snoop1130

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

81 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 26 March 2017 02:42
Sponsors