way2muchcoffee

Cretins.

The Government has managed to find a few top cops that will obey its rules.

The rank and file however are having second thoughts.

Like the Italians in the last war, they are capable of more fight than this. Trouble is, the rank and file are mostly red, their families are mostly red.

So much for the offer of talks. No more talks I say, starve the business community out now. All the yellow supporters backers are now loosing big money.

Obama was so concerned yesterday with the Thais running round screaming "Terrorist" that he held a press conference.... and announce a mission to Mars!

So now you have joined the ranks of armed terrorists bent on sewing violence and mayhem in the streets of Bangkok? Good to know.

That is no way to talk about the army

Go on. call me a terrorist now as well because my opinion differs from yours

This isn't about opinion tonywebster. Supporting this redshirt movement is supporting terrorists. Or would you prefer to call them freedom fighters?

Cretins.

The Government has managed to find a few top cops that will obey its rules.

The rank and file however are having second thoughts.

Like the Italians in the last war, they are capable of more fight than this. Trouble is, the rank and file are mostly red, their families are mostly red.

So much for the offer of talks. No more talks I say, starve the business community out now. All the yellow supporters backers are now loosing big money.

Obama was so concerned yesterday with the Thais running round screaming "Terrorist" that he held a press conference.... and announce a mission to Mars!

So now you have joined the ranks of armed terrorists bent on sewing violence and mayhem in the streets of Bangkok? Good to know.

Doesn't look like a whitewash...seems pretty logical to me. The ones stirring things up are the reds...along with telling all sorts of lies...

This political bickering is getting old...

Reds nothing to do with dems corruption .

When its TRT or PPP its ok , when its the dems , (who by the way were whitewashed in 2007 , while TRT was banned for the sames charges) then its not ok .

Kind of one sided , dont you think ?

Except that't not true now is it? The Democrat leadership was not involved in electoral fraud and therefore they were not dissolved. The PPP leadership were filmed engaging in vote buying and electoral fraud and were dissolved, as per the law.

Don't get my 'Red Shirt' update: 'Red Shirt Leaders arrested', followed a shortly by: 'Red Shirt Leaders arrest attempt failed' <deleted>?... if they were arrested, then how did it fail? Did they let them go again? Or was the first report just crap/misinformed??

Just normal reporting here, at one point The Nation stated that the arrested 3 were on their way to the 11th infantry division, and to think that some people still believe the garbage written in this rag.

Except everything reported by The Nation on this morning's arrests is all over the television. Watch it with your own eyes. Please take your propaganda elsewhere.

----------------------------------

The rank and file wait for the keywords that motivate them and cheer on cue.

But some also listen and believe more intently and act on those words... therein lies the real problem.

it is normal that the Officers are resting better than the troops because they have to keep a fresh mind and think ahead. Basic reason in most of armies.

But today the situation is escalating... Nobody listens to each other, Proposal of negotiation are rhetoric, propaganda...no gesture for cooling down the situation on contrary...the opposite.

If there is nobody to whistle the end of the playtime between Government and Red Shirts, we are heading to the worse: this is my main concern.

The environment is there: army cracking with internal divisions, PAD guards appearing now on the scene with weapons, attempt to arrest red Shirts leaders... at the first spark the fire will extends to all Thailand. The slot is narrowing for Good Will people to bring back everybody to reason.

We have to stop discussing about what divide, we have to talk about what unite... I am afraid that the Land of Smile will become the Land of bereavements.

Our beautiful and charming Thailand is on the verge of precipice

On this I agree. The government made all the moves to de-escalate the situation until they had no choice but to act. These last few days the government has proffered the olive branch only to have it snatched from their hands, broken in two, and thrown back in their faces.

Jerry, are you beginning to understand now what the redshirt position truly is? Do you understand now that they are completely unwilling to negotiate? Do you understand now that they will do anything, including the use of snipers and grenades on security forces to achieve their aims? Do you now understand that they are the unreasonable ones, and are actively seeking violence and destruction?

"Government ready for negotiation"....just rhetoric, propaganda... Actions are demonstrating the opposite.

You will remember that the latest offer of negotiation from the government yesterday was roundly rejected. Instead the redshirt leaders sent a box lunch and nice little not to Abhisit telling him fatten up before going to prison (more or less). Moreover Nattawut stated that there would be a 'welcome surprise' waiting for security forces should they attempt to disperse the crowds from Ratchaprasong. Now what do you think he meant by that?

A soldier that would discharge his weapon into a crowd without identifying a target is the one with a mental problem as you call it. An NCO that cannot control his unit is useless and must be removed. An officer that would order his troops to fire into unarmed civilians is guilty of a breach of the rules of engagement. Discipline must be maintained within the ranks. Without discipline there can be no clarity of thought and order collapses.

You are attempting to compare the unfortunate circumstances that can arise in a combat situation or when there are hostile forces engaging in an attack. Yes, there are often civilian casualties incurred and there are friendly fire incidents. However, in such incidents there is an evident imminent threat. Examples are a vehicle approaching that does not respond to warnings or unknown subjects demonstrating an evident threat. It the absence of such characteristics it is unacceptable to discharge weapons into a crowd of unarmed civilians.

The initial information released shows that the shootings were in some if not many, cases random. In other cases they were direct shots at close range. A proximity sufficient to allow an assessment of the threat. Let's review that information;

- Initially, the government denied the use of live ammunition. However, as the injuries were evidenced (bullet wounds to the head, back and genitalia),and third parties such as Reuters and the BBC described the weapons used and photographed bullet casings at the positions occupied by the army the government changed its statement.

- In a public statement , the army has stated that at a minimum the following was lost; 9X M16 rifles, 25 X Tavor rifles, 6 X anti-aircraft guns, 580 rubber bullets, 600 anti-aircraft shells and 8,182 M16 bullets. (Please tell me why anti aircraft weaponary was required. Due to the skyline, the threat of an air attack was unlikely.)

- There were 24 fatalities, of which 5 were army personnel. Several thousand protestors sustained injuries. Of these, in excess of 850 protestors were admitted to hospital. Today 217 are still in hospital with 14 in the ICU. Approx. 250 soldiers are reported to have sustained injuries. The military injuries are for the most part blunt force trauma and lacerations. (This is not meant to discount these injuries as many are grim and barbaric in nature.) The majority of civilian fatalities are due to head or back wounds. The government has not released the number of casualties that were shot in the back, but the the outstanding reports (they must be confirmed by autopsy) indicate that protestors were shot in the back as they fled.

In consideration of the above, I do not believe the imminent threat was present in most of the shootings. Your position holds that of the 800+ protestors that sustained weapon discharge injuries, that all were armed and on the attack. C'mon. You can't really believe that or did you just not bother with some critical thinking? If a civilian is running away, it is not acceptable to shoot the person in the back. if there were agitator snipers that were responsible for all of these injuries, it will be evidenced by the entry and exit wounds or at the very least some of the trace trajectory. What I have seen so far suggests that the majority of bullet wounds were sustained at ground level and at close range. As such the expression of holding one's dick is not applicable. The most likely explanation is that someone gave an order to shoot into the crowd.

I find it interesting that the word "assumption" is being used. Sorry, but the Thai troops implicated were well trained. These were not young conscripts, but long term personnel. The lead units have benefited from US, UK and Australian military exchanges. Do you actually think that the army deployed young conscripts? These were some of the best troops in the Bangkok area. Had anything less been used, there was a strong likelihood the troops would have joined with the protestors. Hence, it becomes more likely that someone gave a direct order to fire into the crowd.

If the situation had been similar to Iraq, I could definitely understand if there were significant casualties. The nature of Iraq and Afghanistan is that a surging crowd will most likely be violently hostile, armed and certainly more dangerous that what was seen in Bangkok. I have made no assumptions about Russian and Chinese democracy. it isn't even germane to this matter. However, even the Russians and Chinese troops do not fire randomly into hostile crowds.

My position remains that firing live ammunition into a cvilian population when there are no clear identified targets is wrong. Once the protests are over and the government changes, barring a coup d'etat there will be an inquiry and criminal charges will be brought. I note that the people so distressed by the accusations of extra judicial killings during the war on drugs have not said one word on this.

Your argument is invalid. Once the soldiers were fired upon with long-range sniper rifles, ak47s, and grenades, the level of engagement necessarily changed. They were being attacked with war weapons. They did not fire on 'unarmed' civilians. They fired on a heavily armed and deadly mob bent on their destruction. All of this took place under a state of emergency, so any protester on sight was in serious violation of the law. The protesters were given ample warning to disperse, but chose not to. Shortly before the crackdown, all of the tough young redshirt men at Ratchaprasong were moved over to the Phan Fah site specifically to fight the security forces.

There are many scenario's. Another and probably best outcome for Pinnochio and his Army coalition is the other mob/gang being the Yellows comes back out into the streets. The ineviatable blood letting of these two extremes occurs, which leaves the Reds in no position to focus on what the coalition Government and Army are up to. Welcome to the hood bro, but the trouble is the munitions and casaulties are heavier. But that is probably the price that Thailand has to pay to learn that the extremes either side of the centre can not hold political positions. The Army can then just come in, surround both groups and deal to them.

That's an interesting strategy. Maybe you should apply for the position of Supreme Commander. It's soon to be vacant I hear.

The govt is finished. The military for the most part are backing the red shirts. Pretty much game over.

It's possible, but I'm not so certain.

The redshirt position is clear. No negotiations. Dissolve parliament immediately and prepare for the revenge that shall be heaped upon you once we have the power.

I am disturbed by what may be coming. Here's the worst case scenario as nearly as I can tell.

The redshirts will increase their level of protest again. Expect an influx of new footsoldiers after Songkran, only fewer grannies and babies and mostly 18-40 year old males. They haven't yet achieved their goal. They smell blood and aren't about to back off. Not now. They will begin baiting the government again, daring them to make a move. They will spit in the face of the law, the people of Bangkok, and ultimately in the face of Thailand. They will taunt and shout, bully, threaten and abuse.

The propaganda wars from both sides will continue in earnest.

The government and military will take it on the chin at first. They'll make weak-sounding proclamations about restoring order and apprehending the redshirt leaders. They will appear helpless and defenseless, but they won't cave in to the redshirt demands. So the redshirts will escalate, and continue to escalate, pushing and squeezing. They will become more daring with each offensive.

Until finally the government and military will have no choice but to react, a second time. But they won't forget the incidents on April 10th. They will understand exactly what they are up against. And the redshirts, blackshirts, ronin, and anyone else who will fight on their side will be waiting for them. They will be prepared and fortified. All defenses in place and strategies formulated. Then... all hel_l breaks loose. And thus begins a civil war.

I don't see how it could get much worse than that. A deadly serious game is being played out in the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts aren't in any mood to negotiate. Consider this rather telling incident

Natthawut Saikua, one of the 24, said the red shirts were preparing a "welcoming party" if the government cracked down on protesters.

"I confirm the red shirts will not waver if the government is to launch a new round of anti-riot operations early next week," he said, adding that the red shirts would not disperse before the dissolution of Parliament.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...s-30127226.html

Civilian and/or rogue military forces using grenades and assault rifles on security forces is terrorism. Threatening to derail the BTS is terrorism. Public calls to burn government buildings is terrorism. Threats to the government leaders, their homes, and their families is terrorism. Assassination of military leaders is terrorism. Attempted assassination of government leaders is terrorism. Kidnapping and taking soldiers hostage is terrorism.

What would you call it? Armed insurrection? Civil war?

Blurting out and accepting off the cuff definitions of terrorism is just what certain elements in power and media want the general public to do - it has the desired effect to greater or lesser extent on public opinion - - I'm sorry these are threats reported by the media in ways that let them insert or use the word terrorism - To understand what is happening one needs to uderstand at least a little bit about the language of media and spin.

In fact these actions if we choose to label them with this meaningless and emotive word would make a lot of "freedom fighters" in history terrorists too.

to accept the use of this word in almost ANY circumstances - especially with regards to the current situation in Thailand would be very gullible and naive.

I hope that most posters would see through this unsubtle ploy.

So you disagree that the things mentioned in my should rightfully be construed as terrorism. That's fine. What would you call it then?

If the reds continue to think they have a winning hand they will escalate.

The only real place to go after this is true all out civil war.

Blockade them, very tightly.

They picked the final battle ground, let them be hungry and loud there,

until they realize they get hungrier faster than Central world gets broke.

I disagree. I don't really see how to accomplish this. You'd have people swimming across the klong and bringing in food. You'd have to spread your forces rather thinly to contain the area and then the crowd would be able to break through. You could also start a riot. If those department stores or other buildings were looted or torched the economic damages would be staggering. Assuming that the reds will not negotiate, then I reckon that there aren't too many choices.

1) Agree to the reds terms.

2) Don't agree and try to wait them out.

3) Bring in about 100,000 soldiers and 50,000 police with tanks, helicopters, tear gas, rubber bullets, and water canon. Perhaps a show of force of this magnitude would be a game changer. If not, start arresting anyone they can at the edges of the crowd and put them in trucks. If a riot erupts then unleash the security forces with non-lethal dispersal means.

What else can be done?

Well it sure doesn't feel right to me either. I'd really love to be a fly on the wall inside military HQ.

You don’t have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don’t understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

Of course you have the right to believe whatever you choose, but you are making wild accusations without a shred of evidence. You are using highly emotive language. Yes there were elderly people in the redshirts. Yes there may have been children. In case you missed it the protesters are there illegally in defiance of regular law, the ISA, and the State of Emergency. They have been violent, their rhetoric even more so. Seven soldiers were killed and hundreds injured. This does not happen with a peaceful demonstration of grannies and babies.

I believe you are incorrect. It is my understanding that in Thailand criminal proceedings cannot go forward unless the accused is present. The assets case was a civil proceeding and those can be concluded without the defendant present, so long as his lawyers are there.

If that is correct then it would mean that Thaksin is not a convicted criminal. Is that what you are saying? Because on TV, I read nothing but Thaksin being a convicted criminal, whereas if you are correct then it was merely a civil case against him.

Can you explain why Thaksin is a convicted criminal if the case was a civil one?

The criminal proceedings did go ahead because Thaksin wouldn't face them like a man. He was convicted and sentenced.

Really...we have just been advised (see hilighted text above) that "criminal" cases can not proceed unless the accused is present..only civil cases can be tried in abstentia

I really wish you guys could make up your minds...this is getting very confusing. The fact remains "conflict of interest" which was the conviction is a pretty minor offense and a 2 year sentence is pretty light by Thai standards...not exactly in the monster criminal category

The other criminal charges cannot proceed until he returns. That is my understanding from a newspaper article. And no, I don't remember the source. Perhaps you could find some evidence to prove this incorrect. I tii have searched for information regarding a list of pending charges for Thaksin and have come up dry.

double post - see below.

That's twice today this has happened. Hmmm.

I believe you are incorrect. It is my understanding that in Thailand criminal proceedings cannot go forward unless the accused is present. The assets case was a civil proceeding and those can be concluded without the defendant present, so long as his lawyers are there.

If that is correct then it would mean that Thaksin is not a convicted criminal. Is that what you are saying? Because on TV, I read nothing but Thaksin being a convicted criminal, whereas if you are correct then it was merely a civil case against him.

Can you explain why Thaksin is a convicted criminal if the case was a civil one?

He was present for most of the Ratchada land deal case. This was criminal. He was found guilty and sentenced.

He was not present for the Assets Seizure case. This was a civil court.

From "Bangkok Red-Shirt Rally - Live Thursday, THURSDAY APRIL 15"

The redshirt leader then presented Manop to members of the media, saying that the redshirt guard had seized weapons from soldiers and was taking them over to display on the Phan Fa stage - not the Khok Wua intersection or the Satri Witthaya School intersection as alleged.

If Manop had nothing to hide, why did he cover his face with that kind of mask in 35 degree heat when he went about with a rifle in his hands?

However, if Manop had something to hide (which no doubt he did), why did he make SUCH a piss poor job of covering it?

Because he was hot and trying to get some fresh air?

That is pretty scary..i lived by that intersection for 4 years, often walked right in that underpass at night..fortunately never had any incidents. So those guys never demanded money or anything, just an unprovoked attack. Did they try to follow you?

They never said anything. It was totally unprovoked. Yes, they did give pursuit. After breaking free, I ran back toward the Klong Tan intersection. They gave chase, until I reached a noodle stand with some patrons. The machete boys hung back about 30m while I frantically pleaded for help from the couple, having their dinner, and the noodle vendor. These ordinary people were confronted by a one-shoed, wild-eyed, sweating, beat up farang dripping blood from a badly injured hand. I gesticulated toward the guys up the street. They looked, saw the machetes, and naturally, they turned their chairs away while the noodle vendor busied himself with the dishes in the tub sitting on the ground near him. The two guys started walking slowly toward where I was standing, so I took off again and ran the last 40m or so to the intersection. The two guys stopped short a bit, paused, then turned and slunk back into the shadows. I looked across the street to the police box there then saw a taxi coming up from Pra Khanong. I considered briefly, then flagged the taxi and headed to the small hospital nearby.

Things can happen here or anywhere I guess. RIP to the poor guy who was killed. Condolences to the people he left behind.

Vicco, you might try doing a search for "googling for dummies" to help with your research.

Even a simple look at the wikipedia page would give you a fair guide for what Thaksin is accused of. That would easily lead to plenty of other documentation, for and against, of his deeds.

Thank you for your response but that is precisely what I have done, plus a great deal more. If you read my post fully, I acknowledge that he was accused my many things (I did not bother to list them because as you say the wikipedia page alone lists them). My point was that despite all the accusations and charges against him all they were able to convict him of was "conflict of interest" which arouse from the land auction deal which was actually consumated by his then wife. Sorry I don't condemn a man for what he was accused of by his political enemies--anyone can accuse another person of anything. There is that small detail we seem to leave out of our discussions...proof of guilt. We seem to prefer to just blather on and on repeating the same nonsense over and over. Bandwagon effect---no authentication of anything that is said. We are divided into two camps---two solitudes.... facts don't matter any more. There are people in America who think G.W Bush actually organized the 9/11 attack...and that Elvis is alive and living on a S. Pacific island. People will believe anything...no real evidence or proof required. Its the same with the 500 bath payments or the previously touted 2000 baht payments...it gets said..then repeated and in no time it becomes fact regardless of any evidence to the contrary. People just make up stories to support their views and biases. I would never have to face a jury made up of Thailand ex-pats.

Most of the other accusations can't be fought until he is here to defend them.

Sorry, but than makes no sense. If he chose not to defend then he would/could be found guilty in abstentia---same as the conflict of interest conviction. As I have stated (repeatedly) all the charges were dismissed or withdrawn. Conflict of interest was the only one where there was enough evidence to bring about a conviction and even that ws a bit of a stretch. If he had been tried in a different court with a different panel of judges he may well have been cleared of that one too. I suspect that he chose his course of action (exile) because he knew perfectly well that they would convict him of something, being as the whole thing was more about politics than legal process and designed to put him out of action as a political force. I have yet to find anything from any source that justifies the intense name calling, character assassination and generally degrading nonsense voiced on this forum. Still waiting for something on Redshirt pay scales also...but again all hot air, not substance. I try to give reasons for my views and I do not reply to posts that are well reasoned arguments with one line meaningless statements even if I disagree with the argument. Good arguments deserve better than that.

I believe you are incorrect. It is my understanding that in Thailand criminal proceedings cannot go forward unless the accused is present. The assets case was a civil proceeding and those can be concluded without the defendant present, so long as his lawyers are there.

RIP fellow ozzie dude...

but,

Slashed with a machete? This is becoming like Somalia!

Sad, very sad for Thailand.

I was mugged in the Klong Tan area a few years back. Two guys wielding machetes approached me from in front and behind in a darkened underpass at the bridge just west of the Klong Tan intersection. The attack occurred at about 8:30 pm. When they reached me they said nothing at all, but immediately one of them swung a machete downward at my forehead. I managed to get my hand up and blocked the machete, nearly severing the pinky finger and thumb on my left hand. I somehow broke free and ran as fast as I could, losing one of my shoes in the process. There was also a large slice on my neck that probably came from the other guy, also carrying a machete. The slice was not deep, but the fact that a machete made a cut on my neck was very disturbing. This was a horrible, horrible experience. Wrong place, wrong time I guess. But make no mistake, extreme violence is commonplace here on the land of smiles.

Vicco, you might try doing a search for "googling for dummies" to help with your research.

Even a simple look at the wikipedia page would give you a fair guide for what Thaksin is accused of. That would easily lead to plenty of other documentation, for and against, of his deeds.

Thank you for your response but that is precisely what I have done, plus a great deal more. If you read my post fully, I acknowledge that he was accused my many things (I did not bother to list them because as you say the wikipedia page alone lists them). My point was that despite all the accusations and charges against him all they were able to convict him of was "conflict of interest" which arouse from the land auction deal which was actually consumated by his then wife. Sorry I don't condemn a man for what he was accused of by his political enemies--anyone can accuse another person of anything. There is that small detail we seem to leave out of our discussions...proof of guilt. We seem to prefer to just blather on and on repeating the same nonsense over and over. Bandwagon effect---no authentication of anything that is said. We are divided into two camps---two solitudes.... facts don't matter any more. There are people in America who think G.W Bush actually organized the 9/11 attack...and that Elvis is alive and living on a S. Pacific island. People will believe anything...no real evidence or proof required. Its the same with the 500 bath payments or the previously touted 2000 baht payments...it gets said..then repeated and in no time it becomes fact regardless of any evidence to the contrary. People just make up stories to support their views and biases. I would never have to face a jury made up of Thailand ex-pats.

The problem is that Thaksin has not stood trial for the other offenses. The wheels of justice in Thailand turn slowly. It takes years of investigation to prepare these cases. Moreover, these trials cannot proceed in his absence. Since he fled the country everything has been put into a holding pattern, awaiting his return.

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

I agree the judicialisation of politics is a good thing in that it applies the rule of law.But justice must be fair and even handed and on these matters in Thailand there still remains reasonable doubt (some would add to put it mildly).

As to penalties for political corruption what you say is sensible.As a practical point of course penalties would need to be graded to suit the offence:this could be covered in legislation.

Agree. Nobody should be banned for taking home office supplies and the like. You're correct in saying that the punishment needs to fit the offense.

So no gray area then? Coup - bad. Army - bad. No difference as to they type of coup being held? No analysis of underlying motives? No discussion of whether or not people are killed?

It seems to me that we have a redshirt coup in the making right now. The redshirt movement does not just consist of the protesters. It is much larger than that. People have been killed. There has been war in the streets. Is this equally unacceptable? This is a violent attempt to overthrow a legal sitting government.

No I think we can be pretty clear that , regardless of "motive" or individual circumstances, a coup is very damaging.In Thailand of course it's often hard to determine what precisely the "motive" is because the predictable stale nationalist rhetoric is often very far from the true self serving reasons (greed,power,fear of the Thai majority).I think there is fairly complete agreement in influential Thai circles (okay it hasn't filtered through to some on this forum, but so what?) that the last coup and its disastrous aftermath was counter productive to elite interests.Thereafter the thuggery of the generals was replaced by a slightly more subtle judicialisation of politics.However even the latter has now been exposed for exactly what it is.Therefore it's with some interest that one awaits to see how the elite will look to rig the election when it's finally called.All one can say with confidence is that it will not be intelligent or well thought out, and that in current circumstances it will probably fail.Bottom line the greed,stupidity and brutality of elite interests will end up in a worse position than was really necessary given the ebb of power.

Okay. I may not agree with your slant but I agree with the bulk of what you are saying.

I personally think the judicialisation of politics is a good thing, so long as the judges are honest and not corrupt. The more corrupt politicians whose misdeeds see the light of day the better. And I don't care which side they are on.

I think that dissolution of parties needs to stop, but the ban on individual politicians needs to be much longer. Guilty of corruption, vote buying, accepting illegal donations and it's a lifelong ban for the persons directly involved. We must remember this is elite versus elite that are warring now. What's happening on the street is just the outward manifestation.

Maybe soon he's going to have to live on his private jet, hopscotching there and then to refuel, resupply, occasionally to pick up some straggler Red leaders for company.

There's always Montenegro and Nicaragua and perhaps some African countries.

You ruled out him coming back here then? Couldn't touch him if they set up base in Chaing Mai!!!

Nope. Haven't ruled that out either. In fact it would be a brilliant move if the goal is to inflame the government, military and other national institutions. I wonder why he hasn't done this already.