Abhisit Could Die From Problems

[jayboy]

Some here seem to equate formal and stern dislike, distrust and opprobrium for all things Thaksin,

with some elitist disregard for the common people, so long ignored by Thaksin and his hi-so brethren,

until he saw it serve his purposes as power broker and putative grand-standing ruler or Thailand.

Further this spurious connectivity is extended to implying that

having a dislike for red Shirt leadership and their disingenuous manipulation

of different portions of the northern populace, is somehow

directly analogous to disliking those same portions of the norther populace.

Fortunately those two misconceptions

are totally in the minds of those attempting that connection.

Actually I don't make any easy assumptions.It's fair to point out however that many PAD supporters were openly contemptuous of what you strangely call "the northern populace".

Equally it would be refreshing if supporters of the red movement (in my view the voice of grass roots democracy) weren't so easily branded by some as dupes of Thaksin.

Incidentally in the politest possible way why do you post in such a long winded and contorted way? Short Anglo-Saxon words and simple constructs are best as Orwell observed long ago in preference to French and Latin borrowings.Frankly the meaning behind your posts is clouded by your wish to appear proficient in the language.I can assure you that at places like Oxford or Yale your ridiculous use of English wouldn't be tolerated.If English is not your first language I apologise and won't raise the matter again.But my advice on simplicity holds good.

[Publicus]

Trying to give a pseudo morality to your statements by citing the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its unique sincerety of purpose and outcome is revealing of your strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin to power and the purse. As with Diogenes in his time and place, one can search endlessly to find an honest member of the Thai elite. Indeed, Thai culture and civilization is incapable of producing at the least one single leader who could rise to any times and conditions that would be half as serious, challenging and demanding of these we experience contemporarily.

Your agenda, masked in conciliation, harmony and magnaminity, is the return of Thaksin. The little light colonel hasn't any notion of any of the foregoing.

Thanks for confirming what I already started to suspect from your "input". At least Samuian comes out with the same guff early enough that I don't waste time framing sensible replies. The only real surprise here is that you don't also accuse me of being paid. Enough - I'm more than happy to leave others to judge the rational merit of what you say and what that says about you.

Interesting; you forgot to laden me into that grouping.

I know both of these fine people first hand and personally,

and they are both very experienced in Thailand and very informed.

For Samuian english is not his first language, so occasionally his comments are grammatically odd,

but what he says is based on cogent observation.

Publicus has the grammar, construction and observational abilities of an old school professional journalist,

and so states his case better than most, and doesn't shy from the Sisyphusian labors of stating them here.

I just call em as I see'm.

But it is not lost on me which thoughtful individuals you choose to dispute.

Which begs the question; why?

Agreed in respect to all ESL forumists.

[hammered]

Some here seem to equate formal and stern dislike, distrust and opprobrium for all things Thaksin,

with some elitist disregard for the common people, so long ignored by Thaksin and his hi-so brethren,

until he saw it serve his purposes as power broker and putative grand-standing ruler or Thailand.

Further this spurious connectivity is extended to implying that

having a dislike for red Shirt leadership and their disingenuous manipulation

of different portions of the northern populace, is somehow

directly analogous to disliking those same portions of the norther populace.

Fortunately those two misconceptions

are totally in the minds of those attempting that connection.

Actually I don't make any easy assumptions.It's fair to point out however that many PAD supporters were openly contemptuous of what you strangely call "the northern populace".

Equally it would be refreshing if supporters of the red movement (in my view the voice of grass roots democracy) weren't so easily branded by some as dupes of Thaksin.

Incidentally in the politest possible way why do you post in such a long winded and contorted way? Short Anglo-Saxon words and simple constructs are best as Orwell observed long ago in preference to French and Latin borrowings.Frankly the meaning behind your posts is clouded by your wish to appear proficient in the language.I can assure you that at places like Oxford or Yale your ridiculous use of English wouldn't be tolerated.If English is not your first language I apologise and won't raise the matter again.But my advice on simplicity holds good.

Argh but that would depend what flavour of red you were talking about. There are many and while some indeed hold democracy and all its trappings high there are some which do not and have ably demonstrsted it and continue to do so. It will be of interest to see how the future develops on the red side as there are inherent contradictions.

[Steve2UK]

I have to say that when i read Publicus your comments about "sitting back" i was confused about how they related to what Steve had just said, so i scrolled back to reread Steve's comments and still could find no connection to the "sitting back" comment.

Rixalex, I'm puzzled that you pick IMO the least consequential part (my "We'll see.") to query in Publicus' posts; if what it related to was somehow unclear to anyone in the original, surely I made it abundantly clear afterwards? Did you miss the rest? For example:

"Trying to give a pseudo morality to your statements.... <snip>.... revealing of your strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin to power and the purse.... <snip> .... Your agenda, masked in conciliation, harmony and magnaminity, is the return of Thaksin".

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3153759

"<snip>.... I don't know you or your purposes here or your intents,.... <snip>

Very sensible, if rather obvious, point - and then totally discarded a few off-tack lines later when he reverts to

" <snip> .... So, given this reality, Thaksin is your guy, eh!.... <snip>"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3154008

More of the same after your post#147....

Thanks for the assist rixalex as I wouldn't want conditions to exist by which a fellow forumist would be wont to think or believe I'd attempt consciously to misconstrue or misrepresent a post. Concomitantly, nor would I be likely to genuinely and comprehensively misunderstand the post of a forumist. While the "we'll see" statement is used regularly in discourse, it can on occasion be open-ended enuff or aloof enuff to lend itself to differing inferences, which I think may have occurred here.

In short, are you saying that you may have got the wrong end of the stick on that particular point?

In short, I said what I said irrespective of trying to place words in my mouth.

The forumist being referenced is disappointed and frustrated, tho I wouldn't say heartbroken, that he learned in rather abrupt terms that he didn't have a ready sucker convert he could manipulate to his side, the side which favors amnesty and pardons for Thaksin and the entire class of Thaksin's criminal associates who have been prohibited by the courts from standing for office again for five years from the ruling.

The forumist had thought I was a potential convert to the general cause, to which he thoroughly subscribes.... <snip> .... A few other forumists of the same hue as the forumist at this thread, have similarly tried without success to expolit for their own purposes my sentiments towards the rural agrarian dispossed....<snip>

[* Seems to me you were just asking a question about what Publicus meant? Or am I now also putting words in your mouth? ]

I could "sit back and wait" for someone to produce a quote from me which shows I want (or even predict) a return of Thaksin to power/office - or even a phrase that anyone might reasonably take to imply that I want/predict it - but that would be a very long wait. On the contrary, I'm on record here ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3111436 ) referring to "The thought must occur that it will be difficult to ensure that Thaksin stays bought off. Difficult to guarantee that, of course, but I think the calculation is that there will be such a tide of changed circumstances as to sweep away or at least neutralise most of the existing support for him......". Do I have to bellow "No return of Thaksin!" for the meaning to be clear in that post - or will somebody then say that even doing that is just a "cunning plan" part of my "strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin"?

There's plenty more non-sequitur stuff from Publicus that grossly misrepresents what I actually say including that I'm one of those "urging" an amnesty; to state the blindingly obvious, predicting is not urging and neither is looking at what an overall "slate cleaning" amnesty might include or exclude. But it's as tedious to list it all as it would be for others to plough through that list. Moreover, the mods would likely, IMO rightly, bring the exchange to a close (as I have already tried to do - only to see Publicus since then introducing yet more of the same guff). As said before but this time finally, I leave it to others to gauge the rational merits of all this from Publicus. As I think you already know from our exchanges here, I'll engage keenly in debate on the issues with someone who disagrees with my observations however strongly - but I really can't be bothered to waste time and effort framing sensible and detailed responses to people who evidently either can't or won't read them except through a red mist (pun intended) and who then go on ad nauseam to misrepresent them so comprehensively.

[RegularReader]

Argh but that would depend what flavour of red you were talking about. There are many and while some indeed hold democracy and all its trappings high there are some which do not and have ably demonstrsted it and continue to do so. It will be of interest to see how the future develops on the red side as there are inherent contradictions.

I agree with you 100%. I would however add - in the interests of balance - that similar comments/observations can be made about the "Yellow" side.

And,as much as the "Reds" think they have a monopoly on "grassroots" support - they don't.

Certainly it would seem they have the largest band of followers, but there are others.

Further, if the recent polls are a reasonable indication of support, this misplaced belief in "total support", has become one of Thaksin's (and the Reds) biggest mistakes.

In western politics it is called "hubris", in Thai politics...it is still called "hubris" and often results in the same outcome.

Edited November 22, 2009 by RegularReader

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

You are of course free to construe as you are apt to. I must say you set the bar of the standards of an amnesty/pardon so low that only snakes could pass under it, so thanks for your closing sentiment.

It's not my bar to set, nor do I try to set it or even express approval of where it's set - I just describe accurately what happens out there in the real world.

I don't understand Steve why you simply dismiss the conditions of amnesties / pardons as being out of our control and therefore somehow irrelevant to our thoughts and opinions as to the merits of such action. They are central to mine.

For clarity, I need to split your comment in two and respond to each half separately.

1) "simply dismiss the conditions of amnesties / pardons as being out of our control" - a] my wording was actually responding to the implication that I was trying to set the bar anywhere - i.e. I was saying that I was not proposing/"urging" anything but merely gauging what seems to me likely as ending up workable for both sides (plainly, open to anyone to agree/disagree with my gauge); b] as with just about everything else here in Thailand, we have no vote on such matters in any legal sense.

2) "therefore somehow irrelevant to our thoughts and opinions as to the merits of such action." - IMO not having that vote in no way disqualifies us from saying what we think here (for all the usual reasons we post on such matters) or even from trying to influence Thai partners/friends etc who might get a vote in the legal sense (e.g. referendum). Sorry, but I really didn't say what you seem to infer from it; bluntly, I think we should all go on mouthing off the way we do on any subject we please and for whatever reason we choose..... that's a forum, folks; some of us will respond accurately and some inaccurately. At the risk of inflating our own importance/relevance, I do think there are signs that the government does track views/suggestions/analyses here on TVF and may even (if only very occasionally) take them on board. If they do, them admitting as much is, of course, another matter..........

[hammered]

For those discussing deals, I d be genuinely interested if they think:

1. A deal is possible now or later

2. A deal cannot be done until after a bunch of violence

3. A deal can be struck to satisfy all

4. Why the sdies wont just go for a total win

[animatic]

A language that is not used soon becomes lost.

I will write with what I feel is the 'Right Word' in the place I choose.

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

We seem to be suffering some variation of the False-Flag Friend syndrome here.

Wherein one person pretends to be on a side of a question

or even simply a fence sitter, but on total viewing you can see

their arguments, in an semi-apologetic way, actually consitstantly

lead to the OPPOSITE side of the argument, via twists and turns. etc.

ie.

I don't support Thakin's return, but for X,Y,Z of external reasons,

I support all the mechanisms to bring him back,

but I don't want that to happen...

But if it does, it's for all the right reasons....

A good foil vs the totally disputing techniques of net-aganda.

Except the road to hel_l is paved with good intentions,

such that 3 good things that together bring about a MUCH MUCH worse bad thing,

should be reason enough to break the chain of good things at some point.

Edited November 22, 2009 by animatic

[Steve2UK]

Thanks for confirming what I already started to suspect from your "input". At least Samuian comes out with the same guff early enough that I don't waste time framing sensible replies. The only real surprise here is that you don't also accuse me of being paid. Enough - I'm more than happy to leave others to judge the rational merit of what you say and what that says about you.

Interesting; you forgot to laden me into that grouping.

I know both of these fine people first hand and personally,

and they are both very experienced in Thailand and very informed.

For Samuian english is not his first language, so occasionally his comments are grammatically odd,

but what he says is based on cogent observation.

Publicus has the grammar, construction and observational abilities of an old school professional journalist,

and so states his case better than most, and doesn't shy from the Sisyphusian labors of stating them here.

I just call em as I see'm.

But it is not lost on me which thoughtful individuals you choose to dispute.

Which begs the question; why?

I take "grouping" to mean those blatantly or by innuendo trying to label me as pro-Thaksin, "red" etc. As best I recall, you haven't done that - though your last line could IMO be taken as you now making a start - so why would I "laden" you into that grouping?

Samuian made a post aimed at me which I said I didn't understand and asked him to clarify ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3148253 ). He still hasn't. He made another ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3150324 ) which IMO put the first in a different light - hence my observation. Grammar doesn't come into it.

Regarding your last three lines and closing question - I thought McCarthy-style tactics were long gone . Returning to your first line, you know very well that I have "disputed" your postings often - but always for clearly stated or self-evident reasons. If you choose to spend (IMO waste) your time looking for others rather than respond on the issues........ up to you.

[Steve2UK]

For those discussing deals, I d be genuinely interested if they think:

1. A deal is possible now or later

2. A deal cannot be done until after a bunch of violence

3. A deal can be struck to satisfy all

4. Why the sdies wont just go for a total win

My boss Khun Thaksin doesn't pay me enough to work Sundays, so I'm afraid you'll have to either wait until tomorrow or refer back to my earlier propaganda comments. Meanwhile, I'll leave it to one or more of the weekend duty guys to answer. Must dash - got a call from Dubai on hold..........

[jayboy]

A language that is not used soon becomes lost.

I will write with what I feel is the 'Right Word' in the place I choose.

But your use of English is appalling so what you feel is the "right word" is neither here nor there.

Orwell in his essay on Politics and the English language said:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict,extraneous,deracinated,clandestine,subaqueous and hundreds of others gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.

He gives an example of the horrible style you employ, a translation if you like of a verse from Ecclesiastes.Here is the superlative original:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,neither bread to the wise,nor yet riches to men of understanding,nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

And here is Orwell's translation which is your style I'm afraid Animatic.

"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account".

[rixalex]

[* Seems to me you were just asking a question about what Publicus meant? Or am I now also putting words in your mouth? ]

"Yes" to the first question, "no" to the second.

[Steve2UK]

Do I have to bellow "No return of Thaksin!" for the meaning to be clear in that post - or will somebody then say that even doing that is just a "cunning plan" part of my "strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin"?

Half an hour later and what do I see?

<snip>

We seem to be suffering some variation of the False-Flag Friend syndrome here.

Wherein one person pretends to be on a side of a question

or even simply a fence sitter, but on total viewing you can see

their arguments, in an semi-apologetic way, actually consitstantly

lead to the OPPOSITE side of the argument, via twists and turns. etc.

ie.

I don't support Thakin's return, but for X,Y,Z of external reasons,

I support all the mechanisms to bring him back,

but I don't want that to happen...

But if it does, it's for all the right reasons....

A good foil vs the totally disputing techniques of net-aganda.

Except the road to hel_l is paved with good intentions,

such that 3 good things that together bring about a MUCH MUCH worse bad thing,

should be reason enough to break the chain of good things at some point.

Thinks: I wonder if I could get work as a fortune teller..........

Edited November 22, 2009 by Steve2UK

[zzaa09]

Some here seem to equate formal and stern dislike, distrust and opprobrium for all things Thaksin,

with some elitist disregard for the common people, so long ignored by Thaksin and his hi-so brethren,

until he saw it serve his purposes as power broker and putative grand-standing ruler or Thailand.

Further this spurious connectivity is extended to implying that

having a dislike for red Shirt leadership and their disingenuous manipulation

of different portions of the northern populace, is somehow

directly analogous to disliking those same portions of the norther populace.

Fortunately those two misconceptions

are totally in the minds of those attempting that connection.

This point very much needed to be said. Red forumists would be wise to take note and remember it well. The reds do not have the corner on support of education and economic development programs for the dirt poor. In fact the present government has non-exploitive policies which are in process or in its budget and about to come on line. Red forumists need to smell the coffee.

'Tis a shame when we see ourselves as political identities, regardless of conviction.

[Publicus]

Some here seem to equate formal and stern dislike, distrust and opprobrium for all things Thaksin,

with some elitist disregard for the common people, so long ignored by Thaksin and his hi-so brethren,

until he saw it serve his purposes as power broker and putative grand-standing ruler or Thailand.

Further this spurious connectivity is extended to implying that

having a dislike for red Shirt leadership and their disingenuous manipulation

of different portions of the northern populace, is somehow

directly analogous to disliking those same portions of the norther populace.

Fortunately those two misconceptions

are totally in the minds of those attempting that connection.

Actually I don't make any easy assumptions.It's fair to point out however that many PAD supporters were openly contemptuous of what you strangely call "the northern populace".

Equally it would be refreshing if supporters of the red movement (in my view the voice of grass roots democracy) weren't so easily branded by some as dupes of Thaksin.

Incidentally in the politest possible way why do you post in such a long winded and contorted way? Short Anglo-Saxon words and simple constructs are best as Orwell observed long ago in preference to French and Latin borrowings.Frankly the meaning behind your posts is clouded by your wish to appear proficient in the language.I can assure you that at places like Oxford or Yale your ridiculous use of English wouldn't be tolerated.If English is not your first language I apologise and won't raise the matter again.But my advice on simplicity holds good.

We know it's not such a subtle intellectual distinction to differentiate contempt of the authoritarian and ever-scheming Thaksin from support of the PAD. The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive. Indeed, one can compare and contrast the PAD and the Reds without necessarily supporting either. There simply is a common consensus among forumists that the PAD distinguishes itself as being less violent than the Reds, that the Reds seem inherently and chronically violent but that neither side is pure. While the PAD haven't any pretentions of being as democratic as we'd like, the reds have every pretention of being so. (Thaksin the democrat?!?)

The reds dupes? Hardly. If I accept money from you to commit an act in your behalf, such as ride a bus and be fed to listen to your speeches, am I a dupe or am I (perhaps cleverly) performing a specified service for you and putting some food on my family's table? Neither can you say to me with a straight face the reds don't know what they're doing or whom they are worshiping, or that they care what we say at TVF. (Their leaders care, very much and anguish over it endlessly.)

As for animatic and his individual and personal style, one can keep trying to bang that nail that sticks out but you'd be expending energy uselessly and rather intolerantly.

[Publicus]

A language that is not used soon becomes lost.

I will write with what I feel is the 'Right Word' in the place I choose.

But your use of English is appalling so what you feel is the "right word" is neither here nor there.

Orwell in his essay on Politics and the English language said:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict,extraneous,deracinated,clandestine,subaqueous and hundreds of others gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.

He gives an example of the horrible style you employ, a translation if you like of a verse from Ecclesiastes.Here is the superlative original:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,neither bread to the wise,nor yet riches to men of understanding,nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

And here is Orwell's translation which is your style I'm afraid Animatic.

"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account".

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

[jayboy]

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

[Publicus]

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

That is emminently clear.

[Ricardo]

Actually I don't make any easy assumptions.It's fair to point out however that many PAD supporters were openly contemptuous of what you strangely call "the northern populace".

Equally it would be refreshing if supporters of the red movement (in my view the voice of grass roots democracy) weren't so easily branded by some as dupes of Thaksin.

IMHO it would be equally true to point out that many more PAD supporters were/are not openly contemptuous of the poor, or peasants, or whatever.

And it would be easier to spot the grass-root democrats, amongst the mass of red-shirted supporters, if they didn't all march in parades fronted by large pictures of the fugitive former-PM, and watch his TV-channel.

Lastly I also would dispute that the red movement is the sole, or even largest, voice of grass-roots democracy. Both red and yellow-shirts are relatively-small activist groups, united mainly by their love/distrust of Thaksin, and their democratic stirrings are as yet relatively weak. Sadly so ... and one may hope for this to change over time ... and infect the main political parties with more care & attention to the people.

[jayboy]

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

That is emminently clear.

And so do you have a point at all or are you just out of your depth?

[Publicus]

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

That is emminently clear.

And so do you have a point at all or are you just out of your depth?

Hang in there kid, even if you're hanging by the neck.

[hammered]

For those discussing deals, I d be genuinely interested if they think:

1. A deal is possible now or later

2. A deal cannot be done until after a bunch of violence

3. A deal can be struck to satisfy all

4. Why the sdies wont just go for a total win

My boss Khun Thaksin doesn't pay me enough to work Sundays, so I'm afraid you'll have to either wait until tomorrow or refer back to my earlier propaganda comments. Meanwhile, I'll leave it to one or more of the weekend duty guys to answer. Must dash - got a call from Dubai on hold..........

I tend to pass over the two or three people rows in commnets except when I rather stupidly allow myself to get involved;)

There was me thinking you actually were a double agent in the pay of Sondhi or a trip[le one on Panlops side and who really knows whose side he is on.

[Publicus]

A language that is not used soon becomes lost.

I will write with what I feel is the 'Right Word' in the place I choose.

But your use of English is appalling so what you feel is the "right word" is neither here nor there.

Orwell in his essay on Politics and the English language said:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict,extraneous,deracinated,clandestine,subaqueous and hundreds of others gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.

He gives an example of the horrible style you employ, a translation if you like of a verse from Ecclesiastes.Here is the superlative original:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,neither bread to the wise,nor yet riches to men of understanding,nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

And here is Orwell's translation which is your style I'm afraid Animatic.

"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account".

Orwell is rational, reasonable, intelligible. You my friend are a style Nazi.

[hammered]

Personally Im more interested in what people say than how they say it.

[animatic]

Personally Im more interested in what people say than how they say it.

To appall or not to appall that is the question!

To talk street, or talk down, or talk till the other side gives up,

and resorts to Ad hominin attacks, or just say what you mean

with precision.

I appall therefore I am.

[Publicus]

Personally Im more interested in what people say than how they say it.

To appall or not to appall that is the question!

To talk street, or talk down, or talk till the other side gives up,

and resorts to Ad hominin attacks, or just say what you mean

with precision.

I appall therefore I am.

Hear! Hear!

Grow up, Jayboy.

[animatic]

While Thaksin exists, there is no possibility of uniting the country.

He can't let it happen. Full stop.

[Maestro]

A nonsensical post about an “obtuse certain someone” has been deleted.

--

Maestro

[Siripon]

[

The PAD is now recognized for what it is, a bunch of lunatic goons, and has already lost most of the financial and political support that help it organized the big protests that lead to the fall of Thaksin government.

So far Abhisit and the democrats have failed to unify the country and their coalition is very fragile. The support of the small formations that form the government is very expensive for the country and based only on financial interest.

Abhisit has more and more difficulties to prevent the local press to report the trouble of his government and the progress of the opposition. And the international press can't be shut down. Correct me if I'm wrong but never before the 2006 coup, the government had to intervene so many time to stop the local publication of an international magazine.

A recent declaration from Sonthi, leader of the 2006 coup, saying that a compromise is possible with Thaksin and his supporters, shows clearly that Abhisit has lost the confidence of the army and that the next government won't probably include the democrats ...

It's good for the Democrats if the PAD are seen as extreme- no loss of seats in the next election to them.

I don't know why you think the coalition is fragile- the relationship between the Dems and Phumjai Thai seems stable and Banharn's very happy having his brother in control of tourism.

Regarding intervention in international media- Thaksin intimidated the Far Eastern Economic Review ,if I remember right he rescinded 2 visas of journalists.

Sonthi merely said his new party would be open to joining the next government- every new party ( unless run by ideology, ie New Politics Party) says that.

Sonthi is retired now, he's not important.