Two troops shot, injured allegedly by STR guards

[Muhendis]

Hopefully whoever shot the soldiers will be held fully accountable for their actions.

I in no way want to excuse this despicable shooting but a question that has to be asked is why were soldiers on patrol in civilian clothes?

Additionally, with tensions running high at the moment, a wise "friendly patrol" lets it be known they are in the area.

It also seems that gun law is becoming the norm. I dislike the illegal use of weapons but it comes as no great surprise when people like Jutaporn brag about thousands of guns and training camps.

[Fat Haggis]

Armies all over the world have soldiers operating in plain clothes why should Thailand be considered any different? Also unarmed too. One of the reasons for the Army not to be armed is the fear of the weapons being seized as what happened in 2010, all it takes is for a large group to surround a couple of soldiers and remove their weapons, in exchange for their lives.

If they were up to no good, and their intentions were less than honourable, then it's not just the Police that the Anti Government protesters need to worry about, these attacks could very well all be done by "rogue" troops if some of you are indeed suspicious of their activities..

IF they were planning something "bad" what were they going to use, as it would have been reported that they were "Armed, with X, Y or Z"

This goes back to these people who are protecting the camps, as in what level of training have they had, a young untrained buck, is more prone to shoot first without any regards to whom he's firing it, it's no different to young inexperienced soldiers put in the same position, that's why the Army has ROE's and are under whatever code of conduct the RTA operate, like the UCMJ for the Yanks, and most of the time, they're adhered to, there's no such ROE's within the protester and there's no accountability either.. This is the chance you take when you take the law into your own hands.

[Dogmatix]

There is something odd about this story. Why would soldiers be sent our in civvies to patrol a tense area where there have been multiple shootings and grenade attacks?

I feel another Darwin award coming on.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Dogmatix

[phosphorescent]

There is something odd about this story. Why would soldiers be sent our in civvies to patrol a tense area where there have been multiple shootings and grenade attacks?

Probably because there have been multiple shootings and grenade attacks.

[rabas]

The Army should take heed that where ever it deploys its soldiers, it should check-in with the local private armed militias to get clearance and assure its presence is monitored so as not to create accidentals shootings. If fact why is the Army even showing itself in public. The STR and PDRC militias seem more than capable of keeping THEIR peace and practice their brand of justice as they see fit. Frankly, the idea of allowing private militias in public political protests is another step into a lawless society and follow a path away from democracy. Thailand may become the next "liberated" Libya. The Army should not be operating as a law enforcement agency within Thailand and the private militias need to be banned. How's that for Reform?

The army is acting as a law enforcement agency because the police are not enforcing the law.

They have been from day one but initially it was covert.

The police should be on top of that reform list.

But agreed, as far as law enforcement, Thailand is a single engine plane firing on only one cylinder,

running out of fuel, ..., and the pilot's license is from Khao San Road.

[AleG]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

Well, there's as always level of responsibility with anything and I think the two soldiersb carry very little themselves.

The direct responsibility of this shooting is, of course, with the men who shot the soldiers and whoever put them there and the instructions and training (or lack of) they provided. They are the ones that pulled the trigger with no reasonable cause.

The ultimate responsibility, IMHO, the one for the overall current situation where anti-govermnment protestors have been shot at an killed with impunity for months rest with the government, They though politically convinient to let some Red Shirt groups roam free terrorizing their ooponents, sooner or later the anti-government protestors would arm to defend themselves and incidents like that become likely. This climate of street violence is all the making of the amoral crooks clinging to power by any means.

[bulekee]

Hopefully whoever shot the soldiers will be held fully accountable for their actions.

I in no way want to excuse this despicable shooting but a question that has to be asked is why were soldiers on patrol in civilian clothes?

Maybe to blend in better? Maybe they were off duty and were going somewhere. I don't know. Are civilians safe from getting shot? or should all civilians dressed like soldiers now?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

" Maybe they were off duty"

They were "patrolling", and therefore NOT off duty.

How can you tell if someone is doing a patrol or just out for a walk?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

That's an easy one to answer.If they are just out for a walk,they will have a gun tucked into the back of their trousers.If they are on patrol they will have a bottle of Johnie Walker Black in their pocket.

[rreddin]

The TV yellow coup-mongers trying to play this down. Can you imagine the condemnation if a red was implicated? Yellow double standards alive and well on TV

Being a red supporter you should know as most red supporters who post on here are very adept at applying double standards.

I notice you did not condem the shooting of two civilians by your beloved guards - who could not have known at the time their victims were soldiers on patrol.

You,too, are adept at applying double standards.

[diehard60]

This is rediculous. These guards are no more than thugs. They need to be arrsested. I mean all of them.

[Fat Haggis]

People are getting caught up in semantics here, and when they see the word "Patrol" they think of a scene from Band of Brothers or "Platoon" and think staggered formation evenly spaced out.. it's maybe a poor choice of words to describe their activities, it would have been better to say they were on a covert operation. (if that is indeed what they were doing, and one would presume there were orders given for such a mission too)

If the Army are out conducting Intelligence missions through covert activity, they're hardly going to announce it to anyone, it's called OPSEC.

[GeorgeO]

Staggering hypocrisy from the Suthep mob and the acolyte supporters on this forum: they beg for support / security from the army and when it is offered, apparently shoot them as they please. These scumbag guards need to be sent to prison for a very long time. No one is safe from their indiscriminate, trigger-happy lunacy

"Staggering hypocrisy" is something that you demonstrate regularly Prbkk with your inane comments.

Whenever it is an anti-government supporter who is attacked, you put so much spin on it to make out that they "asked for it" or "they shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time"; in the reverse case, you come on here full of "shock and horror"...! Simply pathetic .

BTW, now you're not only showing your extreme bias, which is becoming rather tedious, but also your lack of understanding of the English language.

Acolyte, n.

1. someone who follows and admires a leader.

2. someone who helps the person leading a church service

So an "acolyte supporter", to quote you, would be an assistant to a devoted follower, or an assistant to a church assistant ... right?

[whybother]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

It does not matter. The fact is these guards (thugs) shoot two people for no reason.Maybe it should have been members of your family instead. How would you like that?????

Actually, there reason probably would have been "We have been shot and bombed by people for months. Those two civilians over there are looking very suspicious".

[GeorgeO]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

It does not matter. The fact is these guards (thugs) shoot two people for no reason.Maybe it should have been members of your family instead. How would you like that?????

I, and I believe many other people on this forum, firmly believe that it is totally unacceptable for you to suggest that family members of a visitor to this forum should suffer unfortunate consequences...!!

You should apologize immediately to the person concerned for your despicable post and think twice before making such comments again in the future...!!

[somchaismith]

Friendly fire

[Scott]

Inflammatory post deleted. Please be civil and exercise care in your posts.

[Som wat]

Dumb....should be arrested.

No sh!t.

Arrested, charged with attempted murder and a host of other charges.

[Fat Haggis]

Being a soldier, regardless of what ever country you come from carries inherent risks, the function of a soldier, trained in combat is to close in and kill the enemy, soldiers are never trained for peace, they're trained for war, the old saying goes in peace you train for war and in war you fight for peace.

Being a soldier means that you have to from time to time accept that there's a possibility you will be placed in harms way, and that also could result in your death or serious injury, it's very different for conscripted troops as they had no choice about "joining up" A volunteer is different, as an Infantry soldier, you have one single mission and purpose, and that's a trained killing machine, in the BritMil it was "The Mean Lean Green Killing Machine" as that's what you are, you're not trained to wound, you're trained to kill.. the slogan back in the 80's when being taught to shoot was something along the lines of "Shoot to Kill"

There's no such thing as "just shoot him in the leg, that'll stop him" as there's no guarantee that a high velocity round hitting you in the thigh will not hit a bone and be deflected out your back/ass/head.. or even sever your femoral artery, same with an arm shot and the bracial artery, you aim for centre mass..period.

Untrained civilians armed with illegally held High Velocity weapons, for the better part lack the understanding of combat shooting, or combat field care/first aid.

As for apportioning blame as to what the incident happened and saying someone higher up should be held accountable, why? If they were following orders/Instructions why would they be held to account? If your boss sent you across town to collect a parcel and you got hit by a car and were seriously injured, would your boss be held accountable? No he wouldn't but the person who was in the car would!!

[lostinsurin]

Staggering hypocrisy from the Suthep mob and the acolyte supporters on this forum: they beg for support / security from the army and when it is offered, apparently shoot them as they please. These scumbag guards need to be sent to prison for a very long time. No one is safe from their indiscriminate, trigger-happy lunacy

"Staggering hypocrisy" is something that you demonstrate regularly Prbkk with your inane comments.

Whenever it is an anti-government supporter who is attacked, you put so much spin on it to make out that they "asked for it" or "they shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time"; in the reverse case, you come on here full of "shock and horror"...! Simply pathetic .

BTW, now you're not only showing your extreme bias, which is becoming rather tedious, but also your lack of understanding of the English language.

Acolyte, n.

1. someone who follows and admires a leader.

2. someone who helps the person leading a church service

So an "acolyte supporter", to quote you, would be an assistant to a devoted follower, or an assistant to a church assistant ... right?

So what you are saying is that you follow somebody that follows somebody religiously.

[lostinsurin]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

It does not matter. The fact is these guards (thugs) shoot two people for no reason.Maybe it should have been members of your family instead. How would you like that?????

I, and I believe many other people on this forum, firmly believe that it is totally unacceptable for you to suggest that family members of a visitor to this forum should suffer unfortunate consequences...!!

You should apologize immediately to the person concerned for your despicable post and think twice before making such comments again in the future...!!

There you go, following somebody that follows somebody religiously.

[geriatrickid]

Hopefully whoever shot the soldiers will be held fully accountable for their actions.

I in no way want to excuse this despicable shooting but a question that has to be asked is why were soldiers on patrol in civilian clothes?

"watermelon" soldiers? I wonder if they were armed also?

Really? The army deployed these people and you now claim "watermelon".

Brilliant. Is this the best you can do to justify the use of high powered assault weapons on people? Are you aware that the STR thugs fired first? No challenge, no warning.

[geriatrickid]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

Since when has the army been willing to accept direction from a civilian government?

The army is not under direct orders from CAPO.

The army refuses to acknowledge the role of a civilian government and has stated multiple times it does not answer to a civilian government.

[Mackie]

Whoever made the decision to send these soldiers out to patrol the rally site in plain clothes is the one who is ultimately to blame for this incident.

Considering the army are acting under direct orders of CAPO, one can say with some confidence that this decision was made to incite this incident knowing that there would be some sort of response.

Since when has the army been willing to accept direction from a civilian government?

The army is not under direct orders from CAPO.

The army refuses to acknowledge the role of a civilian government and has stated multiple times it does not answer to a civilian government.

How about you providing some credible sources for your categorical statements? Or you are just ranting here expressing your deeply ingrained anti-Thai army feelings?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Mackie

[NCFC]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

[khunken]

Being a soldier, regardless of what ever country you come from carries inherent risks, the function of a soldier, trained in combat is to close in and kill the enemy, soldiers are never trained for peace, they're trained for war, the old saying goes in peace you train for war and in war you fight for peace.

Being a soldier means that you have to from time to time accept that there's a possibility you will be placed in harms way, and that also could result in your death or serious injury, it's very different for conscripted troops as they had no choice about "joining up" A volunteer is different, as an Infantry soldier, you have one single mission and purpose, and that's a trained killing machine, in the BritMil it was "The Mean Lean Green Killing Machine" as that's what you are, you're not trained to wound, you're trained to kill.. the slogan back in the 80's when being taught to shoot was something along the lines of "Shoot to Kill"

There's no such thing as "just shoot him in the leg, that'll stop him" as there's no guarantee that a high velocity round hitting you in the thigh will not hit a bone and be deflected out your back/ass/head.. or even sever your femoral artery, same with an arm shot and the bracial artery, you aim for centre mass..period.

Untrained civilians armed with illegally held High Velocity weapons, for the better part lack the understanding of combat shooting, or combat field care/first aid.

As for apportioning blame as to what the incident happened and saying someone higher up should be held accountable, why? If they were following orders/Instructions why would they be held to account? If your boss sent you across town to collect a parcel and you got hit by a car and were seriously injured, would your boss be held accountable? No he wouldn't but the person who was in the car would!!

I don't disagree with most of what you said. However soldiers have been called upon to undertake peace-keeping duties in various conflicts in the world. Before allowing them to take part they need some basic training in less lethal than shoot-to-kill duties. They also need to be recognisable as soldiers and not on patrol out of uniform. So, the officer who sent them on patrol does bear some responsibility for them being shot.

Having said that, the trigger-happy guards with unknown training are the main culprits. Yes, they have been under attack from Ko Tee's mob and others who the police won't act against, but a random shooting of men on a motorbike is never justified.

The shooters should be arrested (along with many others who have killed protestors) and the army officer subjected to disciplinary action for putting his men in a dangerous position.

[khunken]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

Some of the guards need to be armed to protect the main protestor body from the likes of Ko Tee's armed mob. If the police won't make any effort to protect them then they have to protect themselves.

As for your irrelevant comment about 2010 - total rubbish. The MIB were fully armed and any armed red shirt shot had his weapon removed before photos/videos could be taken.

[NCFC]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

Some of the guards need to be armed to protect the main protestor body from the likes of Ko Tee's armed mob. If the police won't make any effort to protect them then they have to protect themselves.

As for your irrelevant comment about 2010 - total rubbish. The MIB were fully armed and any armed red shirt shot had his weapon removed before photos/videos could be taken.

The guards have no official status. They are civilians just like millions of other Thais. They have no right to use firearms.

And BTW there is plenty of real-time video (and pics shot in real-time) and they all show the victims were not carrying firearms. Some victims were foreigners.

[Fat Haggis]

Being a soldier, regardless of what ever country you come from carries inherent risks, the function of a soldier, trained in combat is to close in and kill the enemy, soldiers are never trained for peace, they're trained for war, the old saying goes in peace you train for war and in war you fight for peace.

Being a soldier means that you have to from time to time accept that there's a possibility you will be placed in harms way, and that also could result in your death or serious injury, it's very different for conscripted troops as they had no choice about "joining up" A volunteer is different, as an Infantry soldier, you have one single mission and purpose, and that's a trained killing machine, in the BritMil it was "The Mean Lean Green Killing Machine" as that's what you are, you're not trained to wound, you're trained to kill.. the slogan back in the 80's when being taught to shoot was something along the lines of "Shoot to Kill"

There's no such thing as "just shoot him in the leg, that'll stop him" as there's no guarantee that a high velocity round hitting you in the thigh will not hit a bone and be deflected out your back/ass/head.. or even sever your femoral artery, same with an arm shot and the bracial artery, you aim for centre mass..period.

Untrained civilians armed with illegally held High Velocity weapons, for the better part lack the understanding of combat shooting, or combat field care/first aid.

As for apportioning blame as to what the incident happened and saying someone higher up should be held accountable, why? If they were following orders/Instructions why would they be held to account? If your boss sent you across town to collect a parcel and you got hit by a car and were seriously injured, would your boss be held accountable? No he wouldn't but the person who was in the car would!!

I don't disagree with most of what you said. However soldiers have been called upon to undertake peace-keeping duties in various conflicts in the world. Before allowing them to take part they need some basic training in less lethal than shoot-to-kill duties. They also need to be recognisable as soldiers and not on patrol out of uniform. So, the officer who sent them on patrol does bear some responsibility for them being shot.

Having said that, the trigger-happy guards with unknown training are the main culprits. Yes, they have been under attack from Ko Tee's mob and others who the police won't act against, but a random shooting of men on a motorbike is never justified.

The shooters should be arrested (along with many others who have killed protestors) and the army officer subjected to disciplinary action for putting his men in a dangerous position.

Yes, you're correct about the Peace Keeping roles, but their primary role is still an Infantry soldier, it's when Soldiers are sent in to conduct Internal Security Roles that hits all the bumps and ruts, different rules, and have to have a more softly softly role, where it's more about the presence, and it's not easy trying to restore civil order either.

Why do they need to be recognisable as soldiers? Not if they were on a covert mission, they may have something in place so that other soldiers would be able to identify them as to minimise a blue on blue (friendly fire) They will have been carrying their ID's, do undercover policemen make themselves recongniseable? Do they wear "Look at me, I'm an undercover drugs/vice officer t-shirt" They only make themselves known when they've either been sussed, or making the busts.

It's called OPSEC.

Sorry but the officer who sent them on a mission bares no responsibility at all, as the orders were not unlawful, and done out of malice, again if your boss sends you to collect documents from across town, and you get struck down by a car driven by a drunk, without a licence, he's some what responsible for your accident?

Unless we are aware of the mission brief and the orders process, then all we can do is assume, but things like "threats" in certain areas should have been covered, the last thing these guys expected, was to go out on a mission and be shot, that's for sure, this is why I'm very much against the arming of these protesters, especially with illegally held weapons, as there's no accountability what so ever.

If you want to go down that route, then go right to the top and blame General Prayuth, as he's overall in Command of the Army, and accountability starts at the top, not the bottom, or the middle, he then can apportion blame back to the Government, who ordered the Army onto the streets, but the simple fact here is that soldiers were shot and seriously wounded in the line of duty with an illegally held weapon, within a movement that has NO accountability as to the actions of the guards, no accountability over where these weapons came from, and no accountability of the state of mind of the said guard as well.

The leadership of the Students Union should be the ones held accountable, in that they have knowingly hired guards who are poorly trained, and armed with illegal weapons, some of these stolen military type weapons. It's called turning a blind eye in that direction, you know it's there, you know it's happening, but it's for your benefit, and the benefit of the others, it's a necessary evil, but one you've sanctioned, sorry but that to me is every bit as bad as corruption, you want to talk about reforms, and reforming the police but are having to use illegal weapons as a means in which to push these reforms through, you want the laws to be changed and made tougher, but blatantly break the law, by sanctioning the use of illegally held weapons at the same time? There's a huge amount of irony and hypocrisy in doing so.

We all know the reasons why there's armed guards, but if you're the one hiring them to protect you, then you're the one who needs to be held accountable if something was to go wrong, as it clearly did here, if you want to point fingers at the Army Chain of Command, then use the same principle and call into account the student leadership over this.

[Prbkk]

Staggering hypocrisy from the Suthep mob and the acolyte supporters on this forum: they beg for support / security from the army and when it is offered, apparently shoot them as they please. These scumbag guards need to be sent to prison for a very long time. No one is safe from their indiscriminate, trigger-happy lunacy

"Staggering hypocrisy" is something that you demonstrate regularly Prbkk with your inane comments.

Whenever it is an anti-government supporter who is attacked, you put so much spin on it to make out that they "asked for it" or "they shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time"; in the reverse case, you come on here full of "shock and horror"...! Simply pathetic .

BTW, now you're not only showing your extreme bias, which is becoming rather tedious, but also your lack of understanding of the English language.

Acolyte, n.

1. someone who follows and admires a leader.

2. someone who helps the person leading a church service

So an "acolyte supporter", to quote you, would be an assistant to a devoted follower, or an assistant to a church assistant ... right?

So what you are saying is that you follow somebody that follows somebody religiously.

You choose..

assistant, helper, attendant, retainer, servant, minion, underling,lackey, henchman;

follower, disciple, supporter, votary, satellite, shadow;

informalsidekick, man/girl Friday, running dog, groupie, hanger-on;

archaicliegeman, pursuivant;

chela;

rarejanissary;

informalbody man

"he found himself surrounded by eager acolytes

[khunken]

Two thoughts on this incident

If these soldiers were on duty in some capacity to catch assailants attacking the STR location then they should have made their presence know before hand especially since they were in plain clothes

Tension at these sites are high right now considering the activities in the city at the moment, the STR have every right to protect themselves against lethal attack since the police are reluctant to do so

It is also not beyond belief that the soldiers were in fact about to attack the STR site

Either way I would be inclined to call this an unfortunate incident give the information from the OP

If you are seriously suggesting that armed guards at protest sites have the right to protect themselves with weapons then you must say the same for the red demonstrations of 2010. Except of course not one red who was killed in May 2010 was seen to carry a firearm

Some of the guards need to be armed to protect the main protestor body from the likes of Ko Tee's armed mob. If the police won't make any effort to protect them then they have to protect themselves.

As for your irrelevant comment about 2010 - total rubbish. The MIB were fully armed and any armed red shirt shot had his weapon removed before photos/videos could be taken.

The guards have no official status. They are civilians just like millions of other Thais. They have no right to use firearms.

And BTW there is plenty of real-time video (and pics shot in real-time) and they all show the victims were not carrying firearms. Some victims were foreigners.

The guards have a right to be armed with legally registered weapons. Thai civilians are allowed to possess and carry arms legally with provisos. The have every right to protect the protestors against other armed gangs as has happened a number of times. You are deliberately ignoring their right to defend the defenseless against the likes of Ko Tee.

Again deliberately ignoring the MIB. There were shots of red shirts with weapons too. Distorting the truth is not helping your argument either.

[Mackie]

Staggering hypocrisy from the Suthep mob and the acolyte supporters on this forum: they beg for support / security from the army and when it is offered, apparently shoot them as they please. These scumbag guards need to be sent to prison for a very long time. No one is safe from their indiscriminate, trigger-happy lunacy

"Staggering hypocrisy" is something that you demonstrate regularly Prbkk with your inane comments.

Whenever it is an anti-government supporter who is attacked, you put so much spin on it to make out that they "asked for it" or "they shouldn't have been in the wrong place at the wrong time"; in the reverse case, you come on here full of "shock and horror"...! Simply pathetic .

BTW, now you're not only showing your extreme bias, which is becoming rather tedious, but also your lack of understanding of the English language.

Acolyte, n.

1. someone who follows and admires a leader.

2. someone who helps the person leading a church service

So an "acolyte supporter", to quote you, would be an assistant to a devoted follower, or an assistant to a church assistant ... right?

So what you are saying is that you follow somebody that follows somebody religiously.

You choose..

assistant, helper, attendant, retainer, servant, minion, underling,lackey, henchman;

follower, disciple, supporter, votary, satellite, shadow;

informalsidekick, man/girl Friday, running dog, groupie, hanger-on;

archaicliegeman, pursuivant;

chela;

rarejanissary;

informalbody man

"he found himself surrounded by eager acolytes

Is that a reference to Thaksin and his followers on this forum? "he" surely refers to Thaksin. Thank you Prbkk for coming out of the closet and admitting it. You've done great job. I don't think anyone could find better words to describe your (red) movement.