by Garry Harbottle-Johnson

The writing of this report was started before the Thai Courts announced the dissolution of the ruling People’s Power Party and dismissal of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat for election fraud. It was nearing completion when the PAD announced they would cease their occupation of the Bangkok airports on 3rd December, and I have hurriedly tried to finalise the article in order to publish it while it still has relevance. Sometimes news overtakes the news bringers.

Royal Thai Air Force EOD specialist prepares to remove a box of ammunition from a PAD protest point at Don Muang Airport

CHIANG MAI, Thailand, 2 Dec 2008 – It’s a long held truism that in order to win a war, a protagonist must know their enemy as well as, or better than, they know themselves.

Intelligence gathering, and application of the knowledge it yields, has for millennia made the difference between smaller forces winning a battle or campaign, and being overwhelmed to become a margin note of history, rather than lauded as heroes.

Western police forces have long known that pre-crime intelligence work makes prevention easier to conduct, and post-crime intelligence from forensics makes perpetrators easier to catch after the fact. Unfortunately, in countries that rely on feudal-style allegiance and favour hierarchies, it is often the investigators who are part of the extended network under investigation. When those countries also have little or inadequate forensic capability, serious crime can be carried out with impunity.

In the current battle of wills being conducted within Thailand’s capital, between – pro and anti government groups, the government itself, and alleged conflicting loyalties within the military and police forces, one of the key questions of the day remains unanswered – who is bombing the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protest sites and members? And is it the PAD who have begun retaliating in a like manner against pro-government groups?

It would be very easy to point fingers and say that group X is against group Y so they must be the culprits, but it’s never that simple in Thailand where “the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend” can be very true, at so many levels of society.  As an example, there is some convincing chatter that the Army Commander calling upon the Prime Minister to resign, whilst simultaneously continually reassuring the nation there will not be a military coup, is simply a move to position himself as the “good guy” in order to run for politics himself in future. Others accuse him of being in league with PAD and of trying to undermine the police force.

But then the police themselves have made no move to restore order and retake the capital’s airports, and they are widely seen as being anti-PAD and supporters of the PM, and of his exiled brother-in-law who was ousted from the same office by the army in 2006. This goes a long way towards PAD’s belief that the police are turning a blind eye to those who are bombing them. None of which explains who it is who is firing grenades into PAD crowds.

Theoretically, the answer to the attacks on PAD lies in the weapon being used to launch the grenades that have killed and injured so many of them. The attacks have not primarily targeted, from a distance or at close quarters, only the militant and arguably combat-ready PAD guards.  Rather, most of the attacks have been cowardly bombing of the non-militant, middle-aged and elderly, main body of those staging peaceful sit-down protests for the removal of the incumbent Prime Minister and his cabinet – while they were sleeping.

It is widely believed, and police have sometimes stated, that the grenade launcher(s) being used are the US-made M79 “Thumper”. Certainly the reported ranges fit with the model, and the explosive effects evidenced, match the capabilities of its available ammunitions. A brief history and specification of the weapon is given in the footer of this article. If Thailand were a developed country, or even a civilised developing one, then these weapons would only be in the hands of a stable, reliable, and loyal military. Unfortunately, the conflicts in this region over the last half century have provided rich pickings for the used weapons trade, and a ready supply of cheap inventory.

The Thai military has not always proven itself the best guardian for it’s own stocks either, as raids in the southern provinces showed several years back. Porous borders and warlord armies in several neighbouring countries are also said to provide good shopping zones for mischief makers looking for “big boys toys”. There are plenty of places that an M79 and some ammunition could have come from … but who files batch numbers off ammunition? Surely investigations could start with the identifying numbers on the unexploded grenades recovered during the incidents chronicled below? Or is that a case of knowing your enemy too well?

Diary of Attacks

On August 26, PAD demonstrators stormed Government House in Bangkok, and turned it into their protest camp site.

30 October, Government House, Bangkok – a bomb injured six PAD members, two of them seriously.

8 November, Government House, Bangkok – another bomb injured a PAD guard, and damaged some property inside a PAD tent.

3:25am 21 November 2008, Government House, Bangkok

It is very likely to have been an M433 HEDP grenade that was used in the pre-dawn attack on PAD at Government House, that killed PAD member Jenjit Kladsakhon. The “bomb” exploded inside the Government House complex, in front of the main stage of the People’s Alliance for Democracy. Guards and protesters said the explosion occurred at 3:25 am, just a day after the so-called ceasefire during the Royal Cremation period. Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD leader, denounced the bombing attack, calling it an “embarrassing act by cowards”. He said the victims were merely sleeping or listening to speeches from protest leaders.

Bomb shrapnel inflicted a 2-cm-deep wound in Jenjit Kladsakhon’s throat. Jenkij was taken to Ramathibodi Hospital where he died while undergoing treatment. According to the hospital, what looked like bomb shrapnel cut Jenkij’s main artery in the neck, ruptured many of his air sacs, and bruised his lungs. “We will send the small metal pieces found in his wounds to experts for examination,” said Dr Wicharn Piawnim, head of the hospital’s forensic laboratory. The doctor’s description would seem to imply the fragments were from the anti-personnel fragmentation-mesh used in the M433 grenade.

Special-Branch Police chief, Lt-General Thiradej Rodphothong, has all but admitted in press statements that the 20th November attack was an M79 grenade launcher. At least one police statement described the bombing as due to “a lone 40mm explosives round” and that it “might have been launched from the Council of Civil Service Office building about 50 metres away”. In a location so close to one of the Royal Palaces, it is unlikely to have been an M203 launcher as the hosting automatic rifle would have been spotted easily on police surveillance cameras. An M79 launcher with sawn-off stock however, could easily be carried concealed under a jacket or in a plastic carrier bag.

2:10am 22 November 2008, Government House perimeter at Misakawan Intersection

This attack was made at 2:10 am against a group of around 20 protesters who were standing and talking outside the Government House compound. Two assailants launched a grenade at where they stood at the Misakawan Intersection. Seven protesters were injured and one killed. The casualties were standing near the Fifth Gate of the Government House Complex, opposite the Education Ministry.

Anupong Samerphak, a PAD guard aged 22, was hit by bomb shrapnel across his body and neck. Ramathibodi Hospital doctors put him on respiratory system, but Doctor Than Suphatphan, the Hospital Director, said at 1:20pm Sunday that Anupong was living only due to the respirator. He said doctors would not pull the plug and would let him live as long as possible. He had been initially declared brain-dead by the hospital, and was later pronounced clinically dead.

Taxi driver, Pongchai Saetang, 42, told police that he was waiting at the intersection for passengers when he saw “a red light in the air”, which was quickly followed by a loud noise. He said the explosion occurred where about 20 people were talking. The taxi driver said he saw two young men fleeing on their motorcycle on Phitsanulok Road heading to the Wang Daeng intersection, adding that the two men were about 200 metres away from the explosion, when they ran to their motorcycle. Other eyewitnesses corroborated that two teenagers parked their motorcycle near the back gate of the Metropolitan Police head office and used “a grenade launcher” to launch a grenade at the protesters, then fled the scene along Phitsanulok Road.

Major General Anan Srihiran, commander of the Metropolitan Police Division 1, carried out an investigation of the scene with bomb disposal officers. The explosion caused a small hole in the ground and damaged two pick-up trucks, a sedan car, and a motorcycle close by. Chamlong Srimuang, a senior PAD figure, said the bomb appeared to be fired from a corner near the Metropolitan Police head office, and that, “The attack showed that police would not carry out their duty to provide security for the demonstrators”.

Pongchai Saetang’s eyewitness account would seem to place the grenadiers too far from the explosion to have used an M203 launcher (it has a range of only 150 metres) and apparently confirms that an M79 must have been used. His “red light in the air” may refer to the muzzle flash, and could indicate that it was fired from an elevated vantage point, alternatively it may indicate that M397 air-burst ammunition was used. His full report has not been released to confirm this either way.

11:50pm 22 November 2008, Government House, Bangkok

A bomb exploded inside Thailand’s Government House compound at 11.50pm wounding over 30 anti-government protesters, three were reported as in serious condition. The injured people were sent to the Ramathibodi Hosptial.

The bomb was reported as an “M79 type” and exploded 200 metres away from the PAD’s main stage inside the Government House. It was fired from outside the complex, from a similar direction to the previous attack at the site.

00:15am 23 November 2008, ASTV Studios, Bangkok

An explosion was reported at the ASTV broadcasting station on Phra Arthit Road about 25 minutes after the attack at Government House. Two “bombs” were reported as exploding at the ASTV offices. Witnesses also heard gunfire lasting about 10 minutes. No injuries were reported. ASTV is the television channel founded by PAD core leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Images shown on regular television indicated the explosions were on an elevated balcony, and caused only superficial damage and scarring to exterior floor tiles, similar to the grey blast marks caused by very large firecrackers being set off on the ground. It is possible these were not grenade launcher attacks, but hand-thrown home-made devices.

During this years violent October 7th clashes between PAD and police, one of the casualties who lost a leg was stated, by a military forensic source, to have had the limb blown off by a “ping pong ball bomb” that had been in his pocket. The damage viewed on television broadcasts, at the ASTV offices, was consistent with such low grade explosives.

04:30am 26 November 2008, Suvarnabhumi Airport, Bangkok

Three explosions were heard outside the outbound passenger terminal of the Suvarnabhumi International Airport at 4:30 am. The explosion sounds frightened the protesters as police vehicles rushed to the scene. The protesters feared that police would come to violently disperse them. But their leaders managed to calm them down minutes later.

Police said two grenades were fired from an M79 launcher.

Thai PBS reported that four protesters were injured, two severely, in the explosions. Later reports said only three injured, one severely and admitted to Sirinthorn Hospital.

04:30am 26 November 2008, near Don Muang Airport, Bangkok

Two men were injured by bomb shrapnel and one was shot when a group of men hurled two bombs and fired at the FM 92.75 and FM 107.5 community radio station for taxi drivers, on Vibhavadi Rangsit Soi 3 in Chatuchak district, where dozens of PAD guards had attacked taxi drivers the previous evening.

Police said the attack happened at 4:30 am and the blast wounded three taxi drivers and six guards of the pro-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). It also damaged a public telephone booth and a metal fence. The injured were rushed to the Rajvithi Hospital. The number of injured was later confirmed at eleven total, with three retained in Bhumipol Hospital.

A taxi driver, who identified himself as Watcharin, said he and friends were standing at the mouth of the soi (side street) when suddenly he heard two explosions and the assailants opened fire on them. Security guard Thanatwit Mosiri said he saw someone hurl two objects from Don Muang expressway, and as he ran for cover about 10 gunshots were fired from opposite Vibhavadi Rangsit Soi 16. A staff member at Lotus Express convenience store on Vibhavadi Rangsit Soi 3, saw a pick-up truck loaded with people parked on the expressway right above the radio station before the bombs were dropped.

The eyewitness reports indicate the “bombs” were sizeable Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and neither grenade launcher ammunition nor regular hand grenades. The timing of the attack is over an hour before dawn, and the fact the devices used were seen under street lighting as they were thrown, is indicative of their physical size.

Additionally, in this incident, those attacked were not PAD, but opponents of PAD in the previous day’s street battle. The attackers are therefore highly unlikely to be the same ones that fired grenade launchers at the PAD protestors.

06:30am 26 November 2008, Don Muang Airport, Bangkok

An explosion happened at Don Muang Airport, where protesters led by the Peoples Alliance for Democracy were rallying, near a PAD makeshift stage. Witnesses said a van with tinted windows was passing slowly on Don Muang expressway before the explosion.

Thai TV Channel 3 reported that a grenade was launched at the protesters but it did not explode. Other reports stated the explosion was a grenade attack, but did not define if it was hand-thrown or weapon-launched.

Initial casualty reports were confused. Channel 3 reported that two were injured, but Channel 9 reported that it was five, two severely. Later reports confirmed three people were injured in this attack. It is known that two PAD guards aged in their forties were hurt – one received serious shrapnel wounds to the waist and hip, implying use of either a hand-thrown M-26 fragmentation grenade, or the dual-purpose HEAP grenade from an M79 launcher.

3:55am 30 November 2008, Don Muang Airport, Bangkok

An explosion was reported at Don Muang Airport with claims that a “bomb” exploded near a bunker made of tyres in the early hours at the main entrance to the passenger terminal. Before the explosion occurred, roughly 7 gunshots were heard from the direction of a warehouse deeper inside the airport compound. The explosion injured two people, one of them was a bystander, Tiem Euatatan, who suffered a stomach wound.

The blast left a 10-centimetre-wide hole near Gate 6 of the domestic passenger terminal, where the PAD were sheltering behind a six-wheel truck, car tyres, and a barbed wire barricade. Police thought the assailants used an M-26 hand grenade, which has a blast radius of 10 metres.

“Early hours” 30 November 2008, Government House, Bangkok

A grenade was fired into the PAD camp inside the Government House grounds, injuring 48 people. Two were in a serious condition the Narenthon Emergency Response Centre reported. Hospitals treated and discharged 42 victims, eight were reported later as still being treated at Ramathibodi, Phramongkutklao and Petcharavej hospitals.

Two women – Jitra Jintanatam, 52, and Kamonwan Muennu, 26 – sustained severe head injuries at Government House and were in the intensive care unit, doctors said.

The PAD suspected the attack on the Government House rally was launched from the nearby Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives building. Witnesses said they saw a few men walking on the roof before the attack, according to the PAD.  The range would indicate a return to using the M79 grenade launcher, which could also be supported by the high number of injured – also seen in earlier attacks confirmed as using a grenade launcher, compared to the low casualties caused by IEDs and other ordnance.

There was also an explosion near the ASTV head office, but no reports of injuries.

00:15am 2 December 2008, Don Muang AIrport, Bangkok

Attackers fired a grenade into the inbound passenger terminal building of the Don Muang Airport killing one protester and injuring 22 others.  The grenade was fired from the elevated expressway that runs parallel to the face of the airport building.  The explosion inside the terminal, where protesters were sleeping, caused them to run in panic.

A protester said he saw a flash of light from the direction of the tollway, then a window smashed, and the explosion followed.  Other protesters and PAD guards said that the grenade, believed to be an M79, pierced a window of the terminal and exploded inside it.

Horizontal range from the elevated expressway to the terminal facade ranges from around 30 metres at the Domestic terminal to around 200 metres at other points along the building’s full length.  From the expressway, the building is in range along the entire frontage for an M79 launcher.

Two injured protesters were rushed to the General Hospital, 7 to Bhumibhol Hospital and 14 to Mongkut Watana Hospital.  Ronnachai Chaisri, 29, from Songkhla province’s Sabayoi district, died on his way to the Bhumiphol hospital. Three severely-injured protesters at the Bhumiphol are Prasong Kongprasutr, 55, Somsak Chaisuwan 46 and Wijai Wijan, 43. They were hit by bomb shrapnel in their abdomen and received emergency life-saving surgery.  Two injured protesters, Phanchawee Suphatpong aged 66, and Piyachart Daengpuangpaibul aged 30, at the Central General are in critical condition. Phanchawee was hit in her head, while Piyachart in his knee.

Kriangkrai Piayu, a PAD guard, said he saw a man walking on the Don Muang Tollway when he heard the explosion, the man then sped off in a vehicle.  “The attacker is very inhumane to attack the innocent people. He should have attacked us, guards, instead,” Kriangkrai said.

End Game

Police say they do not know who carried out any of the attacks. PAD blame pro-government supporters.

As the violence escalates, and with it retaliation grows in intensity, have the Thai authorities lost control of their populace? When a housing estate was stormed in Chiang Mai last week and a mob of pro-government supporters killed an elderly man because his son was a PAD supporter, where were the police to protect an innocent senior citizen?  When that same mob then turned on reporters and TV crews covering the lynching, where were the riot police to protect the freedom of information flow guaranteed under the Thai Constitution?  And when PAD turned on reporters in Suvarnabhumi airport, shooting at TV crews vehicles and ordering photographs deleted, where were the altruistic aims with which the movement started?

Thailand’s deposed “Thais love Thais” leader, now in exile and fleeing a criminal conviction for corruption, left rule of the country to his brother in law as a puppet manager, that is what brought PAD onto the streets, then into Government House and the airports. The puppet manager has shown his incompetence by losing control of the nation’s factions, and of its government forces, and today has been banned from office for electoral fraud. The whole country has known since he was elected, that his runaway brother-in-law bought and paid for Somchai’s appointment – the gifts and bribes for votes were broadcast on national TV news before the ballot took place. Thaksin’s refusal to hide quietly and stop attempting rule by proxy brought the kingdom to the edge of civil war.

Today, the Thai Justice system has shown that they have moved beyond the era of favour and gratitudes, they have reached the only sane verdict that any court with their task could reach, and in so doing, they have defused the time bomb of the People’s Alliance for Democracy and their escalating protests.

Now we have to wait and see if the red-shirted army of the Shinawatras will accept the decision, and if not, whether the police and military will begin again following the commands of the government in place, or continue to sit on the fences as spectators.

The M79 grenade launcher

The M79 is a single-shot, shoulder-fired, break-open grenade launcher, which is technically similar to an over-sized single barrel shotgun. It fires a 40mm x 46mm grenade, and first appeared during the Vietnam War. The M79′s popularity is due to being able to fire a wide variety of 40mm calibre rounds, including explosive, anti-personnel, smoke, buckshot, flechette, and illumination charges.

Although it has now been mostly replaced by the M203 “under-barrel” launcher, the M79 has remained in service in many units worldwide in niche roles, most notably due to its greater accuracy and range compared to the M203 (350m effective v 150m effective on the M203). Some US Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces in Iraq have been seen deploying the M79 in recent years. . It is used extensively for small squad-sized units to disrupt Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) from a safe distance, without having to call in bomb disposal teams.

Thai Ranger - the one on the right armed with an M79 grenade launcher, the muzzle of which is visible under his hand

The first M79 grenade launchers were delivered to the US Army in 1961. Owing to its ease of use, reliability, and firepower, the M79 became popular amongst American soldiers. Some cut down the stock and barrel to make the M79 even more portable. It was also a very accurate weapon; a grenadier using an M79 could consistently drop grenades into a garbage can 150 yards (140 m) away. The later M203 was standardised in 1969 and had replaced the M79 by the end of the Vietnam War, although M79s are still used in Reserve and National Guard units.

They are also still in use today within the Thai military forces, and particularly with the Thai Rangers Border Patrol Forces.

The M79 grenade launcher resembles a very large bore, break-action, sawn-off shotgun. A grenadier may simply point and shoot with high accuracy. When unfolded, the leaf-type sight could be adjusted for ranges from 75-meters to 375-meters, in 25-meters increments. Additionally, Appendix A of the U.S. Army field manual for the M203 includes instructions for attaching the M16 rifle grenade sight to the M79′s stock, and marking the sling for indirect (arc trajectory) fire at elevations greater than 40° providing use as a sub-2″ mortar, or for firing over intervening buildings in urban operations.

Official estimates state that around 350,000 were made during the production life of the M79, and today, South Africa continues to re-manufacture them.

Ammunitions

Of the many different ammunition types produced for the M79, there were several HE (High Explosive) and dual-purpose HEAP (High Explosive Anti Personnel) grenades capable of the results witnessed in the attacks on the PAD protesters in Bangkok.

The standard M406 40mm HE grenades fired from the M79 travel at a muzzle velocity of 75 meters per second. The M406 contained enough explosive to produce over 300 fragments that travel at 1,524 meters per second within a lethal radius of 5 meters. This round incorporates a safety feature which prevents the grenade from arming until after travelling a distance of about 30 meters.

The M397 is a pre-set airburst munition, designed to allow grenadiers to engage targets in trenches and behind cover. It features a bounding charge that is detonated by ground impact. The M433 HEDP (High Explosive, Dual Purpose), standardised in 1971, has largely become the standard round, with its ability to effectively engage light vehicles and personnel. The M433 combines a small shaped charge with a wire fragmentation mesh providing the “dual effect” against personnel.