Abhisit Could Die From Problems

[sbk]

posts containing quotes of the deleted post have been removed.

[Yoshitaka]

How does Kasit know that the guy was not spying?

[hammered]

How does Kasit know that the guy was not spying?

Nobody knows if he was or wasnt. However, Thailand will say he wasnt and Cambodia will say he was. People will make up their own minds and judging from what is on here it will be along the usual unthinking line following ways. However, for the guy concerned this is not going to be nice and it unlikely he will get a fair hearing which will leave everything even more belief based than fact based.

[seahorse]

Tom Die, De Die---Tom Chua, Die Chua.

Who is Tom and why do you want him to die?

[zzaa09]

It's not like they could go against the Inner circle!!

You mean the Inner circle that allowed Thaksin to conceal his assets?

Mai phen lai! Easily forgotten.

[zzaa09]

It's not like they could go against the Inner circle!!

You mean the Inner circle that allowed Thaksin to conceal his assets?

Mai phen lai! Easily forgotten.

[animatic]

Seems we have not forgotten.

[wayfarer108]

All cases against Thasin were began under the coup appointed government and the AEC

Utter rubbish. There were cases brought against Thaksin as early as the first year of his first term. Your loose grip of the facts continues to amaze me, clausewitz.

[Steve2UK]

100 Peu Thai MPs are going to Phnom Pehn, right on schedule.

So what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers.

What is that line about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Hun Sen is actively trying to destabilize Thailand.

That qualifies as an Enemy of the State.

Peu Thai is so desperate to get back Thaksin, and sole access to the money trough,

no move and now ally of convenience is too low a stoop.

A little clarification, please. Is there some punctuation missing from your second line - and it should read "So, what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers?" ?

Or does the "So what if" equate to "So what that Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers"?

Either way, all the reports I've seen relate that all* is quiet on the border - and have been (PAD permitting) for some time. Do you know different?

Do you mean Hun Sen qualifies as an "Enemy of the State"? That label's universally applied to a national of the State of which he's deemed to be an enemy. I know much is made of Siamese/Khmer hegemony moving around quite a bit over the centuries, but I can't help feeling that you're stretching things a tad far if you're suggesting that Hun Sen's really a Thai national in some way. Or do you mean that the label should apply to the 100 MP's going to visit Thaksin while he's in Cambodia because you see that as somehow "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".......... whichever "enemy" in the proper legal sense that is? From imagined fighting to an imagined state of war - all in just a couple of lines......... that's impressive .

*To be fair there was a report of a bit of a punch-up about the right and wrongs of what's been said - between a pair of traders in a border market; but no Thai soldiers were involved and it hasn't (yet, anyway) led to the formal state of war that would be required for most of your post to make any sense at all.

Steve I had been driving for 8 hours that day.

I would say that actively helping destabilize the Thai government with Thaksin does NOT qualify him as a friendly.

Enemy or enemy of the state, as a semantic difference, it is an enemy none the less.

Lets call Chavalit, 'the great unifier' and Thaksin 'Enemies Of The State' in this case then.

They have together blown this international cock-up into high gear.

Even if a state of war is not declared a " Shoot To Kill" at Thai soldiers IS in place.

Not a friend's action.

Thaksin was not supposed to do any political work from Cambodia,

and yet 100 Peua Thai MP's winged out to see him. Oops sounds VERY political.

We can nit pick my punctuation, but the basic premise remains.

Perhaps we should add "don't drive and post" to "don't drink and drive"?

For the rest - terms are important and these are not semantic trivia when you deploy so much hyperbole; "unfriendly" does not make an "enemy" in any legal sense of the term - the "basic premise" of your original post. For that matter, while Hun Sen's "Shoot To Kill" declaration was certainly "unfriendly" (and IMO deliberately provocative - for reasons I've outlined elsewhere), it was specifically directed at those entering Cambodian territory........ an important qualification wouldn't you say? Not dissimilar to notices announcing "Use of deadly force is authorised beyond this point".

I don't "nit pick" people's punctuation - or spelling or syntax. My question about yours was (IMO obviously) to establish just what you meant - which was far from obvious.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Steve2UK

[hammered]

100 Peu Thai MPs are going to Phnom Pehn, right on schedule.

So what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers.

What is that line about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Hun Sen is actively trying to destabilize Thailand.

That qualifies as an Enemy of the State.

Peu Thai is so desperate to get back Thaksin, and sole access to the money trough,

no move and now ally of convenience is too low a stoop.

A little clarification, please. Is there some punctuation missing from your second line - and it should read "So, what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers?" ?

Or does the "So what if" equate to "So what that Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers"?

Either way, all the reports I've seen relate that all* is quiet on the border - and have been (PAD permitting) for some time. Do you know different?

Do you mean Hun Sen qualifies as an "Enemy of the State"? That label's universally applied to a national of the State of which he's deemed to be an enemy. I know much is made of Siamese/Khmer hegemony moving around quite a bit over the centuries, but I can't help feeling that you're stretching things a tad far if you're suggesting that Hun Sen's really a Thai national in some way. Or do you mean that the label should apply to the 100 MP's going to visit Thaksin while he's in Cambodia because you see that as somehow "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".......... whichever "enemy" in the proper legal sense that is? From imagined fighting to an imagined state of war - all in just a couple of lines......... that's impressive .

*To be fair there was a report of a bit of a punch-up about the right and wrongs of what's been said - between a pair of traders in a border market; but no Thai soldiers were involved and it hasn't (yet, anyway) led to the formal state of war that would be required for most of your post to make any sense at all.

Steve I had been driving for 8 hours that day.

I would say that actively helping destabilize the Thai government with Thaksin does NOT qualify him as a friendly.

Enemy or enemy of the state, as a semantic difference, it is an enemy none the less.

Lets call Chavalit, 'the great unifier' and Thaksin 'Enemies Of The State' in this case then.

They have together blown this international cock-up into high gear.

Even if a state of war is not declared a " Shoot To Kill" at Thai soldiers IS in place.

Not a friend's action.

Thaksin was not supposed to do any political work from Cambodia,

and yet 100 Peua Thai MP's winged out to see him. Oops sounds VERY political.

We can nit pick my punctuation, but the basic premise remains.

Perhaps we should add "don't drive and post" to "don't drink and drive"?

For the rest - terms are important and these are not semantic trivia when you deploy so much hyperbole; "unfriendly" does not make an "enemy" in any legal sense of the term - the "basic premise" of your original post. For that matter, while Hun Sen's "Shoot To Kill" declaration was certainly "unfriendly" (and IMO deliberately provocative - for reasons I've outlined elsewhere), it was specifically directed at those entering Cambodian territory........ an important qualification wouldn't you say? Not dissimilar to notices announcing "Use of deadly force is authorised beyond this point".

I don't "nit pick" people's punctuation - or spelling or syntax. My question about yours was (IMO obviously) to establish just what you meant - which was far from obvious.

One problem with the those entering Cambodain territory thing is that neither side quite agree on where the lines actually are and those little disputed bits are where live fire accidents can all too easily occur and both sides can claim their boys were on their territory.

[starcatcher]

Sometimes I really don't understand the postings here. No one cared about Cambodia in the past. Vietnam, another very poor country that time, helped to free Cambodia. Not we, not the western countries. The western countries only paid money. Paid money also to the Khmer Rouge, that it never comes out, what the US gouvernment made there during the Vientam War. Like so many times, western gouvernments are damaging, while others helping the people. And to buy out of responsibility we only give tons of money always. But you can say, what you want - Hun Sen is elected and Hun Sen brought peace to the country.

And Thailand...

Once again we are responsible for the problems, both countries have together right now. Who was responsible for the confusing new borders??? Thailand only tried the last 150 years to protect itself from becomming French or English colony.

And taking a look over to Burma, as we are there still doing the same (policy): GB left a country which was far away from being stable. And a few people took the chance and built their own regime. And what we are doing against it???

Thaksin: at least he was elected by the Thais. same like Hun Sen from the Khmers. And Abhisit from a political party, which calls itself "democratical"? Elected by the people? Or democratical?

All I can see here: in the same way the Thais are manipulated now, it also seems to work with many Farangs (before Thaksin was the hero in Thailand, and most Thais now are speaking from the bad guy only). Well done propaganda!

[animatic]

Abhisit was elected by Thais also. Get your facts straight.

And like Thaksin before him a coalition of MPs voted him as PM.

The main change was one large faction abandoned Thaksin's side of the divide.

Just like what happened when Thaksin formed TRT party's coalition,

MP's abandoned political allies and joined the current big dog on the block.

Thai politics as usual.

Abhisit was duly elected to Parliament and

had the right to form a government when the opposing side failed too.

If PPP hadn't cheated as a group and gotten caught and convicted as a group,

they would not have lost their coalition. They left because they srewed the pooch,

and not because of the airport take over, that only slightly contributed to speedier

processing of their case, in time to settle it all before HRM birthday.

[Steve2UK]

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

Edited November 18, 2009 by Steve2UK

[h90]

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

I am also sure that your mother wouldn't want to hear what Hun Sen speaks all the day. And what has it to do with appointing criminal + mass murder Thaksin as adviser???

Kasit did not do anything wrong as FM. And why put that Thai in jail for being a spy?

[beammeup]

100 Peu Thai MPs are going to Phnom Pehn, right on schedule.

So what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers.

What is that line about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Hun Sen is actively trying to destabilize Thailand.

That qualifies as an Enemy of the State.

Peu Thai is so desperate to get back Thaksin, and sole access to the money trough,

no move and now ally of convenience is too low a stoop.

A little clarification, please. Is there some punctuation missing from your second line - and it should read "So, what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers?" ?

Or does the "So what if" equate to "So what that Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers"?

Either way, all the reports I've seen relate that all* is quiet on the border - and have been (PAD permitting) for some time. Do you know different?

Do you mean Hun Sen qualifies as an "Enemy of the State"? That label's universally applied to a national of the State of which he's deemed to be an enemy. I know much is made of Siamese/Khmer hegemony moving around quite a bit over the centuries, but I can't help feeling that you're stretching things a tad far if you're suggesting that Hun Sen's really a Thai national in some way. Or do you mean that the label should apply to the 100 MP's going to visit Thaksin while he's in Cambodia because you see that as somehow "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".......... whichever "enemy" in the proper legal sense that is? From imagined fighting to an imagined state of war - all in just a couple of lines......... that's impressive .

*To be fair there was a report of a bit of a punch-up about the right and wrongs of what's been said - between a pair of traders in a border market; but no Thai soldiers were involved and it hasn't (yet, anyway) led to the formal state of war that would be required for most of your post to make any sense at all.

Steve I had been driving for 8 hours that day.

I would say that actively helping destabilize the Thai government with Thaksin does NOT qualify him as a friendly.

Enemy or enemy of the state, as a semantic difference, it is an enemy none the less.

Lets call Chavalit, 'the great unifier' and Thaksin 'Enemies Of The State' in this case then.

They have together blown this international cock-up into high gear.

Even if a state of war is not declared a " Shoot To Kill" at Thai soldiers IS in place.

Not a friend's action.

Thaksin was not supposed to do any political work from Cambodia,

and yet 100 Peua Thai MP's winged out to see him. Oops sounds VERY political.

We can nit pick my punctuation, but the basic premise remains.

Perhaps we should add "don't drive and post" to "don't drink and drive"?

For the rest - terms are important and these are not semantic trivia when you deploy so much hyperbole; "unfriendly" does not make an "enemy" in any legal sense of the term - the "basic premise" of your original post. For that matter, while Hun Sen's "Shoot To Kill" declaration was certainly "unfriendly" (and IMO deliberately provocative - for reasons I've outlined elsewhere), it was specifically directed at those entering Cambodian territory........ an important qualification wouldn't you say? Not dissimilar to notices announcing "Use of deadly force is authorised beyond this point".

I don't "nit pick" people's punctuation - or spelling or syntax. My question about yours was (IMO obviously) to establish just what you meant - which was far from obvious.

Hey man the jist of his post was sound get off his back

[LawnGnome]

People seem to forget how much blood is on Hun Sen's hand. Lets stop talking about him like he is, in any way, a legitimate leader. He is a warlord, pure and simple, and a dirtbag to boot.

This whole diplomatic scuffle was done by him to keep the Cambodian people from protesting to loudly, because he recently ceded large tracks of disputed land back to Vietnam (one the puppet's "masters")

[Steve2UK]

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

I am also sure that your mother wouldn't want to hear what Hun Sen speaks all the day. And what has it to do with appointing criminal + mass murder Thaksin as adviser???

Kasit did not do anything wrong as FM. And why put that Thai in jail for being a spy?

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

[Samuian]

...................edite to shorten..........

--------snip>

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

"It didn't exactly glow with credibility then"

.....is this because you say so?

It's the same twisted logic applied to Mr.Thaksin's cases...

Why the heck shouldn't he or anyone else have said what he said,

despite it was pretty innocent stuff, only when taken out of context it seems as if he is glorifying this event.

many consider him "a good man for the job" he didn't really do any damage to the country, did he?

Was the occupation of Stansted's runway an act of terrorism, are strikes, occupations of buildings,

closing down of factories, considered "acts of terrorism in the EU?

Or is it simply the fact that the Abhisit Government is going quite strong?

edited to edit....

Edited November 19, 2009 by Samuian

[rixalex]

The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM;

Agreed. And it's a sad fact.

The present government would be much more appealing if they came minus Kasit, Suthep and Newin, to name a few. But alas, without them the coalition would not have been able to form.

On the bright side, we do now have a PM who i believe has good intentions, and in my opinion is doing a good job of both working with some rather unsavoury characters, as well as dealing with the continual nuisance that Thaksin is proving himself to be.

I don't think there have been much trickier times in Thailand in which to come to power.

[jayboy]

Why the heck shouldn't he or anyone else have said what he said,

despite it was pretty innocent stuff, only when taken out of context it seems as if he is glorifying this event.

many consider him "a good man for the job" he didn't really do any damage to the country, did he?

And many consider his appointment to be a national disgrace, a terrible blot on Abhisit's government.He's not a wicked man, far from it but someone with lamentably bad judgement.The occupation of the international airport was hugely damaging to Thailand, and the leaders were lucky to avoid jail time.Kasit was part of this disgrace.

Spin all you like about Stansted Airport.I doubt whether anyone takes that kind of line seriously.

[jayboy]

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

It doesn't matter when he said it.To have said it at all should have disqualified him for high office.

[Steve2UK]

...................edite to shorten..........

--------snip>

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

"It didn't exactly glow with credibility then"

.....is this because you say so?

It's the same twisted logic applied to Mr.Thaksin's cases...

Why the heck shouldn't he or anyone else have said what he said,

despite it was pretty innocent stuff, only when taken out of context it seems as if he is glorifying this event.

many consider him "a good man for the job" he didn't really do any damage to the country, did he?

Was the occupation of Stansted's runway an act of terrorism, are strikes, occupations of buildings,

closing down of factories, considered "acts of terrorism in the EU?

Or is it simply the fact that the Abhisit Government is going quite strong?

As best as I can make out, you seem to think that the link I provided earlier relates to Kasit's "fun, excellent food/music etc" comments to an audience of journalists and diplomats in late December 2008 (when he had already been named FM but days before being sworn in) about the airport occupation - and by inference also the GH occupation. It doesn't. As I already made clear (except to you, it seems) about the venue and the date (i.e. close to two months before the airport occupation), it's Kasit's speech to PAD supporters at GH. As it happens, I long ago took the trouble to listen to a recording of Kasit's impromptu remarks at that December event and formed the view that he was just alarmingly careless in his choice of words - given his appointment as FM and the nature of the audience. My take was/is that he was attempting to compare PAD protests favourably with the frequent violence of the then current Greek street riots (which he mentions several times). And, yes, his remarks were (IMO entirely predictably) taken out of context - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-minister.html for just one of many worldwide examples....... and the Daily Telegraph is well-known as a very conservative (some say right-wing) newspaper. Clear now?

I use "IMO" quite often to indicate when I'm expressing an opinion, but not usually when I think it's so obviously an opinion and phrased in such a way that it isn't likely to be confused (well, except by you apparently) with stating something as a known "fact". Happy to insert a retrospective "IMO" into "It didn't exactly glow with credibility then" if you need it. How that constitutes "twisted logic" is beyond me to understand - just as I still have no idea what you were trying to say/get at in an earlier post that you still haven't clarified despite being asked ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3148253 ). Re-reading that one in the light of this later salvo leads me to think that maybe you were just trying to sling mud at me rather than deal with all of the points I raised.

For reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I actually disagree with the view (I take it you are actually expressing it as a view rather than a "fact"?) contained in your closing line "Or is it simply the fact that the Abhisit Government is going quite strong?" - at least for the long term. You seem to be suggesting (though who knows?) that it somehow motivates what I have written. The logic (twisted or otherwise) of that totally escapes me.

[Steve2UK]

The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM;

Agreed. And it's a sad fact.

The present government would be much more appealing if they came minus Kasit, Suthep and Newin, to name a few. But alas, without them the coalition would not have been able to form.

On the bright side, we do now have a PM who i believe has good intentions, and in my opinion is doing a good job of both working with some rather unsavoury characters, as well as dealing with the continual nuisance that Thaksin is proving himself to be.

I don't think there have been much trickier times in Thailand in which to come to power.

Interesting..... Personally, I don't go along with including Suthep on that list - with all his old-hand experience and political savvy I think he has generally been far more sensible and pragmatic than his "boss" (I put that in quotes for reasons I've discussed elsewhere). That said, I've always been very uneasy about Suthep's cosy relationship with the generals - see today's Bangkok Post for more on that but the article (about him and them) there only reinforces the view that I've had for a long while. Then again, IMO at least - no support from the generals = "bye-bye government".

It may be surprising to some, but I also agree about Abhisit's "good intentions" - even if some of what he has done/not done has really strained my belief compared to when he took office. Very tricky times, awkward cards dealt to him - and difficult to imagine anyone playing them significantly better than Abhisit has.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Steve2UK

[rixalex]

Interesting..... Personally, I don't go along with including Suthep on that list - with all his old-hand experience and political savvy I think he has generally been far more sensible and pragmatic than his "boss" (I put that in quotes for reasons I've discussed elsewhere).

I'm guessing you are refering here to Suthep's somewhat (only somewhat) more conciliatory approach to dealing with Thaksin? It's an approach i personally don't favour, although not the reason for my dislike of the man. For that you have to look back at his history.

Very tricky times, awkward cards dealt to him - and difficult to imagine anyone playing them significantly better than Abhisit has.

Absolutely agree.

[Steve2UK]

Interesting..... Personally, I don't go along with including Suthep on that list - with all his old-hand experience and political savvy I think he has generally been far more sensible and pragmatic than his "boss" (I put that in quotes for reasons I've discussed elsewhere).

I'm guessing you are refering here to Suthep's somewhat (only somewhat) more conciliatory approach to dealing with Thaksin? It's an approach i personally don't favour, although not the reason for my dislike of the man. For that you have to look back at his history.

Actually no, apart from Suthep's closeness to the current crop of key generals, I was thinking much more generally than anything he has said (however tenuous - and come to that I don't recall seeing anything much at all) about conciliating Thaksin. (I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is). Like hammered, I have views about the likelihood of a traditional Thai-style "compromise/pragmatic accommodation" being reached with a view to try and neutralise a major issue - but I don't think that colours my view of Suthep.

As to dislike of Suthep based on his history, I haven't seen much to separate him from the familiar traits of just about all the "old hands" in Thai politics - though maybe not on Newin's scale. Looks like I should do more research on him - beyond the nineties (BBC etc) stuff that's being reported and commented on currently .

Edited November 19, 2009 by Steve2UK

[rixalex]

(I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is).

Wasn't trying to paint you as "Red" Steve, i simply got the impression from your history of posts that you would favour the government making a greater effort to find common ground with the "Reds", and that you would find it more acceptable than i would if concessions were made, (i'm talking slates being cleaned), in the interests of the country moving on (apologise if i'm putting too many words into your mouth or drawing wrong conclusions - just the impression i got).

Anyway, what i'm getting to, albeit cumbersomely and slowly, is that Suthep is in my opinion just a little more inclined to this softer approach than Abhisit is. Marginally anyway.

[h90]

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

I am also sure that your mother wouldn't want to hear what Hun Sen speaks all the day. And what has it to do with appointing criminal + mass murder Thaksin as adviser???

Kasit did not do anything wrong as FM. And why put that Thai in jail for being a spy?

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

The point is, whenever Hun Sen opens his mouth sh*it comes out, mostly very rude things, beside that he is an ugly dictator. So he can tell something complete inappropriate, but if he hears similar things about himself he gets upset? I don't know Kasits speech but most probably there isn't anything wrong in it. Hun Sen is an uneducated corrupt mass murder who is in power due to faked elections. Now he finds his super sensitive broken heart because Kasit used bad words and starts crying?

[Steve2UK]

(I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is).

Wasn't trying to paint you as "Red" Steve, i simply got the impression from your history of posts that you would favour the government making a greater effort to find common ground with the "Reds", and that you would find it more acceptable than i would if concessions were made, (i'm talking slates being cleaned), in the interests of the country moving on (apologise if i'm putting too many words into your mouth or drawing wrong conclusions - just the impression i got).

Anyway, what i'm getting to, albeit cumbersomely and slowly, is that Suthep is in my opinion just a little more inclined to this softer approach than Abhisit is. Marginally anyway.

Actually, I think you sum up (some of) my views pretty well. To me "favour" carries potential connotations of sympathies, so it's not the word I would use to refer to what I think is probably an inevitability - i.e. that there has to be reconciliation at some point on entirely practical/pragmatic grounds and an all-sides slate cleaning would provide the opportunity*. The more I mull it, the more I'm coming round to your view of Suthep being more attuned to that prospect than is Abhisit - as and when it becomes politically feasible. Bluntly, I think that this has more to do with old-hand Suthep having a better grasp of the "game" and practical factors (keeping up with and squaring the circle of the different interests involved) than learning-on-the-job (as I see him) Abhisit. Kind of like the old soldier puffing nonchalantly on his cigarette during a bombardment while the newbies react every which way - he has seen it all before and they haven't. Put another way, I see him as a much better poker-player than Abhisit - and relatively unencumbered by anything approaching ideology. Abhisit started by putting reconciliation high on his list of priorities and since then IMO has simply lost his way/grip - and is now either too vulnerable or just too nervy (or both) to get it back on track.

* I've posted about this (basically some form of amnesty) before - and immediately got jumped on by the usual suspects saying stuff like "Oh and what about so-and-so who did such-and-such" ? They really do need to look at why/how amnesties happen and what they entail - limitations and problems as well as benefits. You can go on fighting each other to a log-jam standstill while everything around you continues to suffer - or you can IMO get real and find the means/mechanism/testicular fortitude to "move on" (definitely a phrase I embrace). Incidentally, I was careful on that occasion to specify "offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)" - a shade of grey seemingly lost on specialists in black-and-white one-size-fits-all thinking.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Publicus]

(I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is).

Wasn't trying to paint you as "Red" Steve, i simply got the impression from your history of posts that you would favour the government making a greater effort to find common ground with the "Reds", and that you would find it more acceptable than i would if concessions were made, (i'm talking slates being cleaned), in the interests of the country moving on (apologise if i'm putting too many words into your mouth or drawing wrong conclusions - just the impression i got).

Anyway, what i'm getting to, albeit cumbersomely and slowly, is that Suthep is in my opinion just a little more inclined to this softer approach than Abhisit is. Marginally anyway.

Actually, I think you sum up (some of) my views pretty well. To me "favour" carries potential connotations of sympathies, so it's not the word I would use to refer to what I think is probably an inevitability - i.e. that there has to be reconciliation at some point on entirely practical/pragmatic grounds and an all-sides slate cleaning would provide the opportunity*. The more I mull it, the more I'm coming round to your view of Suthep being more attuned to that prospect than is Abhisit - as and when it becomes politically feasible. Bluntly, I think that this has more to do with old-hand Suthep having a better grasp of the "game" and practical factors (keeping up with and squaring the circle of the different interests involved) than learning-on-the-job (as I see him) Abhisit. Kind of like the old soldier puffing nonchalantly on his cigarette during a bombardment while the newbies react every which way - he has seen it all before and they haven't. Put another way, I see him as a much better poker-player than Abhisit - and relatively unencumbered by anything approaching ideology. Abhisit started by putting reconciliation high on his list of priorities and since then IMO has simply lost his way/grip - and is now either too vulnerable or just too nervy (or both) to get it back on track.

* I've posted about this (basically some form of amnesty) before - and immediately got jumped on by the usual suspects saying stuff like "Oh and what about so-and-so who did such-and-such" ? They really do need to look at why/how amnesties happen and what they entail - limitations and problems as well as benefits. You can go on fighting each other to a log-jam standstill while everything around you continues to suffer - or you can IMO get real and find the means/mechanism/testicular fortitude to "move on" (definitely a phrase I embrace). Incidentally, I was careful on that occasion to specify "offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)" - a shade of grey seemingly lost on specialists in black-and-white one-size-fits-all thinking.

A pardon or amnesty of politicians is one thing, doing it to coup makers is quite another completely unacceptable matter. Should all coups everywhere be pardoned, or only some - and which ones, when, where and why?

Voters have approved a constitution that immunizes the coup makers. That's not enuff, you want a pardon/amnesty of the generals by the head of state?

[Steve2UK]

<snipped>

The point is, whenever Hun Sen opens his mouth sh*it comes out, mostly very rude things, beside that he is an ugly dictator. So he can tell something complete inappropriate, but if he hears similar things about himself he gets upset? I don't know Kasits speech but most probably there isn't anything wrong in it. Hun Sen is an uneducated corrupt mass murder who is in power due to faked elections. Now he finds his super sensitive broken heart because Kasit used bad words and starts crying?

I doubt that Hun Sen has a "super sensitive broken heart" or, come to that, that he's much given to crying - and, unsurprisingly, I've never suggested either of those things. On the same basis as animatic, you now have the opportunity to get to "know Kasits speech" so you'll be able to decide based on what you hear rather than guessing that "most probably there isn't anything wrong in it". I only provided evidence that was implicitly asked for - up to you if you choose to ignore it.