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

[nicknostitz]

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?

I said that i will not present certain information at ThaiVisa. That doesn't mean that i won't do that at some other time, in another venue. I haven't studied journalism, by the way, but i had some very good teachers while working with very professional journalists over the years.

I spend as much time with the PAD, when they decide to protest. As i have done in the last couple of weeks since they were at Government House.

And yes, of course i am affected by personal feelings. Knowing this, i know how important it is to remain factual. Without spending much time with my subject matter, i would never get the amount of insights i am getting. I have also my most important sources outside the protest movements. I do not hang on the lips of whatever protest movement i work on.

[Emptyset]

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/t...oryId=126805541

How does that interview in any way contradict what I said? How do you know it's disinformation (meaning that what I said was false or inaccurate)? You'd only know it was disinformation if you knew exactly who the men in black were and who ordered them to do what they did. And you don't know that for sure. You're just going with the simplest explanation, which is that Seh Daeng plotted and planned it all. However, Thaksin has more friends in the military than just Seh Daeng, that much should be obvious. He also met with Panlop at the same time as Seh Daeng, so why do you find it so unlikely that a group including Panlop might've planned it? I say Seh Daeng didn't know, because Seh Daeng was considered a loose cannon and it would've likely been in the press days before it happened if they'd told him. But I don't know for sure he didn't know. Thaksin is also close to at least Gen Trairong Intaratat, Gen Chavalit and Maj-Gen Pruen Suwannathat. Then there's Manoon who's known to have sided with the red shirts. And then take into account rival factions that oppose Prayuth and Burapha Payak, mainly the Wong Thewan faction, some senior serving members of which are known to be close to some of the generals I list above (esp. Maj-Gen Pruen). Obviously there's discontent as whilst this government is in charge, with Prawit & Prayuth working together, Burapha Payak have almost all the key senior positions.

Anyway, it seems at least as plausible that they were involved - at least in the planning stage - as the idea that Seh Daeng organized it all alone or in conspiracy with the UDD leaders. It's hard to believe some of them weren't involved, actually, as many retired generals "can't resist meddling" (as Chang Noi once put it). Anyway, what I heard, as I said, was that this clique of generals, some retired, some serving organized the violence on the 10th probably without Seh Daeng's involvement. But then they weren't involved again in the conflict, as far as I know, until the 19th. This may sound like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, but how unlikely is it that some military men would try to capitalize on the red shirt movement for their own ends? Most here seem to think Thaksin and the red shirt leaders must've planned every event, as if there weren't other people operating behind the scenes... I'm not saying Thaksin wasn't in on it, he likely was and agreed to the April 10th plan, but he's not the military strategist capable of planning it. I don't see what practical difference it makes to you Rubl, I'm not trying to pin the blame on CRES or anything silly like that, if you want to blame everything on Seh Daeng & Dr Weng, then fair enough, you've obviously already made your mind up. Anyway, this is the last time I'll mention this theory until any more information comes in. I only mentioned it again to see if Nick had heard anything along similar lines, since he'd definitely be one of the best placed to know what really happened.

[473geo]

Thanks Nick for your snippets and observations from your on the ground experiences

Do please drop me a PM when your book is on sale, I am sure I will find the content interesting and enlightening. I have enjoyed your appraisal of various situations when responding to the in depth questioning provided here on TV

[Pi Sek]

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.

No I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. The PAD didn't run the multi-coloureds... I spoke with hundreds of them for days. "Only very few non PAD people turned up at the rallies" is nowhere close to the truth - I'd say less than 20% were pro-PAD, although it's clear the PAD wanted to ally themselves with this group. Whether you are a photojournalist or not, even if you speak fluent Thai and have studied Thai history and politics, it is not possible for you to have an understanding of the Tul-led protest to the same degree as someone else (fluent in Thai with significant knowledge of Thai history from both inside and outside of Thailand) who was there for reasons of civic duty. I could have been fooled as you labour to mention but, if I was, I was in the large majority. I just don't think that's the case.

I don't think the TPN or the multicoloured shirts were a splinter of the PAD. I think that the umbrella is the Yellow Shirts, united by their disapproval of Thaksin. The PAD is a faction of them. The multicoloured shirts are another faction. The TPN is another faction, although I gather they are for the most part, hardline PAD supporters mixed with various political-religious leaders.

Likewise, the Red Shirt movement is a movement for the Red Shirts - not the UDD, not Thaksin. Daeng Siam don't agree with many UDD ideas and the UDD have pulled Somyos up on things like his "suggestion" of future violence through suicide bombers.

Your problem is that you are still clearly lumping things into two boxes. Thaksin, Jatuporn, Veera, Seh Daeng, Somyos, Sombat, Tida... they've all had their arguments and were definitely not on the same page; and Abhisit, the army, the PAD, etc are not on the same side either. You are well aware of this but seem intent on the romantic idea of "Reds united against the elite". The UDD is the elite, surely you have noticed this!

[Buchholz]

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:

What other version? The article says nothing at all about the violence, or who started it.

Sorry, got the wrong news article:

Anti-coup mob goes berserk

Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda was barricaded inside his house late last night as anti-coup demonstrators threw a barrage of rocks, chairs and debris into the compound.

In the first major outbreak of violence since the anti-coup movement started in September, protesters from the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) clashed with police outside Prem's home. Several thousand people kept up the barrage of missiles for about three hours as Prem was reportedly taking shelter inside.

The Nation - July 23, 2007

"old school" red shirts when they used to wear yellow

.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

I only mentioned it again to see if Nick had heard anything along similar lines, since he'd definitely be one of the best placed to know what really happened.

There is a lot of merit in your post, especially pointing out that the stage of this conflict is much wider and deeper than many people assume.

[Emptyset]

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.a...m-of-the-earth/

A couple of friends went to the multicolour rally at Victory Monument and they were never involved in PAD. I believe they were well meaning and didn't do it because they hate red shirts. But it was very PAD "themed" at least, right-wing nationalist songs etc. I can appreciate people's legitimate frustration with the red shirts though, although I thought at the time a much better solution would've been to dissolve the house swiftly rather than oppose it's dissolution and create even more differences. More on Dr Tul:

On 13 April, a group of about 100 people led by Dr Tul Sitthisomwong, a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Medicine, gathered at the Victory Monument. They waved Thai flags, played propaganda songs, and called on silent forces to come out to oppose the red shirts and support the government in not dissolving Parliament.

They sang 'We Fight', an anti-communist song whose melody was composed by HM the King in 1970s.

On 24 Nov 2008, Tul led a group of Chulalongkorn lecturers and students under the name of Siam Intellect to a rally at the Army Headquarters to call on Gen Anupong and the military to take a leading role in maintaining peace and order in society and maintain loyalty to the monarchy. Soldiers were the hope of the people in the protection of Nation, Religion and the King, he said at the time.

Later, he went on to speak on the stage of the PAD, attacking the then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, saying that a jail sentence was not enough for him, because he who had ordered the killing of other people should also die

(Tul referred to the 7 Oct 2008 incident in which the PAD clashed with police after the PAD surrounded and closed the Parliament compound). Somchai must be severely punished after he was removed from office.

Tul went on to say that, speaking as a doctor, love for the country and the king was embedded only in Thais' DNA, not that of other peoples. It was a pity that many Thais had mutated and did not have the love for the king in their DNA and should not be called Thai, he said

.

http://asiapacific.a...#comment-698974

[rubl]

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/t...oryId=126805541

How does that interview in any way contradict what I said? How do you know it's disinformation (meaning that what I said was false or inaccurate)? You'd only know it was disinformation if you knew exactly who the men in black were and who ordered them to do what they did. And you don't know that for sure. You're just going with the simplest explanation, which is that Seh Daeng plotted and planned it all.

... rest removed

Someone told me it wasn't Seh Daeng. Might be true. Even knowledgeable, well-connected sources can be wrong. People lie or spread false rumours deliberately.

That's what I call disinformation. Not false, but not really relevant, trying to divert, suggest, etc., etc. At best you might better have said nothing, at worse ...

For your info, nowhere have I said to go with anything. I just complain about positioning a few statements, saying I don't know, but managing to have put one statement from 'a well-placed friend' suggesting you think that would probably be true. Disinformation and manipulation at its best. Bravo!

[nicknostitz]

No I'm sorry, I think you're wrong. The PAD didn't run the multi-coloureds... I spoke with hundreds of them for days. "Only very few non PAD people turned up at the rallies" is nowhere close to the truth - I'd say less than 20% were pro-PAD, although it's clear the PAD wanted to ally themselves with this group. Whether you are a photojournalist or not, even if you speak fluent Thai and have studied Thai history and politics, it is not possible for you to have an understanding of the Tul-led protest to the same degree as someone else (fluent in Thai with significant knowledge of Thai history from both inside and outside of Thailand) who was there for reasons of civic duty. I could have been fooled as you labour to mention but, if I was, I was in the large majority. I just don't think that's the case.

I don't think the TPN or the multicoloured shirts were a splinter of the PAD. I think that the umbrella is the Yellow Shirts, united by their disapproval of Thaksin. The PAD is a faction of them. The multicoloured shirts are another faction. The TPN is another faction, although I gather they are for the most part, hardline PAD supporters mixed with various political-religious leaders.

Likewise, the Red Shirt movement is a movement for the Red Shirts - not the UDD, not Thaksin. Daeng Siam don't agree with many UDD ideas and the UDD have pulled Somyos up on things like his "suggestion" of future violence through suicide bombers.

Your problem is that you are still clearly lumping things into two boxes. Thaksin, Jatuporn, Veera, Seh Daeng, Somyos, Sombat, Tida... they've all had their arguments and were definitely not on the same page; and Abhisit, the army, the PAD, etc are not on the same side either. You are well aware of this but seem intent on the romantic idea of "Reds united against the elite". The UDD is the elite, surely you have noticed this!

Believe what you want to believe. I have known many of the multi-coloreds for years (as PAD protesters and guards, organizers, and other hidden figures in this fascinating game).

And if you want my personal opinion - many PAD protesters have been fooled for a long time, and many have left because of that.

The PAD are the Yellow Shirts. There were many factions that initially united under the yellow shirts from many organisations. Some left after the coup (some even became Red Shirts - Dr. Weng, for example was once with the PAD, but left before the coup), some remained, and by now many more have left. The Patriots are a splinter group - i have spent much time with them, including going to Aranyaprathet where they protested at the border.

[nicknostitz]

[

Sorry, got the wrong news article:

Anti-coup mob goes berserk

Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda was barricaded inside his house late last night as anti-coup demonstrators threw a barrage of rocks, chairs and debris into the compound.

In the first major outbreak of violence since the anti-coup movement started in September, protesters from the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) clashed with police outside Prem's home. Several thousand people kept up the barrage of missiles for about three hours as Prem was reportedly taking shelter inside.

The Nation - July 23, 2007

"old school" red shirts when they used to wear yellow

.

Another one again - the article did not say who began the violence. It was the police on orders of the military.

Neither did it say that about as much bottles and whatever came flying out of the compound as flew in.

[nicknostitz]

The beginning of UDD violence: July 22, 2007

The beginning of the violence was the police attempting to disperse the protesters.

[nicknostitz]

Thanks Nick for your snippets and observations from your on the ground experiences

Do please drop me a PM when your book is on sale, I am sure I will find the content interesting and enlightening. I have enjoyed your appraisal of various situations when responding to the in depth questioning provided here on TV

Thank you

[Buchholz]

[

Sorry, got the wrong news article:

Anti-coup mob goes berserk

Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda was barricaded inside his house late last night as anti-coup demonstrators threw a barrage of rocks, chairs and debris into the compound.

In the first major outbreak of violence since the anti-coup movement started in September, protesters from the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) clashed with police outside Prem's home. Several thousand people kept up the barrage of missiles for about three hours as Prem was reportedly taking shelter inside.

The Nation - July 23, 2007

"old school" red shirts when they used to wear yellow

Another one again - the article did not say who began the violence. It was the police on orders of the military.

Neither did it say that about as much bottles and whatever came flying out of the compound as flew in.

So the picture above and the subsequent photos are UDD in defensive positions defending against attacking police?

Good to see though that you're at least backing away from your earlier saying UDD didn't start in 2007

[Buchholz]

The beginning of UDD violence: July 22, 2007

The beginning of the violence was the police attempting to disperse the protesters.

The meaning wasn't in reference to that particular evening, just that this was when UDD violence started in general and that has been repeated numerous times since then.

.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Buchholz

[rubl]

RE: Yellow shirts.

In 2006 or 2007 to honor H.M. the King many people started wearing a yellow shirt on Monday with royal emblem on left breast side and possibly a message on the back, some company logo down on the right sleeve. That's how I got two, from my company. At or during that time the yellow shirt became associated with the PAD. Too bad. I'm wearing pink now, never thought I ever would

(edit: add: RED shirt, sorry not appreciated at the banks I work. Some were targeted last year.)

(add: on monday yellow shirt day)

Edited February 20, 2011 by rubl

[Pi Sek]

The Yellow Shirt thing was to celebrate HM's birthday. I still wear them on Mondays and pain to point out even to some Thais that the shirt represent HM, not the PAD.

[Emptyset]

Someone told me it wasn't Seh Daeng. Might be true. Even knowledgeable, well-connected sources can be wrong. People lie or spread false rumours deliberately.

That's what I call disinformation. Not false, but not really relevant, trying to divert, suggest, etc., etc. At best you might better have said nothing, at worse ...

For your info, nowhere have I said to go with anything. I just complain about positioning a few statements, saying I don't know, but managing to have put one statement from 'a well-placed friend' suggesting you think that would probably be true. Disinformation and manipulation at its best. Bravo!

I do think it's true. But I'm not sure enough to call it fact, I only believe it because I trust my friend, especially given who he says told him. However, it's obviously not something I can share on a public board. I can't see how you can say I'm seriously trying to manipulate or spread disinformation? So I'm trying to manipulate people to suggest that some (many of them notoriously shady) generals might have a heavy yet unseen hand in events? Why would I do that, do you think I have some sort of vendetta against the generals I named and would want to deliberately smear them? Anyway, that aside. Much of what's written in the papers/blogs is based on inside sources and rumours, no one can be 100% sure of what's going on behind the scenes. A lot of the articles written in Asia Times, which seem to get linked quite often here, by Sean Crispin or others are based on "well placed" unnamed sources and contain similar speculation, so why take particular offense at my posting similar here? Would you accuse Crispin of "Disinformation and manipulation at its best" when he uses information from sources that he doesn't name? Every journalist relies upon this kind of information, and they can never be 100% sure it's true, even though it's often presented as fact. I guess it depends on their credibility and bias - (perceived or not), as to whether you believe them.

[nicknostitz]

[

Sorry, got the wrong news article:

Anti-coup mob goes berserk

Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda was barricaded inside his house late last night as anti-coup demonstrators threw a barrage of rocks, chairs and debris into the compound.

In the first major outbreak of violence since the anti-coup movement started in September, protesters from the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DADD) clashed with police outside Prem's home. Several thousand people kept up the barrage of missiles for about three hours as Prem was reportedly taking shelter inside.

The Nation - July 23, 2007

"old school" red shirts when they used to wear yellow

Another one again - the article did not say who began the violence. It was the police on orders of the military.

Neither did it say that about as much bottles and whatever came flying out of the compound as flew in.

So the picture above and the subsequent photos are UDD in defensive positions defending against attacking police?

Good to see though that you're at least backing away from your earlier saying UDD didn't start in 2007

As far as i remember the UDD was founded in 2006? I have only stated that in the coup era they had no organized guard units, and that these came only late in 2008.

And yes, the UDD fought back three attempts by the police to disperse them that night, and retreated themselves at the first attempt. Just read my story on it. In the comments section you can see a link to the Asia Sentinel story which has been mostly correct.

[Roadman]

The beginning of UDD violence: July 22, 2007

The beginning of the violence was the police attempting to disperse the protesters.

Which they have the right as the police to do.

When a police force is incapable of carrying out basic police functions that we in western countries take for granted then the Army fulfills that function.

The point of violence which was crossed was when Sah Daeng's goons with the freedom to roam at will through Red ranks attacked and killed members of the Thai Army...attacked and killed Thai's in there duty of defending the Monarchy, Thailand its people and its servants is an act of war. The response was correct and I will trust that the same were to occur again, but quicker and with better precision.

[nicknostitz]

The Yellow Shirt thing was to celebrate HM's birthday. I still wear them on Mondays and pain to point out even to some Thais that the shirt represent HM, not the PAD.

You are quite wrong again. The PAD took up Yellow Shirts (after the Sondhi Limthongkul protesters wore them already in late 2005). The yellow of the shirts celebrating the 60 year on the throne anniversary of the king (not his birthday) were a shade lighter than the PAD yellow shirts.

As you can see from the photos shown - even UDD protesters wore initially the same royal yellow shirts, but would have abhorred the PAD yellow shirts.

The "yellow shirts" were another name for the PAD, and not used for Thais that wore the royal yellow shirts.

[nicknostitz]

The beginning of UDD violence: July 22, 2007

The beginning of the violence was the police attempting to disperse the protesters.

Which they have the right as the police to do.

When a police force is incapable of carrying out basic police functions that we in western countries take for granted then the Army fulfills that function.

The point of violence which was crossed was when Sah Daeng's goons with the freedom to roam at will through Red ranks attacked and killed members of the Thai Army...attacked and killed Thai's in there duty of defending the Monarchy, Thailand its people and its servants is an act of war. The response was correct and I will trust that the same were to occur again, but quicker and with better precision.

Quite wrong.

If you notice the date - the comment was about an incident during the coup era. Sae Daeng was not involved yet for more than another year. And during a time after the military has staged a coup and torn up the constitution is is quite adventurous to talk about legalities of actions against protesters, especially when the 1997 constitution (torn up by the coup makers) gave Thais the explicit right of resisting against a coup.

[rubl]

I do think it's true. But I'm not sure enough to call it fact, I only believe it because I trust my friend, especially given who he says told him. However, it's obviously not something I can share on a public board. I can't see how you can say I'm seriously trying to manipulate or spread disinformation? So I'm trying to manipulate people to suggest that some (many of them notoriously shady) generals might have a heavy yet unseen hand in events? Why would I do that, do you think I have some sort of vendetta against the generals I named and would want to deliberately smear them?

You do believe that what your friend told you a friend of his told him is true. Of course you cannot disclose the source.

I may have indicated but not explicitly stated you (seriously) try to spread disinformation. You're doing it again in this reply of yours

I'm willing to believe it's an oversight. Smearing generals, heaven forbid I accuse you of that. If you're in Thailand I might even be guilty of getting you before a firing squad, defamation laws as they are in Thailand. I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy, I stick to that curse of the lower level of Hell

[rubl]

If you notice the date - the comment was about an incident during the coup era. Sae Daeng was not involved yet for more than another year. And during a time after the military has staged a coup and torn up the constitution is is quite adventurous to talk about legalities of actions against protesters, especially when the 1997 constitution (torn up by the coup makers) gave Thais the explicit right of resisting against a coup.

This brings me back to the OP and what I wrote before

"Is no-one really interested anymore that this 'enemy of the poor', 'kill them all' maniac, 'stealer of an election' PM happens to be a British oppressor of the worst colonial stamp?"

Never mind. I bought a beer at the mom&pop shop an hour ago and still try to finish it before going to bed. Enough for today/tonight/

Take care y'all and remember this wise song 'let's tally here and drink down the moon'.

[Buchholz]

So the picture above and the subsequent photos are UDD in defensive positions defending against attacking police?

Good to see though that you're at least backing away from your earlier saying UDD didn't start in 2007

As far as i remember the UDD was founded in 2006? I have only stated that in the coup era they had no organized guard units, and that these came only late in 2008.

And yes, the UDD fought back three attempts by the police to disperse them that night, and retreated themselves at the first attempt. Just read my story on it. In the comments section you can see a link to the Asia Sentinel story which has been mostly correct.

Interesting that your version differs from other reports, but I suppose that's just the nature of reporting (or blogging in your case).

btw, I can see you've posted a great deal today so I can understand your forgetting what you told rubl in an earlier post about the UDD, but at least you've corrected yourself above.

Now tell me, didn't the UDD start around 2007 a bit past the October 2006 coup.

No, it didn't start then.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

btw, I can see you've posted a great deal today so I can understand your forgetting what you told rubl in an earlier post about the UDD, but at least you've corrected yourself above.

Editing somebody else's post to make it brief or to answer to a particular point is quite permissible, cutting it to completely distort its meaning and context is out of order.

Here, the proper context:

rubl, on 2011-02-20 21:51:50, said:

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

My answer:

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.a...mpound-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.

Edited February 20, 2011 by nicknostitz

[siampolee]

Just a passing comment.

Is it at all possible that this topic may actually return to its actual content ?

If not , why not reassign the off topic posts to a new thread ?

[Siam Simon]

Just a passing comment.

Is it at all possible that this topic may actually return to its actual content ?

If not , why not reassign the off topic posts to a new thread ?

Nah, why interrupt the flow of excellent discussion on this thread? Nearly all political discussion threads on here mutate. TVF isn't a telephone directory or some such. Anyway, if you want to talk about Abhisit's nationality, nobody is restraining you.

[mca]

As per usual in LOS there's too much fannying around with vague statements like the PM had to pay overseas student fees for study therefore he can't be a Brit. How simple would it be ( if that's the case ) for the PM to say " I renounced my British citizenship on such-and such a date and here's the paperwork to prove it " or " According to British law I'm not actually a British citizen from being born there but I could be if I so chose and here's the British regulation stating as such "

If I was him I'd dot the i's and cross the t's post haste.

[Siripon]

As a citizen of Montenegro can Thaksin be indicted by the ICC for the drug war killings?

[Siam Simon]

As a citizen of Montenegro can Thaksin be indicted by the ICC for the drug war killings?

Possibly, but the whole stack of cards that rules Thailand would come tumbling down if he were . All good in my book, but it aint going to happen.