7 hours ago, bannork said:

The red shirts only came to Bangkok after Thaksin's assets had been seized. And Thaksin rejected Abhist's offer of an election in November because he needed a violent showdown with the government to play the role of cruel government, suppressed people. He had already waited 2 years since the foŕmation òf the Abhisit government.He could easily have waited lknger b Excuse typos, useless tablet.

Stupid me! I thought they wanted a dissolution of parliament before the appointment of a new army chief (Prayuth, in case you did not notice).  

Edited April 16, 20188 yr by candide

19 hours ago, candide said:

Stupid me! I thought they wanted a dissolution of parliament before the appointment of a new army chief (Prayuth, in case you did not notice).  

I won't say you are stupid, though you do, but if you think the red shirts with all the costs entailed for a long siege came to Bangkok in March just to prevent the appointment of a new Army chief in September then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Feb 26 Supreme Court orders seizure of Thaksin's assets,  March 14, the red shirts come to Bangkok. Not a coincidence surely?!

 

On 4/15/2018 at 8:38 PM, pornprong said:

I don't need a clue when I have facts.

 

On 3 May, Abhisit proposed to dissolve parliament in September for an election on 14 November if the protesters were willing to stand down.The following day Red-Shirt leaders expressed qualified support for the plan, but wanted more information about when parliament would be dissolved.On the morning of 8 May, two policemen were killed and several bystanders were injured by a drive-by shooting near the Silom Financial district. Red-Shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn denied any involvement: "We are very sorry and we want to condemn the ones who were behind the attacks."

Protesters demanded that Thailand's deputy prime minister (Suthep) be arrested for causing the deaths of 25 protesters when troops were used against protests on 10 April.The protesters refused to end the rally, and on 13 May, the offer of an election was withdrawn.

 

All Abhisit had to do was call an immediate election and let the people of Thailand decide who they wanted to govern the country instead he offered a vague plan for an election in 6 months time.

 

The man never pulled a trigger, but all of the 2010 deaths are a result of his weak leadership.

I remember watching the debate live on TV. The most conciliatory of the three red shirt leaders was  Veera Musikapong. He used to be a Democrat MP. Ironic really that all 3, Veera, Natawut and Jatupon are from the south.

Yes, the three provisionally accepted the offer of elections in November  but the next day rejected it. I wonder who persuaded them to do that?

Could it have been their paymaster Thaksin who couldn't wait that long? The red shirts servitude to Thaksin, a man who has never apologized for any of his multitude of sins is an utter disgrace.  

Which is more than the 'line the pockets of my family and friends' party of the shinawatra shysters were ever able to do.

Ahbisit was only a puppet in the negotiation and he really can't make any election decision without consultation with his master who gave him the job. Thought everyone knows that except few recalcitrant. 

On 17/04/2018 at 11:57 AM, bannork said:

I won't say you are stupid, though you do, but if you think the red shirts with all the costs entailed for a long siege came to Bangkok in March just to prevent the appointment of a new Army chief in September then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Feb 26 Supreme Court orders seizure of Thaksin's assets,  March 14, the red shirts come to Bangkok. Not a coincidence surely?!

 

There is likely more than one reason for the 2010 protests, such as an illegimate government, etc... and also the one you mention. However, the army reshuffle in September is more likely the reason Abhisit and the red shirts did not agree on the dissolution date.

 

Unless, of course, one assumes that the nomination of an army chief in Thailand is of minor importance. You know...the new army chief could even have made a coup! 

 

It possibly escaped your attention, but not the one of observers:

 

"Both sides of Thailand's political divide want to be in power in September, for two critical events: the annual round of promotions in the military – a highly political body in Thailand – and the passing of the country's budget."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/04/thai-redshirts-accept-reconciliation-election

 

"The pro-Abhisit establishment and the powers that be are hunkering down for the long haul and Prayuth is their man. He could be in power for another four years – crucial in Thai politics because of the road towards the succession. The confrontation between the Reds and the Yellows is going to continue."

 

http://www.dw.com/en/thailands-new-army-chief-takes-office/a-6066746

Edited April 18, 20188 yr by candide

At the time the Red shirts agreed to Abhisit's proposal to dissolve Parliament in September for an election in November, but they changed their minds the next day. I remember one of the red shirts answering his phone at the meeting  after they tentatively accepted Abhisit's offer, I think it was Nattawut. Many wondered at the time if it was Thaksin saying no, do not accept the offer.

20 hours ago, bannork said:

At the time the Red shirts agreed to Abhisit's proposal to dissolve Parliament in September for an election in November, but they changed their minds the next day. I remember one of the red shirts answering his phone at the meeting  after they tentatively accepted Abhisit's offer, I think it was Nattawut. Many wondered at the time if it was Thaksin saying no, do not accept the offer.

One can also wonder if the protest leaders considered the proposal and its qualifications in detail and decided that, without protesters on the streets, Abhisit and his allies would find reasons to delay elections.

 

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded by the promise of elections "next year" every year since 2014, including this year.

 

However we may never know the real reason why the offer was rejected.  I find it informative the the military has been highly accommodating towards protesters rejecting elections, and brutal with protesters calling for elections.