Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[Samuian]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

A box of firecrackers?

ever seen what an "explosive device" usually does?

Why she didn't lose the lower arm or the arm altogether?

Why o"only" these horrific injuries at the body with inwards blow type force, on heart and lungs, causing internal bleeding fo these organs?

This needs much, much more attention and clarification!

[mdechgan]

Hi

I have already written that a few pages earlier, but seems nobody noticed - i actually saw this "incident" on regular television news (not ASTV or NBT) and it looked exactly like (and was even so explained by the news lady!) that what blew up was "only" the gas tank ("gas" as in NGV or LPG) in the car after it, for yet unknown reason, caught on fire. While it was standing there, burning, there was no damage whatsoever visible (the rear door was open, but all windows still intact... which a bomb would certainly have done!) and immediately after the explosion it was clearly visible that the now-large fire was fueled by the escaping gas, nothing else.

I repeat my own personal opinion again: A terrorist who wants to wreak havoc with a car bomb would:

1) NOT use a vehicle as expensive as a Jeep Cherokee

2) NOT use a vehicle as solid as a Jeep Cherokee! What good is a bomb if it's power not even smashes the car's windows??

Best regards.....

Thanh

I can understand that.

Most grand jeep cherokees in BKK are also LPG equipped.

[AlKing]

Thai at Heart, thank you so much for this info. Looks like the hospital will have to reprint this broucher with a few lines omitted. Now, let see what PAD supporters have to say about this.

[sriracha john]

Perhaps this would all carry more weight if even one single actual treatment denial occurred.

IMHO, it doesn't really matter if actual treatment denial has occured, the fact that a doctor from said hospital even feels the need to publicly announce their intentions, in an otherwise heated climate, should be more then enough reason for immediate suspension and lay off.

To me, it makes a big difference that ultimately the doctor was able to transcend what heated words he said earlier and he never actually refused treatment to any patient.

Was he wrong for making his initial statement? Yes. I was the first to condemn his words when the news broke. I admittedly jumped the gun in doing so and once more reporting on the incident came out I regretted it. His being able to separate his actions from what he said is the expected reaction of any medical professional that I pointed out from the beginning and he did so when it really mattered, which is when it came time to treating his patients. That aspect is crucial.

Should he be suspended? I believe he should be, for a brief time, with a full evaluation of his abilities as a physician to be made during that time. His ultimate actions do, however, lend me to think he does have the ability to be a physician.

Should he lose his license? No, I don't believe so. We all have said things during stressful times that we regretted later. I doubt few of us have experienced the degree of stress he experienced on Tuesday, but then, that comes with the territory he's chosen to be in. Physicians are not robots, but they must be able to control their emotions when it comes to their patients. When the rhetoric is removed and one goes down to where the rubber meets the road on this issue, he did.

Edited October 10, 2008 by sriracha john

[Plus]

Yesterday I read Medical Council of Thailand opinion. Apparently doctors can refuse treatment of non-emergency cases for multiple reasons. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but I can imagine a situation where doctor's refusal would have been both ethical and legimate.

Let's say a high ranking policeman is driven to Chula in a Benz for a wound dressing change because doctors and nurses there are so much better than in his own, Police Hospital just down the road which is for plebs only. I can easily see how he could be refused treatment and sent back to where he came from. Lots of poor people are sent to less prestigious hospitals all the time, no one makes a fuss out of it.

We don't know if he came as patient seeking help or big boss seeking validation of his importance. It could have been a legitimate doctor's call.

[animatic]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

Justifying it is a stretch.

I think it is a shot across the government and polices bows not to do this again.

It is a STRONG warning that their actions are more than simpley unacceptable.

On the other hand as to justification.

If you saw someone, a 'generic anyone' but definite aggressor, maining or killing someone,

and then getting injured themselves from their own malevolent actions:

Would YOU be positively disposed to aiding them, knowing they will likely

get back up and continue their malevolent acts?

Do you say, just do it and the future will take care of it's self.

Or do you say I can stop this now, by action or inaction and it ends here.

I difficult moral philisophical choice.

Do something bad by action or inaction, to stop something probable that will be worse.

Drown the man and save the ship?

How does one "choose the lesser of two wevils?" ( Master and Commander)

[Splatter]

Sorry for returning to the issues of tear gas and leg wounds.

I was speaking with a reputable gentlemen yesterday evening

who has advised the Thai military, and served in Northern Ireland.

His THOUGHTS / OPINIONS are that it is not difficult to tamper

with modern tear gas cannisters.

He explained that it is possible to add "elements" to the prepared

cannisters over the end, and the adjusted cannister would

still fit in the barrel of the gun used to shoot the cannister.

When the cannister explodes, not only does gas get released

but the additional elements (taped over the end for example)

would get thrown out.

His THOUGHTS / OPINIONS were that it would be possible

for such adjusted cannisters to inflict the wounds seen in the media.

That's all I am saying.

[catmac]

Sylv ---- you need to keep reading about the Hippocratic Oath --- there is no 1 oath ... nor do all schools require them etc

You're clutching at straws, JD.

Why do so many of you PADistas find it so hard to say one of your own is wrong, when it is so clear that this Doctor overstepped the line between professional and personal opinions.

Show me any policeman who used unauthorised weapons or any other means to deliberately inflict serious injury to a PAD supporter, and I (and I believe most of us on our side) will condemn him as a thug who should be tried and punished in a court of law. No mealy-mouthed platitudes or grovelling excuses or nit-picking semantics such as this Doctor has brought forth from your side.

Edited October 10, 2008 by catmac

[sriracha john]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

Justifying it is a stretch.

I think it is a shot across the government and polices bows not to do this again.

It is a STRONG warning that their actions are more than simpley unacceptable.

On the other hand as to justification.

If you saw someone, a 'generic anyone' but definite aggressor, maining or killing someone,

and then getting injured themselves from their own malevolent actions:

Would YOU be positively disposed to aiding them,

Respectfully, yes, physicians are expected to do just that... it comes with the territory. Dr. Suthep knows this and did so.

knowing they will likely

get back up and continue their malevolent acts?

Do you say, just do it and the future will take care of it's self.

Or do you say I can stop this now, by action or inaction and it ends here.

difficult moral philosophical choice.

It's an easy one for physicians to make... and they side with taking action. Dr. Suthep knows this and did so.

Do something bad by action or inaction, to stop something probable that will be worse.

Drown the man and save the ship?

How does one "choose the lesser of two evils?" ( Master and Commander)

Dr. Suthep chose to save both by his actions.

[animatic]

Thai at Heart, thank you so much for this info. Looks like the hospital will have to reprint this broucher with a few lines omitted. Now, let see what PAD supporters have to say about this.

One must ask if the 'Thai Red Cross' demands the Hippocratic Oath?

There are a number of precepts listed,

but none specifically say a Dr. MUST take a patient.

And yes peoiple are turned away form hospitals world wide,

and sent to lesser and/or free facilities.

[sriracha john]

Why do so many of you PADistas find it so hard to say one of your own is wrong, when it is so clear that this Doctor overstepped the line between professional and personal opinions.

Show me any policeman who used unauthorised weapons or any other means to deliberately inflict serious injury to a PAD sopporter, and I (and I believe most of us on our side) will condemn him as a thug who should be tried and punished in a court of law. No mealy-mouthed platitudes or grovelling excuses or nit-picking semantics such as this Doctor has brought forth from your side.

apparently you missed this...

Just to put the issue to rest, but for some reason, I'm sure it won't just yet.... but the Chula hospital disavows the comments from the physician that I posted earlier. While I can sympathize with the doctor's feelings, as Frodo posted before in a very well done manner, their profession at its core, has to transcend those feelings. They certainly can have ill-feelings due to their fellow co-workers being mistreated by the police, but again... the professional physician needs to put aside those ill-feelings. I can also understand that in the heat of the moment, someone can say something they don't really mean or truly feel, but Dr. Suthep was way out of line and should recant his words of yesterday in the strongest possible manner. The medical world, like all other worlds, has a few bad eggs, and if he doesn't do the right thing, he should be removed from the medical world, which has, relative to other worlds, few bad eggs.... By the way, it's extremely erroneous to label them "PAD doctors" as I noticed posted earlier by the usual suspect.

Since then, he has recanted his words, but the usual suspects continue to label him as a "PAD doctor."

[jumnien]

PAD (Physicians Against Democracy) is alive and well at the "Sons of Chinese" University!

[animatic]

Sylv ---- you need to keep reading about the Hippocratic Oath --- there is no 1 oath ... nor do all schools require them etc

You're clutching at straws, JD.

Why do so many of you PADistas find it so hard to say one of your own is wrong, when it is so clear that this Doctor overstepped the line between professional and personal opinions.

Show me any policeman who used unauthorised weapons or any other means to deliberately inflict serious injury to a PAD supporter, and I (and I believe most of us on our side) will condemn him as a thug who should be tried and punished in a court of law. No mealy-mouthed platitudes or grovelling excuses or nit-picking semantics such as this Doctor has brought forth from your side.

If someone 'authorized' the use of the 45 handgon aimed low,

then this is seriously over the line.

And should be prosecuted as a thug in uniform.

Being in uniform doesn't give evil a free pass.

Firing teargas grenades horizonatally is either

Grossly incompetent or grossly malevolent and the last

if mby direct order, the commander should be prosecuted.

If someone received injuries like we have seen,

this is excessive force and over the line too.

There was nothing I saw coming from the PAD side

that well trained professional police could not have countered

WITHOUT this carnage that we have witnessed.

If this MD. didn't take a Hippocratic Oath then he is not bound by it.

Do the police take a Protect and Serve oath.. doubt it.

We have seen since many efforts to deflect blame to PAD for their own injuries.

But the images, video and medical reports don't reflect the police's statements.

NONE of the above absolves PAD from it's responsabilities,

but the government has MORE to answer for from last Tuesday...

All that carnage just to make a fekin' speach in one particular room....Pathetic decision making.

[jumnien]

At least General Chamlong is happy. Have you noticed the photos of him lately he a grin wider than his ears!

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at Heart, thank you so much for this info. Looks like the hospital will have to reprint this broucher with a few lines omitted. Now, let see what PAD supporters have to say about this.

One must ask if the 'Thai Red Cross' demands the Hippocratic Oath?

There are a number of precepts listed,

but none specifically say a Dr. MUST take a patient.

And yes peoiple are turned away form hospitals world wide,

and sent to lesser and/or free facilities.

And this shows how ridiculous this situation is. With position comes responsibility and the doctor has broken the most sacred rules of the medical profession. It is called a profession because it has a code of moral ethics on which it is founded and accords respect as it should. However, this or any profession stands or falls by members of that profession conducting themselves according to the fundamentals of a binding oath. There are important jobs in the world, but not all of them are professions.

We have debated the various forms or translations of the oath itself, and they are all extremely similar in meaning, and we are debating about the rights and wrongs of people pitching up in Mercs as though this makes his statements in some way acceptable. We can split hairs about it, but I for one wouldn't want to think that a doctor need a legal opinion on interpretation of the hippocratic oath before treating people in need of assistance. Doctors should always treat everyone in need of assistance irrespective. That is the deal they take.

If it is possible to be a doctor without taking the oath, then I would love for someone to let me know, because that means we have learnt something useful today. If this particular doctor hasn't taken this oath, then he is not a doctor and should not be accorded the respect of his position. This would make him a quack.

As SJ said earlier, he made a very stupid statement for which the hospital has to recount, and it appears he has apologised. He should get an enormous slap on the wrist and remember his responsibilities as a physician.

If professional people can pick and choose which parts of the oath they wish to abide by, the world is a very sick place.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Thai at Heart

[Samuian]

Just my guessing. He will have his license removed if he does not apologise. Hence he did apologise. I believe he is not sincere in doing so.

Just my guessing. He choose politics before his professional career. Now he choose his professional career before his personal self esteem.

Just my own opinion, my family and I will not step into Chula Hospital ever again, not to mention consult such kind of doctor.

No matter what, no mercy, no chance, no remorse but nail, him, nail him, nail him!

Do you see yourself any better then him? DAAD live!

Regarding the last events and what people do air as their opinions, I personally feel deeply sorry for the state of consciousness some people are trapped in!

Edited October 10, 2008 by Samuian

[animatic]

Thai at Heart, thank you so much for this info. Looks like the hospital will have to reprint this broucher with a few lines omitted. Now, let see what PAD supporters have to say about this.

One must ask if the 'Thai Red Cross' demands the Hippocratic Oath?

There are a number of precepts listed,

but none specifically say a Dr. MUST take a patient.

And yes people are turned away form hospitals world wide,

and sent to lesser and/or free facilities.

And this shows how ridiculous this situation is. With position comes responsibility and the doctor has broken the most sacred rules of the medical profession. It is called a profession because it has a code of moral ethics on which it is founded and accords respect as it should. However, this or any profession stands or falls by members of that profession conducting themselves according to the fundamentals of a binding oath. There are important jobs in the world, but not all of them are professions.

We have debated the various forms or translations of the oath itself, and they are all extremely similar in meaning, and we are debating about the rights and wrongs of people pitching up in Mercs as though this makes his statements in some way acceptable. We can split hairs about it, but I for one wouldn't want to think that a doctor need a legal opinion on interpretation of the hippocratic oath before treating people in need of assistance. Doctors should always treat everyone in need of assistance irrespective. That is the deal they take.

If it is possible to be a doctor without taking the oath, then I would love for someone to let me know, because that means we have learnt something useful today. If this particular doctor hasn't taken this oath, then he is not a doctor and should not be accorded the respect of his position. This would make him a quack.

As SJ said earlier, he made a very stupid statement for which the hospital has to recount, and it appears he has apologised. He should get an enormous slap on the wrist and remember his responsibilities as a physician.

If professional people can pick and choose which parts of the oath they wish to abide by, the world is a very sick place.

An Oath doesn't make him a doctor.

The training makes him a Doctor.

The lack of some oath doesn't make him incompetent or a quack,

it just means he didn't take that oath. nothing more nothing less.

I'll take the trained and motivated guy any day,

over someone who is under oath to help me,

but is trying to hold back his disgust for me

during the whole procedure.

I seriously doubt that person would be doing more

than the minimum to meet his oath. And I don't him touching me.

A western precept of what is a proper doctor, may not be the same here,

except for the westerners of course. Which is clearly the case with Thai At Heart.

Applying western expectations to Thais doctors.

Ya see there is MORE than one side to this Oath = Doctor thing.

So if you are a few blocks from this Chulalongkorn teaching hospital and have a taxi accident,

you have every right to demand transport to a more distant and politically

more agreeable hospital, but medically it likely would be the much poorer choice.

But hey, one Doctor's political views are opposite to yours

and he DARED speak them publicly. Keel haul the bastard,

and everyone he has EVER worked with...

Logical response.

Edited October 10, 2008 by animatic

[animatic]

PAD (Physicians Against Democracy) is alive and well at the "Sons of Chinese" University!

Sunrise you are running very close to the edge,

making fun of a certain REVERED grand parent's name....

[jdinasia]

PAD (Physicians Against Democracy) is alive and well at the "Sons of Chinese" University!

Sunrise you are running very close to the edge,

making fun of a certain REVERED grand parent's name....

and so inaccurate too! since admission to Chula is based upon merit (which is why Thaksin's son didn't attend there!)

Thai @ Heart ... please go back and look at the links I provided regarding the hippocratic oath. it is NOT required at many places to graduate with an MD and there are many different versions of it. Not having taken such an oath in no way makes a Dr a 'quack'

Edited October 10, 2008 by jdinasia

[frodo]

Fortunately, the hospital has a code of ethics. Having tried to Google Thailand's Police Code of Ethics, it was not only vague, but one such site from the esteemed police actually tried to install a virus into my computer. Their ethics continue to amaze me.

[Roachiebkk]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

So wait a minute. You are assuming that this guy's injury must have been caused by him holding a grenade? There were lots of PAD protestors picking up grenades and throwing them back at the police. However in this case and according to close friends of the man, he was actually hit by some object fired directly at him from the police lines and not holding a grenade that went off. please delve a bit deeper and get your facts right. As far as the mystery jeep bomb goes well we may never know. that car was parked very close to the police lines on the day so I find it difficult to imagine the woman, a PAD supporter just happened to be walking past as it went off with a bag full of bombs, just doesn't make sense.

[jumnien]

PAD (Physicians Against Democracy) is alive and well at the "Sons of Chinese" University!

Sunrise you are running very close to the edge,

making fun of a certain REVERED grand parent's name....

The "Sons of Chinese" is a reference to the PAD who think themselves above the lowly Thai masses. They do not mean it be disrespectful to the monarchy.

[^_^]

Fortunately, the hospital has a code of ethics. Having tried to Google Thailand's Police Code of Ethics, it was not only vague, but one such site from the esteemed police actually tried to install a virus into my computer. Their ethics continue to amaze me.

Seems like even their web site is corrupted as well!!!

[^_^]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

So wait a minute. You are assuming that this guy's injury must have been caused by him holding a grenade? There were lots of PAD protestors picking up grenades and throwing them back at the police. However in this case and according to close friends of the man, he was actually hit by some object fired directly at him from the police lines and not holding a grenade that went off. please delve a bit deeper and get your facts right. As far as the mystery jeep bomb goes well we may never know. that car was parked very close to the police lines on the day so I find it difficult to imagine the woman, a PAD supporter just happened to be walking past as it went off with a bag full of bombs, just doesn't make sense.

A PAD protester whom saw the explosion of the jeep is willing to take the witness stand.

He witnessed the police fired 'something' into the jeep which caused the explosion (later found out that it was the LPG/NGV Gas-Tank which explode).

The Police whom at first couldn't explain why/how the jeep exploded, after they have 'investigate' the jeep, found many evidence of explosive fragments and claimed that the driver have kept explosives in the jeep and which was the cause of the explosion. In short, the Police is stating that it's ANOTHER case of PADs blowing up themselves

[sjaak327]

Perhaps this would all carry more weight if even one single actual treatment denial occurred.

IMHO, it doesn't really matter if actual treatment denial has occured, the fact that a doctor from said hospital even feels the need to publicly announce their intentions, in an otherwise heated climate, should be more then enough reason for immediate suspension and lay off.

To me, it makes a big difference that ultimately the doctor was able to transcend what heated words he said earlier and he never actually refused treatment to any patient.

Was he wrong for making his initial statement? Yes. I was the first to condemn his words when the news broke. I admittedly jumped the gun in doing so and once more reporting on the incident came out I regretted it. His being able to separate his actions from what he said is the expected reaction of any medical professional that I pointed out from the beginning and he did so when it really mattered, which is when it came time to treating his patients. That aspect is crucial.

Should he be suspended? I believe he should be, for a brief time, with a full evaluation of his abilities as a physician to be made during that time. His ultimate actions do, however, lend me to think he does have the ability to be a physician.

Should he lose his license? No, I don't believe so. We all have said things during stressful times that we regretted later. I doubt few of us have experienced the degree of stress he experienced on Tuesday, but then, that comes with the territory he's chosen to be in. Physicians are not robots, but they must be able to control their emotions when it comes to their patients. When the rhetoric is removed and one goes down to where the rubber meets the road on this issue, he did.

Your post makes a lot of sense, I agree to that, however, I just hope that this particular doctor would think twice next time before he says something to the press. I don't think in somewhat turbulent times like these, remarks like his are helping the situation.

[Ricardo]

)-->

QUOTE ( @ 2008-10-10 17:19:45) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A PAD protester whom saw the explosion of the jeep is willing to take the witness stand.

He witnessed the police fired 'something' into the jeep which caused the explosion (later found out that it was the LPG/NGV Gas-Tank which explode).

The Police whom at first couldn't explain why/how the jeep exploded, after they have 'investigate' the jeep, found many evidence of explosive fragments and claimed that the driver have kept explosives in the jeep and which was the cause of the explosion. In short, the Police is stating that it's ANOTHER case of PADs blowing up themselves

At least they won't have to investigate the case, as though it was the murder of the driver, who I understand was a well-known PAD-organiser from the north-east, another excellent result for the impartial BiBs and their world-class investigative skills.

[frodo]

Somchai government holds responsility on brutal crackdown on protesters : Army chief

By The Nation

Gen Anupong feels "discouraging and low-ebb morality" on calling for army to stage coup

Somchai government holds responsibility on police's brutal crackdown on protesters and it should investigate why the operation turned violent, resulting in deaths and injuries, Army Commander in Chief Anupong Paochinda said Friday.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/10...es_30085756.php

Even the top military brass blame the government about this disgraceful act of brutality against protesters. Curtains for Somachai.

Anupong hits back at Chavalit

He said Chavalit might have been confused in trying to prod the military when he should be reflecting on his performance at the Cabinet meeting on the night of October 6 ahead of the crackdown.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30085757

And nobody is spared!

[blaze]

Somchai government holds responsility on brutal crackdown on protesters : Army chief

By The Nation

Gen Anupong feels "discouraging and low-ebb morality" on calling for army to stage coup

Somchai government holds responsibility on police's brutal crackdown on protesters and it should investigate why the operation turned violent, resulting in deaths and injuries, Army Commander in Chief Anupong Paochinda said Friday.

And if the top brass in the Thai military doesn't understand the basics of human rights- AND responsibilities- then who does?

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/10...es_30085756.php

Even the top military brass blame the government about this disgraceful act of brutality against protesters. Curtains for Somachai.

Anupong hits back at Chavalit

He said Chavalit might have been confused in trying to prod the military when he should be reflecting on his performance at the Cabinet meeting on the night of October 6 ahead of the crackdown.

source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30085757

And nobody is spared!

[hammered]

Some ex-police chief nutter is now trying to gather a mob of serving police officers to attack the PAD at GH. It reminds me more of following an infamous English football team in the 70's and early 80's all the time. But with maybe less organization

[Vato]

the picture of the cop throwing a hard boiled egg....is actually a ping pong bomb...suspected to originate from the Patpong area.

BTW it really is a ping pong bomb, heard it on thai radio and this picture verifies it.

the cops are playing dirty.