January. What you call my alternative facts have been published in several sources.
  12. 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.
  13. In the recent courtcase only one guy appearing on a picture with black clothes was convicted for weapon possession. You confuse again facts with the opinion you can get from facts.
  14. And he would be replaced by another General anyway. :)
  15. Not new. This thesis has been defended several times by current posters in this thread, for example: