Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn To Reveal 'Solid Evidence' Of Abhisit's UK Citizenship

[MAJIC]

I seriously doubt Abhisit has ever renounced UK citizenship as it requires jumping through a few hopps and even then it is questionable as to whether it has been legally renounced. Who knows what the IC will make of it, but that right now is not the main point. There is an election approaching and Jatuporns job has to be seen in that context. Another aspect is that street rallies are fashionable right now and to think it hasnt crossed the red leaderships mind to coatail Egypt and Bahrain etc would be silly. It is unlikely though that Thailand will see the almost leaderless arab style uprisings as even Sombat claims the red shirts are all top down. There just hasnt been enough oppression in Thailand by anyone internally or externally to see the arab style rebellions

It will be getting hotter. An election is a chance for one side to send the other down for an eight count if not more, so neither can afford defeat. Be cynical to see what is happening

You may have a point concerning PM Abhisit renouncing British Citizenship,

But even more to the point,did he,in fact ever take up his right to British Citizenship?

According to Abhisit,he has denied ever having applied for British Citizenship,so its a question at the moment,who do we believe PM Abhisit or Amsterdam,Jutaporn and Thaksin?

time will tell who is lying. Personally I wouldnt put any bets on the Thaksin Teams Honesty!

Edited February 20, 2011 by MAJIC

[rixalex]

The only thing i can say presently about this is that anyone who believes that the killing of Sae Daeng solved the violence of the militant underground supporting the Red Shirts is delusional. On the opposite - the state killing him this way made things quite possibly much worse for the future.

You describe yourself as being a journalist, with all that should imply, and you claim to be neutral and independent, but then you go and state your opinion as being a fact. Or do you actually have evidence to back up what you have just accused "the state" of?

[rubl]

The brain behind these schools was, by the way, Tida Thawornset - Dr. Weng's wife, and present chair of the UDD. And no, both have forsworn violent strategies, especially due to their experience in the jungle and the mistakes the CPT made then.

Thank for the correction, I wasn't sure about that. I know (i.e. read somewhere) that a lot of CPT members have forsworn CPT and what it stood for. They've been pardoned, so be it.

Still the top-down structure of UDD, it's militant arm, Thaksin 'peoples army', the propaganda selecting English or Thai depending on target audience AND one not necessarily saying the same as the other, the use of ignorent cannon fodder, 'free our leaders'. Suspect to say the least. Just as bad as having an Englishman as Thai PM

[nicknostitz]

Was this before or after the grenades had gone off?

After.

So it pretty much pales in comparison to red shirt justice whereby you get grenades fired at you (followed with a celebration upon confirmed fatalities) should you shout abuse towards a red shirt, IMO.

I think the question here was not comparing levels of violence (of course grenades launched at protesters is incomparably more violent), but to find out what led to it. The military using this described tactic enabled the incident in the first place, and should be held as responsible as the ones that launched the grenades for what they did - leading to a proper judgment in a court of justice.

Is there anybody investigating the military in this particular incident over allowing the PAD protesters to the Red Shirt barricade and thus enabling a clash in the first time? No, not that i am aware off. One can't just investigate the crimes of the Red Shirts, while letting crimes of the military and state just slip, never to be properly investigated. But that is exactly what has happened over the past years, and leading in the first place to this awful increase of political violence.

[nicknostitz]

The brain behind these schools was, by the way, Tida Thawornset - Dr. Weng's wife, and present chair of the UDD. And no, both have forsworn violent strategies, especially due to their experience in the jungle and the mistakes the CPT made then.

Thank for the correction, I wasn't sure about that. I know (i.e. read somewhere) that a lot of CPT members have forsworn CPT and what it stood for. They've been pardoned, so be it.

Still the top-down structure of UDD, it's militant arm, Thaksin 'peoples army', the propaganda selecting English or Thai depending on target audience AND one not necessarily saying the same as the other, the use of ignorent cannon fodder, 'free our leaders'. Suspect to say the least. Just as bad as having an Englishman as Thai PM

If you research the UDD - it has everything else than a top-down structure. It has many councils who regularly meet, organize their own events and stages (of which you rarely read about) starting from local level up who do have much input in decision making processes.

[Insight]

Was this before or after the grenades had gone off?

After.

So it pretty much pales in comparison to red shirt justice whereby you get grenades fired at you (followed with a celebration upon confirmed fatalities) should you shout abuse towards a red shirt, IMO.

I think the question here was not comparing levels of violence (of course grenades launched at protesters is incomparably more violent), but to find out what led to it. The military using this described tactic enabled the incident in the first place, and should be held as responsible as the ones that launched the grenades for what they did - leading to a proper judgment in a court of justice.

Is there anybody investigating the military in this particular incident over allowing the PAD protesters to the Red Shirt barricade and thus enabling a clash in the first time? No, not that i am aware off. One can't just investigate the crimes of the Red Shirts, while letting crimes of the military and state just slip, never to be properly investigated. But that is exactly what has happened over the past years, and leading in the first place to this awful increase of political violence.

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Insight

[rubl]

I think the question here was not comparing levels of violence (of course grenades launched at protesters is incomparably more violent), but to find out what led to it. The military using this described tactic enabled the incident in the first place, and should be held as responsible as the ones that launched the grenades for what they did - leading to a proper judgment in a court of justice.

Is there anybody investigating the military in this particular incident over allowing the PAD protesters to the Red Shirt barricade and thus enabling a clash in the first time? No, not that i am aware off. One can't just investigate the crimes of the Red Shirts, while letting crimes of the military and state just slip, never to be properly investigated. But that is exactly what has happened over the past years, and leading in the first place to this awful increase of political violence.

AS far as I remember the pink shirters and the red-shirts behind their bamboo/tyre wall didn't really clash, lots of shouting though. To just ask what led to the grenade attack without condemning it (oh, btw somewhat more violent) seems a wee bit strange. Mind you, I walked past a few hours before and you were present only after the attack.

(edit: rewrite)

Edited February 20, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

The only thing i can say presently about this is that anyone who believes that the killing of Sae Daeng solved the violence of the militant underground supporting the Red Shirts is delusional. On the opposite - the state killing him this way made things quite possibly much worse for the future.

You describe yourself as being a journalist, with all that should imply, and you claim to be neutral and independent, but then you go and state your opinion as being a fact. Or do you actually have evidence to back up what you have just accused "the state" of?

Yes, i otherwise i would not have stated what i just did.

No, i will not present it on ThaiVisa.

Nobody is "neutral" - that is something like being neutered.

I am factual and build my position based on what i witness, evidence, and corroborated statements of my sources.

[nicknostitz]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

Actually, the nights before there were small altercations between Red Shirts and PAD already.

Secondly, it is not an acceptable military tactic to use civilians for such purposes. This is against any rule of engagement.

And part of the rage was that a completely innocent taxi driver was nearly lynched by PAD guards, after that man was pulled out of his taxi by a soldier. he was handicapped as well - part of his hand was amputated.

[nicknostitz]

AS far as I remember the pink shirters and the red-shirts behind their bamboo/tyre wall didn't really clash, lots of shouting though. To just ask what led to the grenade attack without condemning it (oh, btw somewhat more violent) seems a wee bit strange. Mind you, I walked past a few hours before and you were present only after the attack.

(edit: rewrite)

Then you remember wrongly, or were not there when things happened. The previous two night were some smaller clashes, and after the grenade was quit a massive clash with lots of flying projectiles from slingshots - and they hurt when they hit you. I once got hit, on the October 7, 2008, clash, which left a massive bruise for several weeks.

[rubl]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

I beg to differ in opinion. I've seen the pink shirts under the BTS station a few times (still have a small Thai flag they handed out). I for one don't think they were only there to provoke red-shirts. Anyone who had seen / read / heard about the 30 - 40 grenade attacks till then would know provocation could be deadly. The pinks didn't look like fools and certainly didn't look bent on violence. Things may have changed a bit later in the afternoon, but PAD also has it's fools.

Rage on display after the grenade attack? At first stunned silence followed by creams. 1 dead, 80 wounded.

Edited February 20, 2011 by rubl

[Insight]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

Actually, the nights before there were small altercations between Red Shirts and PAD already.

Secondly, it is not an acceptable military tactic to use civilians for such purposes. This is against any rule of engagement.

And part of the rage was that a completely innocent taxi driver was nearly lynched by PAD guards, after that man was pulled out of his taxi by a soldier. he was handicapped as well - part of his hand was amputated.

"Small altercations" or military "engagement" ? The military simply let the rally happen. There was arguably no "engagement" between the red shirts and military before those first grenades were fired - and no significant "engagement" immedieatly after.

Textbook psy-ops, and the red shirts failed big time.

[whybother]

...

Lets just wait and see if Amsterdam,can produce a copy of Abisits UK Birth Certificate,and more to the point,proof that Abhisit has taken up British Citizenship???

No one's denying that Abhisit was born in the UK and has a UK birth certificate. And if you are born in the UK you are entitled to British citizenship.

The question is did Abhisit renounce it.

But I agree with what Emptyset said above. The ICC won't take the case anyway.

[Pi Sek]

I was at the aforementioned "PAD" anti-Red Shirt protest that Dr. Tul arranged.

If one remembers correctly, they made a point of wearing many colours of shirt, to show that they weren't the PAD, although several people present (including Dr. Tul) were former PAD associates/supporters. But they weren't shouting for the PAD. They were holding a big banner saying "You've won, you can go home now".

I find it extremely disappointing that none of the major press picked up on that and even more disappointing that a member of the press is now saying that this was a PAD protest, especially since that press member considers himself to be some kind of Thai protest guru who started writing to counter false reporting elsewhere.

I don't remember the military encouraging the PAD protesters as stated above either. I do however, remember them letting people through. Some were smiling like a scared young soldier would do in such an uncertain environment, and others looked a little more nervous. After the grenades went off, though, I took a sharp exit as fast as I could hobble, so can't say anything about what happened afterwards. So, you see, I do have reason to take exception to some of what has been written here. Even with this exception, I still am not able to say who fired grenades or from where.

I do notice that we have a claim just above that Dr. Weng and Tida have forsworn violence. However, I do remember Dr. Weng was on BBC during the protests saying that a pistol didn't count as a weapon, because a pistol is for self defence. Maybe it's a culture thing?

I don't think I'll start talking about UDD guard units, whether "proper" or "improper". I do have one question though, and I've asked it twice before with no answer, but might get lucky since we have an expert in our midst - what's the difference (if any) between the UDD and DAAD?

[Insight]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

I beg to differ in opinion. I've seen the pink shirts under the BTS station a few times (still have a small Thai flag they handed out). I for one don't think they were only there to provoke red-shirts. Anyone who had seen / read / heard about the 30 - 40 grenade attacks till then would know provocation could be deadly. The pinks didn't look like fools and certainly didn't look bent on violence. Things may have changed a bit later in the afternoon, but PAD also has it's fools.

Rage on display after the grenade attack? At first stunned silence followed by creams. 1 dead, 80 wounded.

By "rage" I'm referring to the altercation with the taxi driver afterwards Nick has described.

[rubl]

AS far as I remember the pink shirters and the red-shirts behind their bamboo/tyre wall didn't really clash, lots of shouting though. To just ask what led to the grenade attack without condemning it (oh, btw somewhat more violent) seems a wee bit strange. Mind you, I walked past a few hours before and you were present only after the attack.

(edit: rewrite)

Then you remember wrongly, or were not there when things happened. The previous two night were some smaller clashes, and after the grenade was quit a massive clash with lots of flying projectiles from slingshots - and they hurt when they hit you. I once got hit, on the October 7, 2008, clash, which left a massive bruise for several weeks.

Previous two nights minor clashes, still controlled. On the 22nd massive clash AFTER the grenade attack with 1 dead, 80 wounded. Now who did you say was provoked?

To answer your direct question, no I wasn't there. My Thai boss told me to avoid idiots, even told me to stay away from the office later in May (UCL that is). Mind you I did follow twitter, TV and some other sites. Even then it was clear not all could be believed.

[Pi Sek]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

Actually, the nights before there were small altercations between Red Shirts and PAD already.

Secondly, it is not an acceptable military tactic to use civilians for such purposes. This is against any rule of engagement.

And part of the rage was that a completely innocent taxi driver was nearly lynched by PAD guards, after that man was pulled out of his taxi by a soldier. he was handicapped as well - part of his hand was amputated.

Yes, Nick is right here - the police and army did break up some sporadic clashes between the multi-coloured shirts and the Red Shirts in the two weeks following 10 April.

[nicknostitz]

I was at the aforementioned "PAD" anti-Red Shirt protest that Dr. Tul arranged.

If one remembers correctly, they made a point of wearing many colours of shirt, to show that they weren't the PAD, although several people present (including Dr. Tul) were former PAD associates/supporters. But they weren't shouting for the PAD. They were holding a big banner saying "You've won, you can go home now".

I find it extremely disappointing that none of the major press picked up on that and even more disappointing that a member of the press is now saying that this was a PAD protest, especially since that press member considers himself to be some kind of Thai protest guru who started writing to counter false reporting elsewhere.

I don't remember the military encouraging the PAD protesters as stated above either. I do however, remember them letting people through. Some were smiling like a scared young soldier would do in such an uncertain environment, and others looked a little more nervous. After the grenades went off, though, I took a sharp exit as fast as I could hobble, so can't say anything about what happened afterwards. So, you see, I do have reason to take exception to some of what has been written here. Even with this exception, I still am not able to say who fired grenades or from where.

I do notice that we have a claim just above that Dr. Weng and Tida have forsworn violence. However, I do remember Dr. Weng was on BBC during the protests saying that a pistol didn't count as a weapon, because a pistol is for self defence. Maybe it's a culture thing?

I don't think I'll start talking about UDD guard units, whether "proper" or "improper". I do have one question though, and I've asked it twice before with no answer, but might get lucky since we have an expert in our midst - what's the difference (if any) between the UDD and DAAD?

I know than many supporters of Dr. Tul said that the multi-colored were not PAD. I beg to differ. When the guards are PAD, the head of the PAD guards is regularly supervising the multi colored protests, when people like Gen. Pathumpong Kesornsuk and several other important figures of PAD are on the stages, and when the majority of protesters have been the same protesters that i have known for a long time from the pre-coup era, the government house and the airport occupation - then they are PAD, under whatever other name or uniform they have been running at the time.

The patriot network is a real splinter group of the PAD, and there are problems between PAD and the patriots. But the muliti-coloreds were not a splinter group.

To answer your question - the confusion came after the UDD was initially formed. There was some confusion over their name, and one of the two english language newspapers called the UDD, and the other DAAD. In Thai the name changed once - first it was "Nor Por Kor", and then became "Nor Por Chor".

[phiphidon]

...

Lets just wait and see if Amsterdam,can produce a copy of Abisits UK Birth Certificate,and more to the point,proof that Abhisit has taken up British Citizenship???

No one's denying that Abhisit was born in the UK and has a UK birth certificate. And if you are born in the UK you are entitled to British citizenship.

The question is did Abhisit renounce it.

But I agree with what Emptyset said above. The ICC won't take the case anyway.

From Robert Amsterdams Tweets - and well done the two of you for at least keeping with the OP

• If it is this hard to get a straight answer out of Thailand's PM about his citizenship, think how hard it is to get truth on the massacres.6 minutes ago via web
• Everyone's tired of Abhisit's obfuscation. He KNOWS it doesn't matter if he paid student fees, WE know he isn't Montenegrin. And??6 minutes ago via web
• Let's come up with an award for the first Thai journalist who can prove that 1) Abhisit is British, and 2) that he is lying about it.9 minutes ago via web

[nicknostitz]

Previous two nights minor clashes, still controlled. On the 22nd massive clash AFTER the grenade attack with 1 dead, 80 wounded. Now who did you say was provoked?

To answer your direct question, no I wasn't there. My Thai boss told me to avoid idiots, even told me to stay away from the office later in May (UCL that is). Mind you I did follow twitter, TV and some other sites. Even then it was clear not all could be believed.

The Red Shirts were provoked, and their militants hit back with (disproportionate, and illegal) force. The military let this provocation happen over three nights in a row, and even encouraged and supported it. For this the military should be held responsible.

The daytime protests in front of Silom Complex by PAD supported "Silom" people were military sponsored as well, but entirely legitimate (as long as you can call the military supporting a political gathering of more than 5 people in times of the emergency decree legal, but given that the Red Shirts have broken that law as well, we shouldn't get too nit picky here). The daytime protests happened far away enough from the barricades that they cannot be seen as a provocation, or endangering of civilians.

[Emptyset]

I doubt you can really argue that. (If I am correct in my assumption) The whole intention of this rally was to provoke the red shirts into using the arms which - by this point understood by many - were available to them. If there had been no prior M79 attacks would this rally therefore be allowed to proceed? I personally doubt it.

It did proceed and the red shirts took the proverbial bait. Before the grenade attack what were the PAD/military guilty of? Anything more than holding an anti-red shirt rally and shouting a few taunts? After the grenades were fired there apparently was some rage on display, but given the timing I can at the least empathize.

Well, there was a fight the night before too (night of the 21st), and Nirmal Ghosh pointed out: "The interesting part of the evening was that the police and soldiers did nothing to stop the pro-government crowd, which incidentally was also, like the Reds, in violation of the Emergency Decree which prohibits assembly of more than five people. Yet they were allowed to assemble and yell at the Reds in a gradual escalation all afternoon, which finally exploded at night with the police and soldiers simply looking on."

"The Reds vastly outnumbered the pro-government protestors, but held their ground. The pro-government men periodically surged out into the intersection to throw missiles at the barricades. Some hung back, crouching in the shrubbery on the verge, aiming carefully and letting loose with slingshots – deadly when fired with small ball bearings or marbles.

All the while, police deployed on the ground, and soldiers on the pedestrian overpass above, did absolutely nothing to stop or separate the two sides. In fact the police even moved one of their trucks out of the way of the rampaging pro-government men."

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/4/22/flashpoint-silom

So you could certainly make a good argument that the military/police could've done more to prevent further violence the next day...

[Buchholz]

I agree he should've been tried in court, but getting him there might have proved quite problematic. I also suspect that Seh Daeng might have been more a "front man" or even a "scapegoat" for the people that really planned the violence, especially on April 10th. Do you think this is a possibility, Nick? A friend who's quite well-placed told me that it wasn't Seh Daeng who planned the violence on the 10th, but rather more shadowy figures in the background, including the likes of Panlop and Manoon. Seh Daeng might not have even known of it before it happened, yet it seems he was quite probably shot in revenge for it. However, even knowledgeable, well-connected sources can be wrong (mainly I suppose because people lie or spread false rumours deliberately, you can talk to two people equally well placed and get five different stories), so I've given up hope of ever really knowing the truth of who was behind it. Perhaps Seh Daeng really was the "mastermind", I don't know.

Suggesting Seh Daeng might have been a 'front man', following 'a freind high up told me' and ending with 'perhaps real mastermind' topped with a bit of 'I don't know'.

No offence, but again you succeed in sowing disinformation and possibly discord. I too have spoken with some well-placed persons, even one who's name starts with a P. Can't give you details, old boy, need-to-know applies. Silly really, but there it is.

Read this again, if you feel like it, with Thomas Fuller was interviewing Gen. Khattiya Sawasdiphol, known as "Seh Daeng," when he was shot in the head.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126805541

"name starts with P"

It is fun what with, "I can't discuss it for now"... and "speaking with someone high up"... and various other sundry covert and obtuse posts.

Almost makes me want to go read more of the "Witty Report"... the special forces expert and tactical warfare specialist and expert witness for Amsterdam who spent untold hours watching youtube videos to uncover the truth for all of us.

[Pi Sek]

I know than many supporters of Dr. Tul said that the multi-colored were not PAD. I beg to differ. When the guards are PAD, the head of the PAD guards is regularly supervising the multi colored protests, when people like Gen. Pathumpong Kesornsuk and several other important figures of PAD are on the stages, and when the majority of protesters have been the same protesters that i have known for a long time from the pre-coup era, the government house and the airport occupation - then they are PAD, under whatever other name or uniform they have been running at the time.

The patriot network is a real splinter group of the PAD, and there are problems between PAD and the patriots. But the muliti-coloreds were not a splinter group.

To answer your question - the confusion came after the UDD was initially formed. There was some confusion over their name, and one of the two english language newspapers called the UDD, and the other DAAD. In Thai the name changed once - first it was "Nor Por Kor", and then became "Nor Por Chor".

Well, I beg to differ. I was a supporter of Dr. Tul, who came to Bangkok with others specifically to show unity for Abhisit (whom, we felt, had been unjustly targetted by the UDD), and I was not a supporter of the PAD, no matter who showed up on stage. Remember that Chamlong announced that the government had 7 days to suppress the Red Shirts or the public will do it themselves shortly after 10 April? The local PAD chapters phoning around just after that announcement prompted a breakaway movement from some former-PAD supporters who wanted the Reds to accept an early dissolution (already offered by Abhisit beforehand) and go home. So Dr. Tul's group and the PAD had entirely different objectives. I suppose this can be equated to many Red Shirts not supporting the UDD, or Thaksin.

Thank you for your answer re the UDD and DAAD though - I've been wondering for years! So, they're one and the same.

[rubl]

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/4/22/flashpoint-silom

So you could certainly make a good argument that the military/police could've done more to prevent further violence the next day...

With 'prevent further violence' I guess you mean the clashes although they didn't do much harm. I doubt you mean to imply the grenade attack could have been avoided. the clashes were in front of the bamboo wall, the grenade attack less accurate

[Buchholz]

And remember what they did on October 1976 as well. Oh, sorry about that, too long ago and the late k. Samak said only one unlucky person died then.

Now tell me, didn't the UDD start around 2007 a bit past the October 2006 coup. Wasn't that when 'real' violence by shirts other than Army and Police started. I find too many 'facts' in the replies which seem to be based on 'what everyone knows', or 'says', or a simple 'I don't tell you yet'. The truth is wonderful, but tends to escape all of us, obviously hiding behind facts

No, it didn't start then. In the coup era only one violent incident happened, and that was the Sisao Thewet clashes, in which the UDD was falsely accused of having attempted to storm the residence of general Prem. At the time the UDD had no guards. Here is a little story about it:

another version from the news of the time in 2007 when UDD was active and for which quite a few of the Red Shirt Leaders are currently facing charges related to the hundreds who were injured:

Protesters move to Privy Council President's house

BANGKOK, JULY 22 (TNA) -- Anti-government protesters led by the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) broke through police barricades Sunday afternoon during their move from Sanam Luang to the residence of Privy Council President and Senior Statesman Prem Tinsulanonda.

Minor violence erupted during the failed blockage at the Makkhawan Bridge when demonstrators threw assorted objects at some 2,000 police and security personnel and managed to remove some steel barricades before dumping them into a nearby canal.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Pol. Lt-Gen. Adisorn Nonsee said arrest warrants will be sought on Monday for eight core leaders of DAAD, based on existing photos and TV footage. Some demonstrators will be prosecuted for physically assaulting state officials and vandalising state property.

Speaking through loudspeakers on the back of a truck, DAAD core leader Veera Musikapong stated that the protesters will continue their demonstration until Gen. Prem resigns from his post.

The traffic around Gen. Prem's house came to a stand-still amid an afternoon rain shower while negotiations were underway.

The DAAD -- comprised of former members of the now dissolved Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party -- earlier condemned the privy councilor for his alleged support for last September's coup that overthrew former TRT leader and then Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Gen. Prem is a former prime minister and army chief.

In May 2007, a tribunal constitution dissolved TRT for electoral fraud with their 111 executives including Mr. Veera himself being banned from politics for five years. (TNA)-E002

http://etna.mcot.net/query.php?nid=30642

[nicknostitz]

Well, I beg to differ. I was a supporter of Dr. Tul, who came to Bangkok with others specifically to show unity for Abhisit (whom, we felt, had been unjustly targetted by the UDD), and I was not a supporter of the PAD, no matter who showed up on stage. Remember that Chamlong announced that the government had 7 days to suppress the Red Shirts or the public will do it themselves shortly after 10 April? The local PAD chapters phoning around just after that announcement prompted a breakaway movement from some former-PAD supporters who wanted the Reds to accept an early dissolution (already offered by Abhisit beforehand) and go home. So Dr. Tul's group and the PAD had entirely different objectives. I suppose this can be equated to many Red Shirts not supporting the UDD, or Thaksin.

Thank you for your answer re the UDD and DAAD though - I've been wondering for years! So, they're one and the same.

Actually, yes, i remember, and i know also that the PAD people that were against Chamlong's (and the other PAD leader's) demands, and were then more or less pushed out of the PAD. many of them came from the former people's movement, and had still many friends in the Red Shirts.

Dr. Tul though not just shared Chamlong's position. The "multi-coloreds" were set up exactly attempting to draw the government supporters that had misgivings of the PAD. It was a PAD run thing, which has failed though. Only very few non PAD people turned up at the rallies. You must have been one of them, and you were fooled. Sorry.

And by the way, one of the things that many people of the people's movement would have never condoned was a regular feature at the Multi-colored rallies - the notorious right wing song of the 70's: Nac Phandin

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/09/11/scum-of-the-earth/

If you want to equate, than you can equate the PAD and the Patriot Network with the UDD and Daeng Siam - the latter splinter groups of the former with ideological differences.

[rubl]

Previous two nights minor clashes, still controlled. On the 22nd massive clash AFTER the grenade attack with 1 dead, 80 wounded. Now who did you say was provoked?

To answer your direct question, no I wasn't there. My Thai boss told me to avoid idiots, even told me to stay away from the office later in May (UCL that is). Mind you I did follow twitter, TV and some other sites. Even then it was clear not all could be believed.

The Red Shirts were provoked, and their militants hit back with (disproportionate, and illegal) force. The military let this provocation happen over three nights in a row, and even encouraged and supported it. For this the military should be held responsible.

The daytime protests in front of Silom Complex by PAD supported "Silom" people were military sponsored as well, but entirely legitimate (as long as you can call the military supporting a political gathering of more than 5 people in times of the emergency decree legal, but given that the Red Shirts have broken that law as well, we shouldn't get too nit picky here). The daytime protests happened far away enough from the barricades that they cannot be seen as a provocation, or endangering of civilians.

Oh were the red-shirts provoked? Who would have thought? Anyone working in the CBD around RamaIV, Silom, Witthayu, Sukhumvit, Ploenchit, RamaI was slowly, but surely feeling provoked. Even in the office with closed windows the shouting from the main stage could be heard miles around. Indoctrination, pure and simple, find some PTV broadcasts to check.

A handful of militant PAD's provoke red-shirts who have been provoking from mid of March? Militant hit back a bit hard? The daytime protest was a bit further from the Saladaeng bamboo wall, still that's were the grenades happened to fall around 8PM. Bad shots?

In some of what you write you seem to justify the red-shirt violence even when you said 'but a bit disproportioned'. I do not always succeed in being objective and open-minded, nor do you it seems

[rixalex]

You describe yourself as being a journalist, with all that should imply, and you claim to be neutral and independent, but then you go and state your opinion as being a fact. Or do you actually have evidence to back up what you have just accused "the state" of?

Yes, i otherwise i would not have stated what i just did.

No, i will not present it on ThaiVisa.

As someone who i assume has studied journalism and who i assume has worked for one or more news agencies, you would obviously know better than i, but isn't one of the golden rules: don't state something as fact that you are not willing or able to back up with proof?

Nobody is "neutral" - that is something like being neutered.

Neutral isn't something like being neutered - not to me anyway - it is being able to consider information without allowing personal emotions and prejudices to interfere with the conclusions we draw. On that subject, do you find it difficult with the amount of time you spend in and amongst red protesters, to not be affected by the personal feelings which must surely naturally develop over the course of time?

[Buchholz]

And remember what they did on October 1976 as well. Oh, sorry about that, too long ago and the late k. Samak said only one unlucky person died then.

Now tell me, didn't the UDD start around 2007 a bit past the October 2006 coup. Wasn't that when 'real' violence by shirts other than Army and Police started. I find too many 'facts' in the replies which seem to be based on 'what everyone knows', or 'says', or a simple 'I don't tell you yet'. The truth is wonderful, but tends to escape all of us, obviously hiding behind facts

No, it didn't start then. In the coup era only one violent incident happened, and that was the Sisao Thewet clashes, in which the UDD was falsely accused of having attempted to storm the residence of general Prem. At the time the UDD had no guards. Here is a little story about it:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2008/08/12/revisiting-the-prem-compound-clashes/

The UDD ceased operating after the People Power Party won the elections, and reappeared after the PAD began their renewed protests. Initially the UDD had no guards, and only after the Makhawan clash they have slowly began improving their organization. The first proper guard units only appeared by late 2008, if i can recall.

Still busy searching. Found this interesting piece from 'comrade Sung', May 2009.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10816

Which reminds me to ask, when did Dr. weng start the 'schools' to educate the ignorant poor in social doctrine ? Surely he must have told them that you need a seemingly peaceful arm and a more violent one, with only leaders having a need-to-know. Well he should know, learned a lot in Vietnam in the 70s.

Anyway, don't worry, still digging for information on red-shirt / UDD / DAAD / unknowns guards. Will get back to you.

PS no offence, but humans being what they are just referring to your own articles starts to become a bit suspect.

There's a number of news stories on the UDD in 2007 from a variety of sources here:

http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/archive/index.php/t-2645.html

[nicknostitz]

another version from the news of the time in 2007 when UDD was active and for which quite a few of the Red Shirt Leaders are currently facing charges related to the hundreds who were injured:

http://etna.mcot.net...y.php?nid=30642

What other version? The article says nothing at all about the violence, or who started it. Which was quite common in the coup days - nothing of substance, leaving out or distorting important facts.