In Town

I still don't understand how his PDRC necklace stayed in such a pristine condition after the beating and dunking in the river, and why the hospital wouldn't have cut it off when they cut the rest of his clothes off. Also, why would the PDRC have even put it on him?

I hope the people that did this are caught and dealt with, and I wouldn't put it past the PDRC to have done it, but the whole story of an ex red shirt guard "relaxing" in Lumpini park where a major "yellow" shirt protest had been going on for weeks just doesn't sound right.

Sent from my phone ...

Surely he wasn't relaxing, he was spying. But even so, is spying on an opposition demonstration justification for torture and murder?

Kotee is abolutely right. The criminal insurrectionist Suthep and his misguided (probably equally criminal) followers have trespassed on large areas of Bangkok in recent weeks and have obstructed elections. But despite this utterly criminal activity - and surely obstructing elections is almost the worst crime you can commit in a democracy - Suthep and his associates have been allowed to carry on with their crimes in flagrant disregard of national laws.

Why did the Army and the Police not intervene to arrest these crooks, as Kotee suggests?

It seems to me that the Red shirts and people like Kotee are among the few folks standing up for democracy in Siam these days.

(You can bet that the 80% of conservatives/Fox News viewers on ThaiVisa will disagree).

And yet, I agree 100%. Interesting that as you accuse one side of bias or discrimination you feel it necessary to smear another group completely unrelated to the current discussion. True, the Red Shirts are much like tea party activists, struggling against the oppression of unelected elites, but Fox News has never seemed particularly sympathetic to the tea party. The yellows are most similar to fascists, and fascism is the right wing of the socialist movement (communism-socialism-fascism), so you would think that most Fox viewers, who tend to be anti-socialist, would support reds over yellows.

You think it's only Thai Spec Ops than can get detained and their" cover" blown?

2 SAS guys captured and detained in Basra begs to differ and several US SF guys detained in Libya not too long ago either.

The RTN didn't confirm these guys were former SEAL's, but IF they were, then I'd give this story a little bit of credibility, only due to the fact that part of the their training for snatch and grabs would be a walk in the park for these guys, however with that being said, they'd have to be above average to get through her PSD guys to be able to grab her.

However kidnapping her doesn't change a thing, if anything, it would only compound matters and as sure as there's shyt in a dog, Thaksin would turn his mad dogs loose, even more than the current situation.

Hmmm... Thaksin has mad dogs. But Suthep is talking about kidnapping the Prime Minister, and you are speculating that the elite military forces of the country are in on the plot, and the only thing you find wrong with that is that Thaksin will release his mad dogs?

No not speculating, just stating that Snatch and Grabs are part of Elite Spec Ops units training, and who better to recruit for such a mission ?

Do I find it wrong that SERVING members of such Elite Spec Ops unit would participate in such an Op, too right I do, their oath of allegiance for starters SHOULD prevent that from ever happening.

Do I find it wrong that FORMER members of such Elite units would participate in such a mission, again, yes I do, however they have no allegience to anyone other than whoever is footing the Bill for them to conduct the Operation.

IF I was going to organise such an Operation, I would use FORMER types, it's called plausable deniability, no paper trails and no money trails.

Do I think that IF the PM was kidnapped by ANYONE, serving or former, that Thaksin would stop at nothing to rescue her, then yes I do, and do I think he cares not a jot at the amount of bloodshed that would inevitably happen if that ever happened, then no I don't think he cares.

I think you missinterpreted my post, by making an assumtion that all I thought was wrong in this scenario was that Thaksin would release his mad dogs, and seek retribution. On the contrary, these are the types of operators I'd use. I also pointed out that getting captured doesn't only just happen to Thai SF, but to some of the worlds best SF personel

Okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You think it's only Thai Spec Ops than can get detained and their" cover" blown?

2 SAS guys captured and detained in Basra begs to differ and several US SF guys detained in Libya not too long ago either.

The RTN didn't confirm these guys were former SEAL's, but IF they were, then I'd give this story a little bit of credibility, only due to the fact that part of the their training for snatch and grabs would be a walk in the park for these guys, however with that being said, they'd have to be above average to get through her PSD guys to be able to grab her.

However kidnapping her doesn't change a thing, if anything, it would only compound matters and as sure as there's shyt in a dog, Thaksin would turn his mad dogs loose, even more than the current situation.

Hmmm... Thaksin has mad dogs. But Suthep is talking about kidnapping the Prime Minister, and you are speculating that the elite military forces of the country are in on the plot, and the only thing you find wrong with that is that Thaksin will release his mad dogs?

When or if a coup takes place, the army needs to keep all the key Pheua Thai leaders under house arrest or have them out of the country. If they don't there is a chance 2 groups will claim to be the legitimate govt. and the situation may become unmanageable as parts of the country refuse to accept the coup and rally around the still-free leaders.

First job of coupmongers is to lockdown the leaders.

Yes, its a good idea to concentrate the red shirts as well. Otherwise they might make trouble.

But your crude misogynistic insinuations do demonstrate your deep analytical capacity.

Wow! You people put the "Amazing" in Thailand. The Navy comes out and admits three of the suspects are former Navy men, but you think any linkage with the Navy ludicrous. And all the armed men are from Cambodia? And all the war weapons come from Central Department Store, or what?

It is very clear to me. The protesters were not protesters. They were there to violate the rights of others. The police have the duty to clear obstruction and maintain law and order and enforcing the rule of law but they were faced with resistance and obstruction. The fact that they were bomb thrown at them and gun fight proved the protesters were not protesting anything but trying to create a situation for seizing power from a democratically elected government.

"from a democratically elected government."

I know you probably won't answer, but to which "democratically elected government" are you referring, the one which resigned in December when an election was called or the one which has not yet been formed, because the February-2014 election has not yet been completed or declared by the E.C.?

IMO the most interesting thing in the OP is that Men-in-Black are described as being with both groups, amongst the police and amongst the protesters "

"Chon Buri resident Suraphon Wanichtat, 57, was shot in the right side.

He said he saw a group of men wearing black suits among police under the bridge near the Queen's Gallery.

"They were wearing black suits and walking with the police but they did not have police written on their suits," he said."

and also

"Police Sergeant Chaowalit Ritmongsoongnoen, whose right arm was injured by the grenade explosion, said he saw three men wearing black dresses and knitted wool hats walking among protesters and hiding under tamarind trees. They were also holding guns.

"These men in black had appeared from the Nang Lerng intersection," he said.

Chaowalit said the men in black Suraphon saw, under the bridge, were riot control police."

I especially find it very interesting, that Police Seargent Chaowalit confirms the identifies of the ones walking amongst the police, described by shooting-victim Suraphon as not having 'police' written on their costumes, as having been riot control police. So armed-police, in black costumes with no identification, mingle freely with regular police in a tense situation like this.

While many will continue to try to identify the Men-in-Black as 'third hand', or there to help the anti-government protesters, it can no longer be denied that SOMETIMES Men-in-Black are police who are there with CMPO/Chalerm's full knowledge and authorisation.

How many past-incidents (including back in 2010 ?) might be reassessed, in the knowledge of this fact, and how many previous denials of government-involvement are now thrown in-doubt ?

Very true. And sometimes men in black are hipsters and beatniks.

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

You could just as easily say that the "MIB" seen in these protests are red shirt supporters acting as "agents provocateur.

We do know that the red shirts started a fire in Central World in 2010. I'm not sure what they were trying to justify.

Which protester was shot by his own side?

Actually, we don't quite "know" the fire was started by red shirts. Most available evidence points to military officers who deliberately started the fire to deflect attention from and justify their murderous suppression of peaceful democracy demonstrators.

To understand who was shot by their own side, read (between the lines of) the article above. Its very clear.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why an undercover shadow force whose goal is to promote conflict would all dress uniformly so as to be instantly recognizable, rather than say dressing as ordinary protestors or fake police, iis of course never explained.

Half the Thais I know believe that they or someone they know has seen a ghost. Go figure, as my American friens would say.

Half the people on TVF believe in little green... ugh, I mean, men in black. Mysterious fellows always there to take the blame when any untoward event might otherwise implicate PAD or the Democrat Party, who we all know are corruption free and pure of heart.

Maybe. As I recall there was a lot of speculation that he had been killed by friendly fire. Of course, we need to remember as well that Seh Deng was shot in the head by a sniper stationed in an eighth floor window of a hospital overlooking the park, another of those "mysterious" men in black. Face it; Suthep's entire plan from day one has been to stoke violence to justify military intervention. To achieve that end he is willing to sacrifice supporters (particularly dark-skinned southerners) for the greater good. Thats just a fact.

How naive. Perhaps in this instance contempt is justifiable?

Corrupt politicians? I've been around long enough not to be too foolish, and see everything in terms of black and white. How about you?

Hmm... We now know who the mysterious men in black of 2010 were. Suthep sympathisers from the military acting as agents provocateur. We know who started the fire in Central to justify the murder of innocent protestors. In 2014 we know that a "mysterious" (according to the Nation) grenade was shot at the police by the men in black among the PDRC protestors, and that one protestor was shot by his own side (which is why he had to make the point that he knew it was police because he was getting ready to turn around). We also recall when the Thai government used the only known explosive tear gas grenades to blow off the legs of PAD protestors by striking them in the pocket area of their pants (we reject the alternative explanation that these were poorly constructed homemade explosives that accidentally went off in protestors pockets as to far-fetched to be believable).

Okay, lets say you are right, and this investigation started a year ago. That still does not explain why the investigation of Mark, begun five years ago, is ongoing. Looking at the judicial system in general, we see red shirts in jail for years for petty offences, while the ring leaders of the airport occupation go free, and murder suspects like Suthep are able to delay court appearances because they are busy trying to overthrow the government. Truthfully, do yo actually believe that justice is neutral in this country?

Why should she step down? She is clearly The best and most loved Prime Minister Thailand has ever had. She is more popular than her brother (the font of all evil) and more popular than the butchers of Bangkok.

Its only for the elite anyway. Not for you or me.

How can you not have that idea? If you are rational, then you know Suthep's objective, and you know which side (potentially) benefits from violence. You cannot see that?

Interesting. I watched the first few minutes. The trend towards a two party system in Thailand is related to the political conscientization of the Thai people, particularly rural people (ironically, the urban professional class is less politically developed than the rural workers they often denigrate). This has led to the emergence of ideology as the primary subject of political contestation, and breakdown of the patron-client relationships that characterised old Thailand. The ongoing conflict in thai society is essentially the struggle between two systems; modern democracy against feudalism.

Just to clarify, research suggest that the vast majority of cash and other emoluments handed out around elections goes to a candidates or party's supporters. Its more get out the vote than change the vote.

At least we finally know who the black shirts are...

So your point is that it was okay for the Army to shoot the demonstrators? Or that the Army, and not CRES or Abhisit is responsible? Maybe you are right, but they are certainly guilty of displaying bad judgement in deploying armed soldiers for crowd control, a point easily made by the PMs recent softly/softly approach to the yellow demonstrators.

Its true that in the second reading of the bill senior officials in PT inserted language that provided a blanket amnesty for political leaders. In the pattern of old, they thought they could do a back room deal with the Democrats, trading the return of Thaksin for amnesty for Suthep and Abhisit, who were facing murder charges. What they didn't realise was that both reds and yellows had become ideological, and were no longer willing to follow their patrons blindly. its also important to realise that it was red opposition, not yellow, that was most influential in convincing PT to withdraw the bill (although you will never read that here.