Ferangled

... those that can debate without resorting to these tactics come across more sincere and less zealous, IMHO.

Humble??? Must be the joke of the day.

Honest actually... hilarious...

Ferangled asks me, "Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument?"

Maidu responds; No. The sentence you misquoted stated, "As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument."

nice try Ferangled, but no cigar,

Hint: When you start to talk about yourself in the 3rd person it's time to start worrying!

I didn't say personal experience is the ONLY way to gauge a situation. I said it was one of the best. Hand in hand are personal observations. The residents, students, hospital patients/staff, and shopworkers at the commandeered site vicinity in downtown Bkk (during the Red occupation of 2010) - their personal observations and chronicles carry more weight than 2nd or 3rd party references from political propagandists (including T and his lawyers). Go research some of those 1st hand experiences and tell me what you find.

Here's a little tidbit that Red apologists won't want to hear: During the Red riots of 2009, Thaksin was interviewed on a major news station (he was hundreds of miles away) and asserted that many Red shirts had been killed/disapperared. Of course none of that happened, and we never heard reference to that afterwards.

You seem to be getting confused Maidu. Witness accounts that others gave are not your personal experiences, indeed to reference them one would have to research the evidence at hand! Didn't you just assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument? To even be aware of others accounts means you are combining your personal experiences with those of others ie. informing yourself of the events by researching the evidence at hand.

This must be one of the most bizarre little sub arguments I've ever encountered on a TV thread. You are really going to dig your heels in and try to defend what was clearly a nonsensical statement? I believe you have been immersed in Thai life too long because clearly the notion of face and the inability to admit your own mistakes has consumed you. We are all human Maidu and sometimes we write stupid things...

"research is only the recourse of those losing an argument" is one of those times, never mind, happens to us all, move on...

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

What? Both of them?

I challenge the red underpants brigade to find 5 pro-yellow shirt posts on this forum from current members.

Shouldn't be hard as there is apparently an overabundance of them.

I return your challenge and would ask you to identify 5 pro-red shirt posts on this forum. Similarly I'd ask Tatsujin, our resident troll, to stop making smarmy comments about other members and actually start contributing to these threads constructively.

You throw around the terms red apologists, red sympathisers etc with absolutely no basis. It's just a childish way at avoiding tackling the actual points raised. I actually believe that many on here sympathise with no political party in Thailand but recognise the hypocrisy on both sides and simply support the ideals of democracy.

My bias is based on my actual experiences with the Udonthani reds, local government and policing ( lack of in the case of the latter two. )

Good to see your admission of bias. Also, a person's personal experience is insufficient to base an opinion. To have a respected, informed knowledge of the events in question you must be more well rounded by researching every available source.

Wrong. Personal experience is one of the best ways to form an opinion. As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument.

Talk about putting words into people's mouths. Surely the best way to form a balanced opinion is to combine personal experiences and an informed knowledge of the events in question... is that even debatable?!

If one were seeking advice about a particular subject and you had the choice of A. An advisor with personal experience of the subject but no factual knowledge of the events or B. An advisor with an informed knowledge of the events but no personal experience or C. An advisor with both personal experience and an informed knowledge of the events, which would be the best qualified to advise you? It's rather obvious isn't it?

Personal experiences can be very misleading if relied on solely to form one's opinions. This is often the recourse of bigots and racists eg. I met a black guy once and he tried to rob me, so clearly all blacks are criminals.

Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument? That must be one of the most bizarre statements I've read on TV... on second thoughts

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

"It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life." Substantiate this BS.

Comparing Abhisit and Hitler is disingenuous, yet you do it.

Later on you wrote that the end justified the means, more than 90 people dead to justify early elections. What a morally bankrupt stance. Nothing else to say.

Well done, completely stripped out of context and even the cheek to call me disingenuous when your post is deliberately so. Unbelievable. Please try not to edit the cr@p out of my posts when quoting them. This is your post to which my remarks were specifically aimed, as you well know.

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections.

Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then?

Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

For somebody so astute in all things Thai, I find it amazing that you have been a member of TVF for only 2 months.

Not wishing to offend anyone that has become a tad too embroiled in their online persona, Thai Visa Forum is an anonymous internet forum, not a qualification in proficiency of all things Thai...

Do you have nothing to do with your life but type out vast slabs of casual lies and seldom-held opinion stated as irrevocable truth? Is this a full-time occupation?

Nothing like a bit of rank hypocrisy to really polish things off nicely! 7165 posts and counting, well done!

If people want to focus on Thaksin, why would that put a crink in your knickers? Let them. Not like he is innocent is it? They can focus on him, you can focus on whoever you want to. Plenty of bad guys to go around.

And the icing on the cake!

"It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life." Substantiate this BS.

Comparing Abhisit and Hitler is disingenuous, yet you do it.

Later on you wrote that the end justified the means, more than 90 people dead to justify early elections. What a morally bankrupt stance. Nothing else to say.

And another... sterling stuff!

You are just mincing words while the reality remains the same... if you prefer... It's the case of one man being unable to evade justice while all those around him were left free to act with impunity and remain unchecked because they had allied themselves with the major power brokers. Yes the focus should be on bringing those elements to justice and not simply pointing the finger at one man, especially not one who enjoys far greater public support than his, free to act with impunity, opponents.

Measly attempts at sympathy? Sympathetic to the ideals of democracy perhaps. You have no stance until such time as all are treated equally. If at that time Thaksin still refuses to be held accountable for his actions then by all means judge away but until such a time as all enjoy fair and equal treatment it's a non argument. The point you seem to be missing is that special investigation committees were formed specifically to dig dirt on the man and find him guilty of something. Until the same happens for some of the really shady characters in this country I sincerely doubt that Thaksin will return. As it is everyone turns a blind eye to the everyday horrors that we are all well away of but continue to point the finger across the water... people are literally getting away with murder but still all the focus is on Thaksin.

If people want to focus on Thaksin, why would that put a crink in your knickers? Let them. Not like he is innocent is it? They can focus on him, you can focus on whoever you want to. Plenty of bad guys to go around.

And as reason fades to infantile rantings, I'll leave the discussion firmly with you Rixalex. Good day.

The agony of defeat

A great example to illustrate my point!

Definitive proof on this thread that reason has long since died... comments taken totally out of context, smug replies the order of the day and the forum gets more trollish day by day.

You are just mincing words while the reality remains the same... if you prefer... It's the case of one man being unable to evade justice while all those around him were left free to act with impunity and remain unchecked because they had allied themselves with the major power brokers. Yes the focus should be on bringing those elements to justice and not simply pointing the finger at one man, especially not one who enjoys far greater public support than his, free to act with impunity, opponents.

Measly attempts at sympathy? Sympathetic to the ideals of democracy perhaps. You have no stance until such time as all are treated equally. If at that time Thaksin still refuses to be held accountable for his actions then by all means judge away but until such a time as all enjoy fair and equal treatment it's a non argument. The point you seem to be missing is that special investigation committees were formed specifically to dig dirt on the man and find him guilty of something. Until the same happens for some of the really shady characters in this country I sincerely doubt that Thaksin will return. As it is everyone turns a blind eye to the everyday horrors that we are all well away of but continue to point the finger across the water... people are literally getting away with murder but still all the focus is on Thaksin.

If people want to focus on Thaksin, why would that put a crink in your knickers? Let them. Not like he is innocent is it? They can focus on him, you can focus on whoever you want to. Plenty of bad guys to go around.

And as reason fades to infantile rantings, I'll leave the discussion firmly with you Rixalex. Good day.

If that's the case then it worked remarkably well didn't it?

90 odd unnecessary deaths, scores of injuries, billions of baht lost, for an election that was coming anyway, doesn't seem like my definition of something that worked remarkably well.

You really are the master of carefully editing posts out of context and twisting others words aren't you? Frankly a disgusting assertion to apply to someone else's reply to your own deliberate post. Especially given the very clear and frank attempts to make my own opinions clear.

You have adequately displayed your true colours and believe me they paint a far worse picture than anything red or yellow. You and your ilk are exactly what is wrong with Thailand, a devious and malicious cancer gnawing at it's very roots, happy to twist anything to suit your own ends. I really couldn't do a better job than you are already in discrediting yourself and your own assertions.

'er not if he is to be held accountable. He has been held accountable and convicted. A convicted criminal on the run. A bizarre attempt to give Thaksin a get out of jail card on the grounds that others are guilty of other offences. Except that the corruption extends to putting pressure (squeezing) Abhisit to force compliance to 'liberate' Thaksin. Apart from that a novel interpretation of election trumping the law.

I'm afraid you miss the point. You can't expect to single out one man for investigation while ignoring others that engage in the very same shenanigans and have that deemed as fair practice. If all men are measured equally and by the same token then no one can complain that they have been unfairly treated.

We see the hypocrisy now when the same games are played by the current Government with remarkably similar special investigation committees being formed. The agenda is clear as it was previously but the parallels fail to get drawn by their respective supporters. To be fair Rich Teacher raised this point earlier but his thoughts were deafened by the usual suspects belligerence in seeing the similarities.

The crimes of others do not absolve the crimes of one man, but one man should not be singled out for special treatment when the crimes of others go unchecked and they are allowed to operate with impunity.

It's not the case that one man has been singled out, it's rather the case that one man for once was unable to evade justice, in spite of million baht lunch boxes. The term singling out evokes a sense of someone having been some how hard done by, or having been harshly treated. Thaksin has not. Yes, it's true that there are many who have been softly treated by the law, including both those opposing Thaksin, and including those supporting Thaksin. The focus of energy should be on bringing those to justice also... instead all we get is all these measly attempts at illiciting sympathy.

You are just mincing words while the reality remains the same... if you prefer... It's the case of one man being unable to evade justice while all those around him were left free to act with impunity and remain unchecked because they had allied themselves with the major power brokers. Yes the focus should be on bringing those elements to justice and not simply pointing the finger at one man, especially not one who enjoys far greater public support than his, free to act with impunity, opponents.

Measly attempts at sympathy? Sympathetic to the ideals of democracy perhaps. You have no stance until such time as all are treated equally. If at that time Thaksin still refuses to be held accountable for his actions then by all means judge away but until such a time as all enjoy fair and equal treatment it's a non argument. The point you seem to be missing is that special investigation committees were formed specifically to dig dirt on the man and find him guilty of something. Until the same happens for some of the really shady characters in this country I sincerely doubt that Thaksin will return. As it is everyone turns a blind eye to the everyday horrors that we are all well away of but continue to point the finger across the water... people are literally getting away with murder but still all the focus is on Thaksin.

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

The plan i think was a little more sophisticated and subtle than the slegde hammer type approach that you allude to and dismiss. Thaksin knew from the outset that he could never really match the military for fire power, so i agree that the plan was not to topple the government directly by force. The plan rather was:

• to bring the capital city to a complete stand still for weeks and weeks, stop business, stop trading, stop tourists ✓
  
• to create a sense of fear and panic ✓
  
• to create a distraction big enough to prevent the government from doing anything during their term besides managing the "protest" ✓
  
• to refuse all proposals to end things amicably ✓
  
• to destroy property, burn buildings, intimidate ✓
  
• to continue prodding and poking the military with a various assortment of armaments like grenades and rocket launchers, until such a point that the military has no choice but to react, bringing about bloodshed and death, and subsequently allowing for claims to be made about evil dictatorial anti-democratic clampdowns ✓
  

It was with all these tactics that Thaksin hoped intense pressure would be put on the government, to such a point that it would have to stand down, or the military would have to step in and take over, and when one of those things happened, the government would leave completely disgraced, with human rights violations aplenty, thus vindicating him in the process, showing to the world how he was only ever the innocent victim.

If that's the case then it worked remarkably well didn't it? The end result being that early elections were called and the people had a chance to decide their own Government, which they duly did, affirming that the previous Government was a sham that didn't enjoy majority public support. Trying your best to twist the events of 2010 and focus purely on the "evils" of Thaksin and the Red shirts is pointless. The reality is somewhere between the deliberate slant you add to the events and the more rouge tinted recollections that are also voiced on occasion.

Are you aware of the French Revolution or the English Civil War? The tactics employed were less than savoury and the bloodshed considerable. The end however justified the means. Democracy is a system born out of bloodshed, it's a system that allows us to move forward peacefully but to implement it power often has to be wrestled from those that are less than willing to relinquish it.

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections.

Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then?

Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

You cannot reconcile with a dictator. Thaksin and his clan run Pheua Thai as a personal fiefdom, every important decision is decided by Thaksin, Yaowapa,Yingluk and Pojaman.

Until Pheua Thai and \or the red shirts can shake them off they'll never be anything more than foot soldiers to be used at the whims of the leaders.

Those that hold power rarely relinquish their grip with ease. If they did the protests in 2010 would not have run for so long and elections would have been called prior to any bloodshed. Dictators do not generally have the weight of public support and when they are elected by the majority populace they cease to be dictators.

Think about your comments and try to apply them not just to the man you hate but to those on the other side of the fence. It really is not as clear cut as you suggest. People need to start asking themselves whether one man is really more important than the good of the people because all they have achieved so far is to grant their opponent cult status; the man that took on the establishment and lived to fight another day.

Making a martyr of your opponent is not a wise move and neither is putting your persecution of him before what's good for the people or the country. A little more selflessness and a little less selfishness is what Thailand desperately needs and reconciliation is the only way forward to avoid further violent conflict. This comment applies, as it usually does here in Thailand, to both sides of the fence.

'er not if he is to be held accountable. He has been held accountable and convicted. A convicted criminal on the run. A bizarre attempt to give Thaksin a get out of jail card on the grounds that others are guilty of other offences. Except that the corruption extends to putting pressure (squeezing) Abhisit to force compliance to 'liberate' Thaksin. Apart from that a novel interpretation of election trumping the law.

I'm afraid you miss the point. You can't expect to single out one man for investigation while ignoring others that engage in the very same shenanigans and have that deemed as fair practice. If all men are measured equally and by the same token then no one can complain that they have been unfairly treated.

We see the hypocrisy now when the same games are played by the current Government with remarkably similar special investigation committees being formed. The agenda is clear as it was previously but the parallels fail to get drawn by their respective supporters. To be fair Rich Teacher raised this point earlier but his thoughts were deafened by the usual suspects belligerence in seeing the similarities.

The crimes of others do not absolve the crimes of one man, but one man should not be singled out for special treatment when the crimes of others go unchecked and they are allowed to operate with impunity.

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Now personally I think reconciliation is the only way forward for Thailand and overtime the electorate will grow and mature to the point where they will be able to see past empty policies and worthless rhetoric. They will recognise a self serving politician and they will learn that the power is actually theirs not their sponsors. With this power comes responsibility and we must hope and trust that the people grow to use their vote productively. We have to trust that from the ashes of the old political parties will arise a a new party, a true leader, one that bridges the gap between the old elite and the new power of the people and serves his/her country selflessly without recourse for power brokers and back room influence.

It's high time that petty differences are put aside and people realise that red, yellow, pink or blue, whatever shirt they wear, these people have one unifying characteristic; they are all Thais and every single one of them has the same right to have his/her say in the running of their country, irrelevant of wealth, education or status.

Sorry to edit your post so severely, but I think we're coming closer to agreement on some items. We don't have to see 'eye to eye' on all that happened during those troubled times. Being from a western country, I'm surprised at how easily many Thais' thoughts can be manipulated. I've been residing here 14 years (started visiting 26 yrs ago) so I have some ideas of why Thais are so easily led to believe in false assertions. Some reasons: Rote learning system, always follow what elders/power brokers say, unquestioning, paucity of analytical thinking, belief in hocus pocus, etc.

I'm not saying sheeple don't exist in other countries, it's just that Thais (and most other Asians) are easily led by the nose.

Refreshing reply devoid of insults or speculation. Thank you. Your comments regarding education here are spot on. One of the problems being the drummed in mantra of never questioning your elders/ power brokers is being broken but the levels of education need to rise in accordance so that the populace are properly equipped to form their own opinions on matters. That said it is clear from many of the comments on here that even the more established education systems of the West have failed many in that regard.

My opinion has always been some sort of balance between the extremes that are often voiced on here. As it stands the overwhelming amount of gross speculation and false assertion comes predominantly from one side on TV and this prompts me to reply to these posts with regularity. I am sick of having false opinions and positions applied to others by those that are unwilling to see any middle ground or accept the faults that lie on both sides of the equation. It is this uncompromising refusal to accept that their are two sides to every coin and that events here are rarely as simple a black and white, right and wrong, that is really holding Thailand back.

The zealous nature of many posters on TV unfortunately echoes the issues Thailand now faces in trying to move forward. There are far too many that are unable to empathise with others or apply their strong criticism of others to themselves and those who have their sympathies.

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

It's neither, you've probably just reached a stage of indifference caused by being in constant exposure to B/S. A common complaint. I've discovered that some posters regard the above as reasonable debate.

The above is what happened (IF you were here at time and saw it for yourself). Nothing to debate. An armed uprising got what is was asking for.

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Were there those with ulterior aims working behind the scenes of the reds? I'm quite sure there were; mixed with the valid reasons for protest there was an undercurrent of revenge and that is quite clear as is the backdrop that created this situation. There were divisive elements and there were those who sought to settle their own scores that day, that is clear. There were violent elements and there were those riding the wave for their own personal gain and gratification.

Democracy is far from perfect and we see those that twist it's ideals to serve themselves in all democracies the world over. One need only look to Europe or the US to see similar shady characters that occasionally rise to power and are blatant in their shameful twisting of the system to suit their own goals... the names Bush & Berlusconi leap to mind. This said the overriding cause of the protests in 2010 was one that garnered international sympathy as it's one that most democratic countries have had to fight for at some point in their history. The proof as they say, is in the pudding. They had the numerical support and they amply demonstrated this in the ensuing elections. That is the most damning indicator for AV and his fellow; a clear demonstration to all that they did not have the majority support of the population at that time.

Now personally I think reconciliation is the only way forward for Thailand and overtime the electorate will grow and mature to the point where they will be able to see past empty policies and worthless rhetoric. They will recognise a self serving politician and they will learn that the power is actually theirs not their sponsors. With this power comes responsibility and we must hope and trust that the people grow to use their vote productively. We have to trust that from the ashes of the old political parties will arise a a new party, a true leader, one that bridges the gap between the old elite and the new power of the people and serves his/her country selflessly without recourse for power brokers and back room influence.

It's high time that petty differences are put aside and people realise that red, yellow, pink or blue, whatever shirt they wear, these people have one unifying characteristic; they are all Thais and every single one of them has the same right to have his/her say in the running of their country, irrelevant of wealth, education or status.

The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign.

Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above...

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).^[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE.

Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE?

Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people?

Umm he didn't reject it, he ACCEPTED the early elections. But it wasn't early enough for the reds and thus they began their campaign of violence,

The SOE came after the reds got violent and started lobbing grenades and killing cops. But even when the SOE was activated, Abhisit still extended the olive branch.

You seem to be getting confused. Abhist had offered early elections prior to the SOE? That is simply not true. Your time frame seems to change to fit your comments, convenient.

So now the police were the victims of red shirt aggression prior to the SOE, at the point where earlier it was maintained that they refused to act against the protesters until after the military involvement... and we're full circle back to the original questions I posed.

Right on the page of the article.

The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

But let's not let possible bias get in the way of a good article that sides with your argument.

I didn't bring this source into the discussion it was first quoted by Tatsujin actually... but of course he's permitted to reference parts that support his views, the same is not permitted if they clash with yours... care to even comment on the time frame of events?

Interesting to note that the grenades used were military issue and no one was arrested, while it created the perfect excuse for AV to escalate his use of violence and bring out the army. Another remarkable coincidence I'm sure.

Abhisit didn't need a made-up excuse to protect Thailand's major city and its residents. The justifications were glaring. An armed occupation in its midst with barricades made from petrol-soaked tires and sharpened bamboo pikes. Several times, prior to the govt's long delayed dynamic response, bands of armed protesters had sallied out of their fortifications to try and cause havoc elsewhere. Once up a hwy to commandeer a petrol station. They needed more petrol to soak tires, and to power their generators so their inciteful speakers could continue to threaten to burn Bangkok down. Another time to harass hospital staff. the final time, to actually set fires to nearby department stores. Before during and after the 2 month protest, police did as little as possible. Their top brass should be busted for dereliction of duty.

One would hope that there would be a bit more of a definitive response and overwhelming evidence presented to what was used as justification to declare an SOE and roll in the military using live fire on their own people, in their own capitol. One can only hope for AV's sake he makes a better job of defending himself than you guys are doing.

You sound like a wannabe-lawyer on T's payroll - with your profusion of words barely making a single point. Abhisit was justified in declaring a SOE. He did so belatedly The choice to use live fire was most likely a decision made by several authorites, including military brass. Either way, it too was justified, in lieu of circumstances: Protesters using (or harboring those that used) military weapons indiscrimitately, who had scored at least several death hits at that point, including an Army Colonel, his men, and an innocent women on a train platform (killed by grenade).

Care to clarify the actual timeline of these events, dates?