Excrement Bags Lobbed Into Compound Of Abhisit's House

[anon789]

Of course it is legit. There was an election and then a coalition of parties was formed, making him PM. That's the way it is done here. If you don't like it, change the constitution.

Vintage Jingthing logic above!

There was an election, yes, a coalition was formed, yes, and then there was a judicial coup which resulted in another coalition being formed... which is the one we are stuck with now.

Suppose in the next election Puea Thai/TRT wins again, then the military marches into the new parliament and shoots dead just enough of it's members so that the DEMS now have enough people there to form a new government. Would you support this? In spirit it is the same thing that happened last time the DEMS seized power.

Edited February 3, 2010 by anon789

[Jingthing]

Of course it is legit. There was an election and then a coalition of parties was formed, making him PM. That's the way it is done here. If you don't like it, change the constitution.

Vintage Jingthing logic above!

There was an election, yes, a coalition was formed, yes, and then there was a judicial coup which resulted in another coalition being formed... which is the one we are stuck with now.

Suppose in the next election Puea Thai/TRT wins again, then the military marches into the new parliament and shoots dead just enough of it's members so that the DEMS now have enough people there to form a new government. Would you support this? In spirit it is the same thing that happened last time the DEMS seized power.

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

[animatic]

Judicial coup you say.

Well TRT / PPP knew the laws and didn't think they applied.

And certainly wanted to win badly enough to go so

close to the edge that there WAS a case against them,

that stood up to external scrutiny.

Their arrogance not some judicial fiat canceled their tickets.

And the whining has never stopped since.

SInce the PPP and PTP were nothing more than rubber stamps for Thaksin,

there is no reason to be sad that one humongous EGO is not controlling the ball game.

Oh by the way, the banned TRT and PPP leadership is still out there doing business,

they just can get a Ministerial seat and so their profits are down.

And the vast majority of TRT and PPP elected legislators...

are sitting in the Parliament as we speak.

Leadership went bye bye, not the party rank and file.

Just because some conservatives think CNN did a coup and

installed Obama doesn't make it any less an absurd notion

than this judicial coup idea.

Edited February 3, 2010 by animatic

[anon789]

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

There's nothing false about it, neither is it propaganda. It is simply what happened. A judicial coup.

[hammered]

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

There's nothing false about it, neither is it propaganda. It is simply what happened. A judicial coup.

That is a belief one side in the inter-elite power struggle like to emphasise. Not everyone holds such a similar belief. It depends which cult you choose to belong to or if you are really enlightened not belong to.

[Jingthing]

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

There's nothing false about it, neither is it propaganda. It is simply what happened. A judicial coup.

To repeat, it is red shirt propaganda, pure and simple. Truth Today may be printed today, but it is not truth.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jingthing

[hammered]

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

There's nothing false about it, neither is it propaganda. It is simply what happened. A judicial coup.

To repeat, it is red shirt propaganda, pure and simple. Truth Today may be printed today, but it is not truth.

More like <deleted> today. Ennui inducing too with no flair or style.

[boris52]

Mark is just a puppet, the one that really deserve the bags of shit is Prem.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[rainman]

They key issue is that Democrats alone don't have the majority. They need the small parties to form a majority government. Now, the people that voted for the small parties thought they were voting for allies of Thaksin, because before they jumped ship and joined the Democrats, the smaller parties were allies of Thaksin. So really, the Thai people were deceived, because they thought that by voting for their small parties, in the end they were voting for the Thaksin government.

Watch the next election (if there ever is one again in Thailand) and then come back to this post. Any pro-Thaksin party (Puea Thai or other) will win by a landslide, while Democrats will get a small percentage and the small parties will be nearly wiped off the map because of their betrayal of their voters.

[BIGTOE3]

Thank you for your false propaganda. To your question, no, that sounds bad.

There's nothing false about it, neither is it propaganda. It is simply what happened. A judicial coup.

No they broke the Law and got caught. Simple really NOT a Judicial Coup just the Law ( as it stands).

[Jingthing]

They key issue is that Democrats alone don't have the majority. They need the small parties to form a majority government. Now, the people that voted for the small parties thought they were voting for allies of Thaksin, because before they jumped ship and joined the Democrats, the smaller parties were allies of Thaksin. So really, the Thai people were deceived, because they thought that by voting for their small parties, in the end they were voting for the Thaksin government.

Watch the next election (if there ever is one again in Thailand) and then come back to this post. Any pro-Thaksin party (Puea Thai or other) will win by a landslide, while Democrats will get a small percentage and the small parties will be nearly wiped off the map because of their betrayal of their voters.

It's academic, really. Chances are by the next election after the money case, Thaksin will no longer be a factor (one way or another). The reds have an opportunity to reorganize with new reasonable non-violent leadership if they choose. I doubt they will be so rational. If they continue down the "crazy" path they started since Black Songkran, I think your estimation of their current majority support is simply wrong. The great silent Thai majority doesn't much fancy yellow or red, but they sure as hel_l do not want civil war.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jingthing

[boris52]

They key issue is that Democrats alone don't have the majority. They need the small parties to form a majority government. Now, the people that voted for the small parties thought they were voting for allies of Thaksin, because before they jumped ship and joined the Democrats, the smaller parties were allies of Thaksin. So really, the Thai people were deceived, because they thought that by voting for their small parties, in the end they were voting for the Thaksin government.

Watch the next election (if there ever is one again in Thailand) and then come back to this post. Any pro-Thaksin party (Puea Thai or other) will win by a landslide, while Democrats will get a small percentage and the small parties will be nearly wiped off the map because of their betrayal of their voters.

Exactly. Thats a huge reason why the smaller coalition parties are reluctant to hold elections soon as they know they will lose support.

Thaksin will pour money into election advertising to secure electoral victory again.

[rainman]

Until they dump Thaksin completely and permanently, there is nothing to negotiate as that is a man you cannot even begin to have good faith negotiations with. That would be as silly as Chamberlain "negotiating" with Hitler.

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

But its the truth. How many times has Thaksin "quit" politics so far. A hundred? He cannot be trusted. You would have to be a total idiot to make a deal with him.

Probably about as many times as Abhisit violated human rights, according to the Human Rights Watch. So what's worse? Thaksin saying 20 times he quits politics or Abhisit violating human rights in 20 different ways? May as well start calling him "Dear Leader".

[Jingthing]

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

It is shocking anyone would even ask that question. What part of the concept that there are some leaders you simply CANNOT negotiate with don't you understand?

[rainman]

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

It is shocking anyone would even ask that question. What part of the concept that there are some leaders you simply CANNOT negotiate with don't you understand?

So you're saying they tried to negotiate with Hitler and failed? Or they simply didn't even try ...as Abhisit said, he won't negotiate with Thaksin? That's not "I tried but he wouldn't negotiate with me" but more like "I don't really want to negotiate with him". And we're not really talking about Hitler here.

[webfact]

UPDATE

Abhisit's house attacker arrive in Land Rover

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Security cameras have shown that the attacker who hurled human excrement and fermented fish into the premier's residence on Monday did not do it alone, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lt Gen Santarn Chayanont said Wednesday.

The camera footage showed that the accomplices had surveyed the site and a Land Rover dropped the attacker near the premier's residence on Sukhumvit Road.

"Investigation into the security cameras at the residence of the prime minister makes us believe that the attacker had accomplices to do the job. He did not act alone," Santarn said.

Meanwhile security at the residence of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been beefed up with more special police and K-9 dogs.

Screening at a checkpoint near the house has been strengthened. More closed-circuit TV cameras were installed and there were more police motorcycle patrols.

Blind spots around the house, in Sukhumvit Soi 31, have been cleared and other electronic gadgets brought in to monitor the house and surrounding areas for 24 hours a day.

Meanwhile, a man who won the "Real Fan" award for the motorcycle category of the TV programme has been summoned to look at closed-circuit TV footage of the person who threw muck at the PM's house, who was on a motorcycle.

But Sommat Srisamachan, 33, said he could not identify the bike, because the footage was too blurred and grainy.

"It could have been a Honda or a Suzuki," he said. "If it was just a little clearer I surely would be able to tell," he said.

The bags of foul-smelling excrement and fermented fish were thrown into the grounds of the premier's home on Monday afternoon. A policeman was supposed to be standing guard in front of the house at the time, but according to Suthep, there was nobody there when the offender rode by.

-- The Nation 2010-02-03

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[rainman]

Surely they can get some DNA from the poop? Or maybe it's doggy poop? At least they would know what Soi the doggy poop came from and narrow it down from there.

[Jingthing]

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

It is shocking anyone would even ask that question. What part of the concept that there are some leaders you simply CANNOT negotiate with don't you understand?

So you're saying they tried to negotiate with Hitler and failed? Or they simply didn't even try ...as Abhisit said, he won't negotiate with Thaksin? That's not "I tried but he wouldn't negotiate with me" but more like "I don't really want to negotiate with him". And we're not really talking about Hitler here.

Oh I thought you brought up Hitler. Sure countries tried to negotiate with Hitler. He would talk and take concessions and then betray the agreements. It is called negotiating in bad faith. You can argue if you like that Thaksin's bad faith is not as total as Hitlers. I wouldn't agree, but you could argue it. In the view of history it is known that negotiating with Hitler was a mistake; in the case of Thaksin we are living through it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jingthing

[ballpoint]

They key issue is that Democrats alone don't have the majority. They need the small parties to form a majority government. Now, the people that voted for the small parties thought they were voting for allies of Thaksin, because before they jumped ship and joined the Democrats, the smaller parties were allies of Thaksin. So really, the Thai people were deceived, because they thought that by voting for their small parties, in the end they were voting for the Thaksin government.

Watch the next election (if there ever is one again in Thailand) and then come back to this post. Any pro-Thaksin party (Puea Thai or other) will win by a landslide, while Democrats will get a small percentage and the small parties will be nearly wiped off the map because of their betrayal of their voters.

Please tell me:

If the people really wanted to vote for "Thaksin's" party in the last elections, then why didn't they vote for the PPP rather than the smaller ones?

If Thaksin is truly loved and supported by the majority of Thais, then why did he need to align himself with the same old corrupt power block, and Suchinda supporters, of Chavalit, Banharn, Narong, Newin, Chalerm et al right from the start, including buying out whole parties of MP's, and then feel the need to cheat as well? (I realise that some of these are now in the Democrat camp, but this question is about the perceived popularity of Thaksin back in his heyday). In all 3 elections (2001, 2005 and 2007), people have voted for a non TRT or PPP candidate in many constituencies, only to have that candidate join the TRT / PPP coalition. Should these people feel agrieved by this? Should they have been protesting that they didn't want the TRT / PPP in power, but the person they voted for instead has now joined with them? Surely, if these people truly wanted Thaksin they would have voted TRT or PPP?

Do you really understand how a coalition based parliament works? Say there are three parties: Party x gets 49% of the vote, party y gets 30% and party z 21%. Traditionally, party x will see if it can form a government with either y or z, but if it fails there is nothing to stop parties y and z from forming the government themselves. Ignorance and sour grapes from supporters of party x have no effect on the legality of the outcome.

If immediate elections are truely the answer, please tell us how they can be guaranteed to be fair - no vote buying, no voter intimidation, and all sides freely able to campaign throughout the country? At the moment, the biggest thing standing in the way of elections is the threatened, and in many cases, very real, violence and intimidation of the red shirts towards non Thaksin campaigners. Please also tell us why they are the answer right now; why not wait until after the outcome of arguably the biggest trial in recent Thai history, and why not wait until the country has fully recovered from the global recession?

I'd be interested to see your, or anyone elses, answers to these.

[BIGTOE3]

Please tell me:

If the people really wanted to vote for "Thaksin's" party in the last elections, then why didn't they vote for the PPP rather than the smaller ones?

If Thaksin is truly loved and supported by the majority of Thais, then why did he need to align himself with the same old corrupt power block, and Suchinda supporters, of Chavalit, Banharn, Narong, Newin, Chalerm et al right from the start, including buying out whole parties of MP's, and then feel the need to cheat as well? (I realise that some of these are now in the Democrat camp, but this question is about the perceived popularity of Thaksin back in his heyday). In all 3 elections (2001, 2005 and 2007), people have voted for a non TRT or PPP candidate in many constituencies, only to have that candidate join the TRT / PPP coalition. Should these people feel agrieved by this? Should they have been protesting that they didn't want the TRT / PPP in power, but the person they voted for instead has now joined with them? Surely, if these people truly wanted Thaksin they would have voted TRT or PPP?

Do you really understand how a coalition based parliament works? Say there are three parties: Party x gets 49% of the vote, party y gets 30% and party z 21%. Traditionally, party x will see if it can form a government with either y or z, but if it fails there is nothing to stop parties y and z from forming the government themselves. Ignorance and sour grapes from supporters of party x have no effect on the legality of the outcome.

If immediate elections are truely the answer, please tell us how they can be guaranteed to be fair - no vote buying, no voter intimidation, and all sides freely able to campaign throughout the country? At the moment, the biggest thing standing in the way of elections is the threatened, and in many cases, very real, violence and intimidation of the red shirts towards non Thaksin campaigners. Please also tell us why they are the answer right now; why not wait until after the outcome of arguably the biggest trial in recent Thai history, and why not wait until the country has fully recovered from the global recession?

I'd be interested to see your, or anyone elses, answers to these.

I agree with this very good and to the point post.

BT

[ballpoint]

As a sidebar, I feel sorry for the Mrs. I have a feeling that she's none to pleased with this political life. She's an academic and not used to such things.

The father is a different sort. His political roots go back to the 1991 military cup when he was appointed by the junta to a government position so he's used to such things and has enough contacts in the military to get the job done. The Yuan Abhisit family are no pushovers.

Oh please. We've been through this before. Abhisit's father was picked by Anand Panyarachun to serve in his cabinet as deputy minister of public health. He was never appointed by the junta. Anand himself was chosen by the military following the coup against the Chatichai Choonhaven "buffet" cabinet, but was free to select those he wanted to join his cabinet.

"Following the military take-over in February 1991, Anand was invited to serve as Prime Minister of Thailand in March 1991. While reluctant to assume that political position in the aftermath of the extra-constitutional process, Anand was convinced that by assuming the position, he could help lead Thailand back to the path of democracy.

Anand wanted to minimize the damage inflicted on Thailand's democratic process, and reverse the practice of militarization of politics in the country. He further believed he could successfully establish a civilian-dominated government, which could ensure a smooth and peaceful transition to an open society, institute much needed economic and social reforms, and promote a more transparent and accountable system of governance in Thailand.

He succeeded in most of what he aspired to do. His Government initiated reforms in several key sectors of the Thai economy, including tax and trade regimes, industrial restructuring, environmental management, educational and health services. For the latter, Anand was the first Asian leader to recognize HIV/AIDS as a major development challenge and to mount a nation-wide program in 1991 to combat the epidemic in Thailand. As a result, Thailand was able to significantly reduce the number of HIV infections due to the effective HIV prevention program instituted by the Anand Government".

Following elections, the people, led by Chamlong, protested against the nomination of Suchinda as PM, leading to Black May 1992. Anand was once again asked to lead the country, this time by the parliamentary president, although there was little doubt at the time who the true instigator was.

"Anand was nominated by the President of the Parliament to again assume the Prime Ministership for the second time. His nomination, was widely welcomed by the public, and was endorsed by Royal Proclamation on 10 June 1992.

Anand's mandate was to ensure the continuation of peace and order, and to hold new general elections in the near future. His second tenure lasted four months during which he facilitated a nation-wide healing process. Anand helped to ensure that justice was served by holding a number of generals accountable for the May 1991 suppression through removing them from their command positions. After the general elections in September of that year, Anand retired from politics in October and rejoined the Saha-Union Group as Chairman".

http://www.un.org/News/dh/hlpanel/panyarachun-bio.htm

He continues to be seen as one of the most popular, and arguably perhaps the least corrupt, leaders the country has ever had. Far from it being a blemish on Abhisit's father's career to have served under him, it is more a crowning honour. The work the health ministry he helped lead did to combat the ermerging AIDS epidemic at the time was lauded internationally.

http://www.fhi.org/en/HIVAIDS/pub/Archive/...romThailand.htm

I notice that you are one of the posters here constantly clamouring for fair and balanced analysis and opinion, yet in this post, and others, you go far to try and discredit anything to do with the Abhisit government, including false insinuations about his father. I'll also ask, even if your post was true, what would the past actions of the father of the PM have to do with the current situation?

[webfact]

I suggest to stay on topic.

Thanks

[RickBradford]

The Thai press (Daily News) was at least aware enough today to note on its front page, that "foreigners had picked up on the story worldwide" - which turned out to be AFP reporting Deputy PM Suthep as saying this was an attempt by "Thaksin's Red Shirts" to crank up the political pressure over the next 2-3 weeks.

[animatic]

They key issue is that Democrats alone don't have the majority. They need the small parties to form a majority government.

Same as all of Thaksins p[arties, he just did deals with a few minor parties BEFORE the TRT election,

and the became 'factions' not parties, but with the same players and the same ground rules.

TRT was a minority party with a coalition under its umbrella.

PPP was a minority party with coalition.

PTP is a minority party and NO-coalition of enough sizze to ruel.

Democrats are a minority party with enough coalition seats to rule.

No party that wins less than 50. 000x percentage of ministerial seats can rule all on it's own.

TRT really never was,

because it only relabeled minority parties before the election,

like Newins, Sanohs and Banharns, as TRT for the purposes of looking bigger.

As always the weasels were bought by the highest bidder

and did what was asked for the quid pro quo, up to a point.

If you followed ANY of the 2005-2006 TRT parliamentary workings,

it was clear Thaksin was juggling little parties in his coalition much as Abhisit or Suthep are.

Carrot and stick... as always.

This grand win of one lone TRT party against all odds is a PR fairytale of grand proportions.

End of story.

[animatic]

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

It is shocking anyone would even ask that question. What part of the concept that there are some leaders you simply CANNOT negotiate with don't you understand?

So you're saying they tried to negotiate with Hitler and failed? Or they simply didn't even try ...as Abhisit said, he won't negotiate with Thaksin? That's not "I tried but he wouldn't negotiate with me" but more like "I don't really want to negotiate with him". And we're not really talking about Hitler here.

Hello what history books did you not read?

Hard to believe one grows up in the 20th century English speaking world and doesn't know this

Yes, Neville Chamberlain did negotiate with Hitler and tried to 'appease him',

which was nothing more than Hitler stalling till he had more war machinery manufactured.

Many people in and out of UK argued forcefully not to do it, he ignored them.

Soon Hitler was marching across Europe and Chamberlain couldn't get a job

carrying chamber pots in Parliament. (sic)

History now records Chamberlains name as all but synonymous with

failed appeasement of dictatorial leaders.

It was one of the signal moments in the world history of the 1930's

and Chamberlain comes out the dogs foot in the deal.

So yes, some people you should not bother to negotiate with,

because their history shows them to be bad business.

People with a proven history of deception are

never considered faithful brokers in negotiation.

For a behind the scenes look at England at that time see:

Merchant Ivorys brilliant movie 'The Remains Of The Day'.

Edited February 3, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Mark is just a puppet, the one that really deserve the bags of shit is Prem.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't doubt that a bit.

[monkfish]

Thought this thread was about poop!

MEANWHILE

"The camera footage showed that the accomplices had surveyed the site and a Land Rover dropped the attacker near the premier's residence on Sukhumvit Road."

and ta plot thickens

"Meanwhile security at the residence of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has been beefed up with more special police and K-9 dogs."

What kind of security is provided at the PM HQ these days?

K-9 dogs seems a bit over the top for a HOS

"Meanwhile, a man who won the "Real Fan" award for the motorcycle category of the TV programme has been summoned to look at closed-circuit TV footage of the person who threw muck at the PM's house, who was on a motorcycle."

experts have been brought in!!!!!!!!!!! To help with inquiries............

Did they use a Land Rover or MB?? or may be put the MB on the LD and of loaded it off "Knight Rider" or "James Bond" style with a ramp mounted to the back of the LD????

Edited February 3, 2010 by monkfish

[rainman]

If negotiating with Hitler would have spared the world of WW2, would it have been worth it?

It is shocking anyone would even ask that question. What part of the concept that there are some leaders you simply CANNOT negotiate with don't you understand?

So you're saying they tried to negotiate with Hitler and failed? Or they simply didn't even try ...as Abhisit said, he won't negotiate with Thaksin? That's not "I tried but he wouldn't negotiate with me" but more like "I don't really want to negotiate with him". And we're not really talking about Hitler here.

Hello what history books did you not read?

Hard to believe one grows up in the 20th century English speaking world and doesn't know this

Yes, Neville Chamberlain did negotiate with Hitler and tried to 'appease him',

which was nothing more than Hitler stalling till he had more war machinery manufactured.

Many people in and out of UK argued forcefully not to do it, he ignored them.

Soon Hitler was marching across Europe and Chamberlain couldn't get a job

carrying chamber pots in Parliament. (sic)

History now records Chamberlains name as all but synonymous with

failed appeasement of dictatorial leaders.

It was one of the signal moments in the world history of the 1930's

and Chamberlain comes out the dogs foot in the deal.

So yes, some people you should not bother to negotiate with,

because their history shows them to be bad business.

People with a proven history of deception are

never considered faithful brokers in negotiation.

For a behind the scenes look at England at that time see:

Merchant Ivorys brilliant movie 'The Remains Of The Day'.

Like I said, we're not really talking about Hitler here. But Abhisit has made it quite clear that he doesn't want to negotiate with Thaksin.

[Jingthing]

Like I said, we're not really talking about Hitler here.

We get it. You lost your point to an embarrassing degree, and now want to deflect away from it.

[animatic]

Can't blame him a bit,

there is not reasonable negotiation that can come of it.