Bangkok On Edge After Deadly Grenade Blasts

[moskito]

A show of physical force rather than lethal force may have an effect? Who know's.

Who knows indeed. It might be better than the stand off they're having now.

It could get ugly though similar to the 1992 LA riots which in the end were stopped when the National Guard, US Army and Marines were called in.

just hold the cobra gold exercise right in bangkok now......

ohh WOW, whats the cobra gold excercise? ...another of these american special team forces, like that one tried to safe the hostages in Iran in 1981? LOL you are our heroes

Stick to things you have a clue of, like throwing bombs from far above or snipe out some turban wearers with unmanned drones

...but please my fellow americans, dont talk about "normal" politics

[jcbangkok]

The richest man in Thailand has well over 10 times Thaksin's wealth (at Thaksin's peak wealth). Many of the richest men and one very important lady are Thaksin's enemies and are flooding their riches upon the Army and PAD against Thaksin, but more importantly, against the average Thai. The average Thais are well aware of this and they are pissed.

The problem isn't how rich Thaksin is.

The problem is how he got rich, and particularly, how much richer he got WHILE HE WAS PM.

It is about thaksin and about his wealth and the way he uses it create unrest and gain power to serve his interests at the expense of many others. If the article is true then it certainly explains a lot ... especially why Thaksin will only let his red army make demands that will quickly lead to his getting his hands on his seized assets and why 9-month is unacceptable and everything has to be now even though any moron would know if the PM offered 9-months out the gate he would have gone lower. But desperate people don't think clearly within 6 weeks of the 15 day demand went to within 24 hours and now are talking nonsense of demands while still refusing to actually sit down and negotiate unless their demands are met first.

[pagallim]

For all of the PAD clique here, thought I'd post a couple of quotes attributed to Samuel Johnson in the 18th Century:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.

"A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion. The fallaciousness of this note of patriotism is particularly apparent, when the clamour continues after the evil is past."

What an inspiring judge of human character Johnson was. Could have been written today, but no, from some 250 years ago.

[jcbangkok]

I can't help but wonder if the red insurgents will demand being paid before going any further if they get news of Thaksin maybe running out of money. They are all about money and I am pretty sure they know it is not a wise idea to work on net terms with somebody who is having money problems... COD only.

[melbpete]

With regards to your comments I suggest that you should throw them out with the rest of your rubbish.

Firstly the protestors themselves tried to stay peaceful and have basically only retailated when provoked by a force sent against them by an undemocratical government, the government do not hold the majority of the electorate as of the last general election but voted themselves into powerafterr the collapse of the last democratically elected government - that is when a General Election should rightly have been call according to the principles of democracy.

The violence however has either been started by opposition to the UDD movement or a small break-away faction trying to create anarchy within the country. As regards unlawful any government can rush through emergency legisalion and change the playing field, when the red-shirts commenced their campaign they were not breaking the law, the government changed the playing field in an attempt to remove the embarrasement the UDD movement was creating for them.

As for your absurd acquations relating to the election process may I refer you the the mostly peaceful and orderly way the electon ran in 2007 here in Thailand. I can see your answer is simply to have the military take over the government and rule the country again .. Not really the correct answer.

Finally as for democracy in Thailand I would agree that it doesn't exist her in Thailand whilst ever the present government is in power as they were not democratically elected to rule ....

The red protestors have pushed and pushed every step of the way. Whenever the government let them do things, they would just push some more. The pushed into parliament. They pushed into Thaicom. As soon as the army tried to disperse them with batons and shields, the reds came out with grenades, petrol bombs and guns.

They have been spouting violence ("bring bottles to fill up with petrol to burn down Bangkok") since day one. The "small break-away group" that has been causing the violence has been up on the red stage. They have been walking through the red protestors with all their security, so must have been part of the reds.

Do a bit of research on the last election. The PPP didn't win. They got into government with a coalition. The only reason they are not in government now (as the PTP) is that the smaller parties chose not to support them any more.

Then the Democrats formed a government in the same way as the PPP did. With a coalition.

Edited April 23, 2010 by melbpete

[lannarebirth]

New elections and the show is over.But this government know they will loose.

An immediate General Election is the answer but if the PM is so confident that the people of Thailand are behind him what has he to loose.. NOTHING... but he has everything to gain .. A country reunited and the Red-shirsts have already pledged that they will accept the outcome of a general election..

Why is he so chicken hearted .. or is his yellow colour a thick stripe down the centre of his back...?

Why would you suppose that a group that holds an unlawful, violent assembly to bring down a government would not create similar mayhem during an election. You can't forsee threats to blowup polling places likely to vote for non PTP candidates? You can't see mobs showing up to block legitimate campaign gatherings? If you're honest with yourself I think you can see those very types of things occuring and more. You just can't hold elections in this climate. If that means this government falls to the military if it can't affect a solution, then so be it. There's no democracy to be had here if this government doesn't hold the line.

With regards to your comments I suggest that you should throw them out with the rest of your rubbish.

Firstly the protestors themselves tried to stay peaceful and have basically only retailated when provoked by a force sent against them by an undemocratical government, the government do not hold the majority of the electorate as of the last general election but voted themselves into powerafterr the collapse of the last democratically elected government - that is when a General Election should rightly have been call according to the principles of democracy.

The violence however has either been started by opposition to the UDD movement or a small break-away faction trying to create anarchy within the country. As regards unlawful any government can rush through emergency legisalion and change the playing field, when the red-shirts commenced their campaign they were not breaking the law, the government changed the playing field in an attempt to remove the embarrasement the UDD movement was creating for them.

As for your absurd acquations relating to the election process may I refer you the the mostly peaceful and orderly way the electon ran in 2007 here in Thailand. I can see your answer is simply to have the military take over the government and rule the country again .. Not really the correct answer.

Finally as for democracy in Thailand I would agree that it doesn't exist her in Thailand whilst ever the present government is in power as they were not democratically elected to rule ....

I don't agree with a single word of your post, but I'll rebut a single issue specifically, I am not in favor at all of the military staging a coup.

[pagallim]

{quote.on}

nope.

uiiih, you're excited na?

you still got it according to your perception & you're still incapable to integrate divergent media.

-

btw, thanks, i'm not a native english speaker. i always like people who come out to speak of "grammar"; next argument will be related to "hitler", chai mai?

-

in case you don't get it: YOUR NARRATIVE OF EVENTS PRIOR TO APR10TH & OF EVENTS ON APR10TH IS WRONG!

so you publicly advocate red shirts storming thai-com station was "right"? that's what you state here?

you publicly advocate red shirts trying to storm army-base during apr10th was "right"? you saw the pics?

you publicly state, apr10th night, it _was_ army that instigated mayhem?

*

i haven't responded to your claim about ASTV in 2008. did they broadcast enticement to burn, kill, intimidate? to wage war on a gov? i guess you call that "freedom of speech", right? as long as grammar is correct.

{quote.off}

I appreciate you're not being a native English speaker. My reference to grammar was 'tongue in cheek'.

However, to answer some of your points:

Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc.

The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war.

The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation.

OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks.

you've some inclination for suffering, right?

1) you say, "Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). "

1a) it was not a "demonstration", whom are you fooling. it was a trespassing of property intent to achieve specific goals - "let's get our hate voice back on air". you're publicly advocating violence.

1b) "A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air " - which one? what you claim to be a "legitimate media channel"; another one distributing hate, enticing violence, burning down bkk, war against gov? something like this?

-

2) you say, publicly, "The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc." you say army fired live rounds while trying to defend thai-com? that's what you said, right?

-

3) you say, "The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war. "

oh really? may i ask, what's an "emotive attempt"? you saw the pics?

so you say, it was ok, "an emotive attempt", but when soldiers came out to disperse crowd - that was "BAD BAD BAD", right?

so, force lies with mafia-clan that's able to inflict bullying violence - but _not_ with "sovereign gov", right?

-

4) you say, "The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation."

you said before, you know it all & you know it all very well. you've access to intl media etc.

i don't f***g care about "your recollections" when you come into a public forum & claim stuff you did before. now, you're backstepping.

NO, GUY! IT WAS NOT ARMY THAT TRIGGERED EVENTS OF APR10TH NIGHT! there's plenty of material available online. army went in for containment - @ came under attack. you still wanna deny that?

-

5) you say, "OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks."

no, i do not. there's plenty of live-translations, twitter-feeds available.

tss tss... "the thais you know"...

*

see you around

You've obviously lost the plot. You'd better get back to The Nation twitter feeds, they'll be missing you.

My apologies for the edit. Yes, on the evening of the 10th, I did try and follow as closely as possible what was happening. Don't know what you have, but I have recollections. Not easy because of the events/time frame, and ultimately the bias of the 'available' Thai media. Not until later when sifting through the international press reports that you actually get a true picture.

Don't care how many f**ks you put into a post, the very fact that you've done it tells me you've lost the plot (think I mentioned that previously?).

Edited April 23, 2010 by pagallim

[jcbangkok]

Considering the number of people involved, and the duration, even Thaksin doesn't have the means to fund that. So where's the money coming from? I read a week or so ago about a UDD member in Phuket who sold his car so he could travel to BKK and join the protests. It's just too easy to blame Thaksin. The problem isn't Thaksin, it's the system that has allowed the ever widening social divide that currently exists in Thailand. The Democrats/PAD represent the status quo, i.e. go back to 'the sticks' and continue your miserable life which your children will inherit. Until there's a cohesive policy of national unity, based on every individuals worth and value for contribution, there will be no change.

Cost estimates at the peak, with nearly 100,000 protesters, was 30,000,000 bt per day. Multiply this by 40 days and you get 1.2 billion baht. Wasn't Thaksin just given back some 30 billion baht?

The richest man in Thailand has well over 10 times Thaksin's wealth (at Thaksin's peak wealth). Many of the richest men and one very important lady are Thaksin's enemies and are flooding their riches upon the Army and PAD against Thaksin, but more importantly, against the average Thai. The average Thais are well aware of this and they are pissed.

LOL

in 2004 Forbes has Thaksin as being the 16th richest person in all SE Asia and 3rd in Thailand ... see this article

And he "was" the richest man in Thailand prior to him entering politics but he had to give up all by 5% of his holding by law. We all know now that he didn't really do this and gained considerable more wealth after entering politics and becoming PM. See this

Edited April 23, 2010 by jcbangkok

[commons]

{quote.on}

nope.

uiiih, you're excited na?

you still got it according to your perception & you're still incapable to integrate divergent media.

-

btw, thanks, i'm not a native english speaker. i always like people who come out to speak of "grammar"; next argument will be related to "hitler", chai mai?

-

in case you don't get it: YOUR NARRATIVE OF EVENTS PRIOR TO APR10TH & OF EVENTS ON APR10TH IS WRONG!

so you publicly advocate red shirts storming thai-com station was "right"? that's what you state here?

you publicly advocate red shirts trying to storm army-base during apr10th was "right"? you saw the pics?

you publicly state, apr10th night, it _was_ army that instigated mayhem?

*

i haven't responded to your claim about ASTV in 2008. did they broadcast enticement to burn, kill, intimidate? to wage war on a gov? i guess you call that "freedom of speech", right? as long as grammar is correct.

{quote.off}

I appreciate you're not being a native English speaker. My reference to grammar was 'tongue in cheek'.

However, to answer some of your points:

Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc.

The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war.

The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation.

OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks.

you've some inclination for suffering, right?

1) you say, "Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). "

1a) it was not a "demonstration", whom are you fooling. it was a trespassing of property intent to achieve specific goals - "let's get our hate voice back on air". you're publicly advocating violence.

1b) "A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air " - which one? what you claim to be a "legitimate media channel"; another one distributing hate, enticing violence, burning down bkk, war against gov? something like this?

-

2) you say, publicly, "The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc." you say army fired live rounds while trying to defend thai-com? that's what you said, right?

-

3) you say, "The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war. "

oh really? may i ask, what's an "emotive attempt"? you saw the pics?

so you say, it was ok, "an emotive attempt", but when soldiers came out to disperse crowd - that was "BAD BAD BAD", right?

so, force lies with mafia-clan that's able to inflict bullying violence - but _not_ with "sovereign gov", right?

-

4) you say, "The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation."

you said before, you know it all & you know it all very well. you've access to intl media etc.

i don't f***g care about "your recollections" when you come into a public forum & claim stuff you did before. now, you're backstepping.

NO, GUY! IT WAS NOT ARMY THAT TRIGGERED EVENTS OF APR10TH NIGHT! there's plenty of material available online. army went in for containment - @ came under attack. you still wanna deny that?

-

5) you say, "OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks."

no, i do not. there's plenty of live-translations, twitter-feeds available.

tss tss... "the thais you know"...

*

see you around

You've obviously lost the plot. You'd better get back to The Nation twitter feeds, they'll be missing you.

My apologies for the edit. Yes, on the evening of the 10th, I did try and follow as closely as possible what was happening. Don't know what you have, but I have recollections. Not easy because of the events/time frame, and ultimately the bias of the 'available' Thai media. Not until later when sifting through the international press reports that you actually get a true picture.

Don't care how many f**ks you put into a post, the very fact that you've done it tells me you've lost the plot (think I mentioned that previously?).

q.e.d. ;-)

[pagallim]

Considering the number of people involved, and the duration, even Thaksin doesn't have the means to fund that. So where's the money coming from? I read a week or so ago about a UDD member in Phuket who sold his car so he could travel to BKK and join the protests. It's just too easy to blame Thaksin. The problem isn't Thaksin, it's the system that has allowed the ever widening social divide that currently exists in Thailand. The Democrats/PAD represent the status quo, i.e. go back to 'the sticks' and continue your miserable life which your children will inherit. Until there's a cohesive policy of national unity, based on every individuals worth and value for contribution, there will be no change.

Cost estimates at the peak, with nearly 100,000 protesters, was 30,000,000 bt per day. Multiply this by 40 days and you get 1.2 billion baht. Wasn't Thaksin just given back some 30 billion baht?

The richest man in Thailand has well over 10 times Thaksin's wealth (at Thaksin's peak wealth). Many of the richest men and one very important lady are Thaksin's enemies and are flooding their riches upon the Army and PAD against Thaksin, but more importantly, against the average Thai. The average Thais are well aware of this and they are pissed.

LOL

in 2004 Forbes has Thaksin as being the 16th richest person in all SE Asia and 3rd in Thailand ... see this article

And he "was" the richest man in Thailand prior to him entering politics but he had to give up all by 5% of his holding by law. We all know now that he didn't really do this and gained considerable more wealth after entering politics and becoming PM. See this

And not without some irony that the richest Thai is the owner/founder of the drinks company RED Bull!

[pagallim]

{quote.on}

nope.

uiiih, you're excited na?

you still got it according to your perception & you're still incapable to integrate divergent media.

-

btw, thanks, i'm not a native english speaker. i always like people who come out to speak of "grammar"; next argument will be related to "hitler", chai mai?

-

in case you don't get it: YOUR NARRATIVE OF EVENTS PRIOR TO APR10TH & OF EVENTS ON APR10TH IS WRONG!

so you publicly advocate red shirts storming thai-com station was "right"? that's what you state here?

you publicly advocate red shirts trying to storm army-base during apr10th was "right"? you saw the pics?

you publicly state, apr10th night, it _was_ army that instigated mayhem?

*

i haven't responded to your claim about ASTV in 2008. did they broadcast enticement to burn, kill, intimidate? to wage war on a gov? i guess you call that "freedom of speech", right? as long as grammar is correct.

{quote.off}

I appreciate you're not being a native English speaker. My reference to grammar was 'tongue in cheek'.

However, to answer some of your points:

Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc.

The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war.

The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation.

OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks.

you've some inclination for suffering, right?

1) you say, "Yes, I believe that the demonstration at Thai Com was justified. A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air (hence my reference to the continuance of ASTV during 2008). "

1a) it was not a "demonstration", whom are you fooling. it was a trespassing of property intent to achieve specific goals - "let's get our hate voice back on air". you're publicly advocating violence.

1b) "A previously legitimate media channel had been taken off the air " - which one? what you claim to be a "legitimate media channel"; another one distributing hate, enticing violence, burning down bkk, war against gov? something like this?

-

2) you say, publicly, "The violence that occurred there was as a result of the Army's decision to disperse, firing of live rounds etc." you say army fired live rounds while trying to defend thai-com? that's what you said, right?

-

3) you say, "The Army Base fiasco was an emotive attempt to stop the propaganda war. "

oh really? may i ask, what's an "emotive attempt"? you saw the pics?

so you say, it was ok, "an emotive attempt", but when soldiers came out to disperse crowd - that was "BAD BAD BAD", right?

so, force lies with mafia-clan that's able to inflict bullying violence - but _not_ with "sovereign gov", right?

-

4) you say, "The night of 10th April? I don't know if it will eventually be revealed, but my recollection of events was that nothing happened until the Army attempted to disperse the protesters. Tragic consequences though there were, it would have been better to have done what they were doing previously, i.e. containment and not provocation."

you said before, you know it all & you know it all very well. you've access to intl media etc.

i don't f***g care about "your recollections" when you come into a public forum & claim stuff you did before. now, you're backstepping.

NO, GUY! IT WAS NOT ARMY THAT TRIGGERED EVENTS OF APR10TH NIGHT! there's plenty of material available online. army went in for containment - @ came under attack. you still wanna deny that?

-

5) you say, "OK, you actually watched PTV, and personally heard/saw these provocative remarks, or are you reading some editorial comment from the Nation or Bangkok Post? The Thais that I know who were watching it didn't seem to pick up on those kind of remarks."

no, i do not. there's plenty of live-translations, twitter-feeds available.

tss tss... "the thais you know"...

*

see you around

You've obviously lost the plot. You'd better get back to The Nation twitter feeds, they'll be missing you.

My apologies for the edit. Yes, on the evening of the 10th, I did try and follow as closely as possible what was happening. Don't know what you have, but I have recollections. Not easy because of the events/time frame, and ultimately the bias of the 'available' Thai media. Not until later when sifting through the international press reports that you actually get a true picture.

Don't care how many f**ks you put into a post, the very fact that you've done it tells me you've lost the plot (think I mentioned that previously?).

q.e.d. ;-)

Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated; the abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

Well, you certainly fell far short in your use of that quote. By the way, your profile is conspicuously anonymous. Is there a reason for that?

[jcbangkok]

in 2004 Forbes has Thaksin as being the 16th richest person in all SE Asia and 3rd in Thailand ... see this article

And he "was" the richest man in Thailand prior to him entering politics but he had to give up all by 5% of his holding by law. We all know now that he didn't really do this and gained considerable more wealth after entering politics and becoming PM. See this

And not without some irony that the richest Thai is the owner/founder of the drinks company RED Bull!

Not to get too off topic here but ... I am not into energy drinks but see tons of Thais are but I am not sure I have ever seen Red Bull on the shelves here in BKK. It is very popular in the USA and can't help but notice it at every 711 type place. Is it too 'elite" for the Thai folk?

[pagallim]

in 2004 Forbes has Thaksin as being the 16th richest person in all SE Asia and 3rd in Thailand ... see this article

And he "was" the richest man in Thailand prior to him entering politics but he had to give up all by 5% of his holding by law. We all know now that he didn't really do this and gained considerable more wealth after entering politics and becoming PM. See this

And not without some irony that the richest Thai is the owner/founder of the drinks company RED Bull!

Not to get too off topic here but ... I am not into energy drinks but see tons of Thais are but I am not sure I have ever seen Red Bull on the shelves here in BKK. It is very popular in the USA and can't help but notice it at every 711 type place. Is it too 'elite" for the Thai folk?

Only sold under the counter in selected Bangkok outlets, where it's re-labelled Yellow Bull(shit). Great with vodka and lot's of ice though like the PAD, has a tendency to cause an acid stomach and a feeling of wishing that you'd not gone there. Typical of a 'good idea at the time'.

[AleG]

Video taken from the red shirt side that shows a projectile launched from red side aimed at skybridge/BTS.

No idea of M79 or just "fireworks".

EDIT: Added URL

quite a good vid. Seem to be the grenades

That's no grenade, it's a rocket firework exploding in mid-air. The grenades used in Silom explode on impact, to begin with, they'd be moving much faster than the object seen exploding and wouldn't leave a trail of smoke behind them.

This isn't a smoking gun... well, it IS a smoking rocket, but no weapon per se.

[pagallim]

Where did 'Commons' go? I was starting to develop a feeling of 'bonding'.

Edit: Perhaps he was taking me literally, and is scouring the streets for a tin of Yellow Bull. Good luck.

Edited April 23, 2010 by pagallim

[ThailandLovr]

Going to bed, very interesting day. Good news about possible end to the violence, but bad news the mob prevailed in this manner, not good for Thailand. Also sad Abhisit's days are numbered, I believe he could have accomplished much for all Thais given more time and cooperation, and greatly improve the country's international standing. Hopefully he will return to be PM once again. Just my opinions, as you have yours. Good thread. G'nite.

[pagallim]

Going to bed, very interesting day. Good news about possible end to the violence, but bad news the mob prevailed in this manner, not good for Thailand. Also sad Abhisit's days are numbered, I believe he could have accomplished much for all Thais given more time and cooperation, and greatly improve the country's international standing. Hopefully he will return to be PM once again. Just my opinions, as you have yours. Good thread. G'nite.

I do agree with you. In spite of criticism of Abhisit (and nearly all well deserved), I think he was the right man at the wrong time. Essentially he was used by those who lacked the courage to face the public with their own ethics and idealogy. Nothing would please me more than if Abhisit formed his own party, selected his own advisors, and stood by his convictions.

[lannarebirth]

Going to bed, very interesting day. Good news about possible end to the violence, but bad news the mob prevailed in this manner, not good for Thailand. Also sad Abhisit's days are numbered, I believe he could have accomplished much for all Thais given more time and cooperation, and greatly improve the country's international standing. Hopefully he will return to be PM once again. Just my opinions, as you have yours. Good thread. G'nite.

I do agree with you. In spite of criticism of Abhisit (and nearly all well deserved), I think he was the right man at the wrong time. Essentially he was used by those who lacked the courage to face the public with their own ethics and idealogy. Nothing would please me more than if Abhisit formed his own party, selected his own advisors, and stood by his convictions.

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

[pagallim]

Going to bed, very interesting day. Good news about possible end to the violence, but bad news the mob prevailed in this manner, not good for Thailand. Also sad Abhisit's days are numbered, I believe he could have accomplished much for all Thais given more time and cooperation, and greatly improve the country's international standing. Hopefully he will return to be PM once again. Just my opinions, as you have yours. Good thread. G'nite.

I do agree with you. In spite of criticism of Abhisit (and nearly all well deserved), I think he was the right man at the wrong time. Essentially he was used by those who lacked the courage to face the public with their own ethics and idealogy. Nothing would please me more than if Abhisit formed his own party, selected his own advisors, and stood by his convictions.

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

But, and the big but, he's not the one in charge. There are others who are controlling him, and that's been apparent from the beginning of his appointment. Why do you think Suthep is riding 'shotgun' on him all the time, and why Abhisit defers decisions to Suthep constantly? Suthep is the mentor, more trusted with those who really run the show. Abhisit is (at the moment) nothing more than an agreeable face who can present a facade of governance both to the Thai people and the international community. Do you seriously believe that any true national leader would have been so conspicuous by their public absence as Abhisit has during the past (nearly) two weeks, were it not for the wrangling going on in the background? Ultimately, he's going to be the sacrificial lamb, and there are some who are trying to distance themselves from his fall.

[elcent]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

[lannarebirth]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

[lannarebirth]

Going to bed, very interesting day. Good news about possible end to the violence, but bad news the mob prevailed in this manner, not good for Thailand. Also sad Abhisit's days are numbered, I believe he could have accomplished much for all Thais given more time and cooperation, and greatly improve the country's international standing. Hopefully he will return to be PM once again. Just my opinions, as you have yours. Good thread. G'nite.

I do agree with you. In spite of criticism of Abhisit (and nearly all well deserved), I think he was the right man at the wrong time. Essentially he was used by those who lacked the courage to face the public with their own ethics and idealogy. Nothing would please me more than if Abhisit formed his own party, selected his own advisors, and stood by his convictions.

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

But, and the big but, he's not the one in charge. There are others who are controlling him, and that's been apparent from the beginning of his appointment. Why do you think Suthep is riding 'shotgun' on him all the time, and why Abhisit defers decisions to Suthep constantly? Suthep is the mentor, more trusted with those who really run the show. Abhisit is (at the moment) nothing more than an agreeable face who can present a facade of governance both to the Thai people and the international community. Do you seriously believe that any true national leader would have been so conspicuous by their public absence as Abhisit has during the past (nearly) two weeks, were it not for the wrangling going on in the background? Ultimately, he's going to be the sacrificial lamb, and there are some who are trying to distance themselves from his fall.

I don't agree that others are controlling him. I do agree he must depend on others, some of whom are incompetent and some with conflicting agendas and he has to navigate his way through all that. As far as others having oversight responsibilities, that's normal in any government in any country. As executive he knows he's ultimately responsible however.

[elcent]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

c'mon we all know that most Thais and even foreigners try to continue even within the troubles given by by Thaksin. 99.5%. It runs on auto pilot at the moment.

next??? Do we need psycho-pats like Thaksin to change that?

[lannarebirth]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

c'mon we all know that most Thais and even foreigners try to continue even within the troubles given by by Thaksin. 99.5%. It runs on auto pilot at the moment.

next??? Do we need psycho-pats like Thaksin to change that?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll tell you what I think. I think the Army being "magnanimous" about not attacking is a smart move, because the fact of the matter is they can't do it anyway without massive casualties, which most agree is unaccetable. So time passes, the Reds continue to do stupid things which make them look questionable in the eyes Thai populace. Maybe there's some attrition, maybe there's some infighting, maybe it rains. Looking at it in a pragmatic way, there's more to gain by waiting it out, at least that's the way it looks today

[pagallim]

OK, a lot has been commented upon about the UDD's requirement for a dissolution of Parliament, and the holding of new elections. What has not been extensively commented upon is their secondary requirement for a revision of the 2007, coup inspired Constitution. So, what was wrong with the 2007 re-write? I found some of the answers here:

Selection of drafters

[edit]Initial selection

In December, the 2,000-member junta-appointed National Assembly elected 200 of its members as candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The voting was fraught with irregularities. The candidate with the highest number of votes was Okas Tepalakul from Chachoengsao province, a virtually unknown car dealership owner who was a former classmate of junta-head Sonthi Boonyaratglin. BMW Thailand executive Pharani Leenuthapong received the second highest number of votes. The controversial selection also saw Suwit Pipatwilaikul, a little-known Nong Bua Lamphu construction contractor who received the third highest number of votes. There were no representatives of farmers or workers in the final selection.

Of the 200 final nominees, the nominee that received the lowest number of votes received just 7 votes. Assembly-member Maj Pol Gen Krerk Kalayanimitr claimed that some votes may have been bought. Of the 200 nominees, 74 were public sector bureaucrats, 34 were academics, 38 were from the social sector, and 54 were from the private sector.

The voting itself was full of irregularities. Members were lobbied in front of toilets and many Assembly-members marked their ballots before entering the polling booths (Normally, voters are handed ballot papers only when they enter the booth). A soldier guarding the entrance to the Parliament stopped a woman carrying 400,000 baht in cash. She refused to say why she was carrying so much money.

Of the 200 shortlisted nominees, 100 were approved by the junta to act as potential constitution drafters. The 100 included prominent anti-Thaksin critics like Chirmsak Pinthong, Karun Sai-ngarm, and Klanarong Chanthik.[19] Among those approved were several who had received the lowest number of votes from the CDA (7), including Phisit Lee-Atham, Wichai Roobkhamdee, Wicha Mahakhun, and Apichart Damdee. The three approved who received the greatest number of votes were Okart Tepalakul, Uthit Chuchuey, and Wuthisarn Tanchai.

Former Thammasat University Rector Noranit Sethabutra was unanimously voted president of the Constitution Drafting Assembly. Two other candidates, Sawat Chotipanich and Charun Pakdithanakul, were also nominated for the post, but withdrew their candidacies. Noranit pledged to complete drafting the new within 180 days.

Edited April 23, 2010 by pagallim

[elcent]

there's more to gain by waiting it out, at least that's the way it looks today

exactly

[pagallim]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

You think he should not be on TV reassuring people about the Government intent, it's principles, and defending it's actions? No, maybe not. Why bother, people aren't important. The very strong message that he's sent across is that communication with the people isn't important. That is why he's failed miserably in his role as national leader. Almost like a military 'need to know' philosophy. You just can't do that with a nation, even one as starved of objective media coverage as Thailand. However, I still believe that it's not the path that he himself would have chosen, he's just being told what to do and when to do it.

[pagallim]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

But, and the big but, he's not the one in charge. There are others who are controlling him, and that's been apparent from the beginning of his appointment. Why do you think Suthep is riding 'shotgun' on him all the time, and why Abhisit defers decisions to Suthep constantly? Suthep is the mentor, more trusted with those who really run the show. Abhisit is (at the moment) nothing more than an agreeable face who can present a facade of governance both to the Thai people and the international community. Do you seriously believe that any true national leader would have been so conspicuous by their public absence as Abhisit has during the past (nearly) two weeks, were it not for the wrangling going on in the background? Ultimately, he's going to be the sacrificial lamb, and there are some who are trying to distance themselves from his fall.

I don't agree that others are controlling him. I do agree he must depend on others, some of whom are incompetent and some with conflicting agendas and he has to navigate his way through all that. As far as others having oversight responsibilities, that's normal in any government in any country. As executive he knows he's ultimately responsible however.

With respect, there is an echelon in Thai society that are answerable to no one, and whom nobody questions. Do you seriously believe that individuals such as Abhisit rise to prominence through anything other than sponsorship from this group? Get real. In spite of perhaps his own convictions, he doesn't have a choice in the matter of outcome. He will continue to be wheeled out like a stooge whenever the occasions merits.

[lannarebirth]

Given the tools, personnel, laws and circumstances that Abhisit has had to work with, what would you wish he was doing now that he is not doing? He has the opportunity here to be a transformative PM. This isn't over by a long ways.

he's under voluntary house arrest. what else?

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

You think he should not be on TV reassuring people about the Government intent, it's principles, and defending it's actions? No, maybe not. Why bother, people aren't important. The very strong message that he's sent across is that communication with the people isn't important. That is why he's failed miserably in his role as national leader. Almost like a military 'need to know' philosophy. You just can't do that with a nation, even one as starved of objective media coverage as Thailand. However, I still believe that it's not the path that he himself would have chosen, he's just being told what to do and when to do it.

I think he has done that and continues to do that. He makes televised statements. Has statements in the written press most days. Continues to press his legislative agenda. Is photographed taking high level meetings which are duly reported about in the press. It's true he's not handholding and he's not making inflammatory comments, but he is consistently repeating that he is working within legal frameworks to bring this crisis to an end. Today he commented if he thought he couldn't accomplish that he would step down. I think that sounds a bit reassuring, but you may disagree.

Edited April 23, 2010 by lannarebirth

[pagallim]

Do you think he's not conducting the country's business? You think the only planning/negotiations going on are what we read about in the newspapers? You think he's quaking in a bunker? You think he should be on TV getting everyone worked up?

You think he should not be on TV reassuring people about the Government intent, it's principles, and defending it's actions? No, maybe not. Why bother, people aren't important. The very strong message that he's sent across is that communication with the people isn't important. That is why he's failed miserably in his role as national leader. Almost like a military 'need to know' philosophy. You just can't do that with a nation, even one as starved of objective media coverage as Thailand. However, I still believe that it's not the path that he himself would have chosen, he's just being told what to do and when to do it.

I think he has done that and continues to do that. He makes televised statements. Has statements in the written press most days. Continues to press his legislative agenda. Is photographed taking high level meetings which are duly reported about in the press. It's true he's not handholding and he's not making inflammatory comments, but he is consistently repeating that he is working within legal frameworks to bring this crisis to an end. Today he commented if he thought he couldn't accomplish that he would step down. I think that sounds a bit reassuring, but you may disagree.

Sorry, must be missing the TV statements, and certainly not through the state organs such as the Nation and Bangkok Post, he's conspicuous by his absence. Yes, I do agree with the (eventual) statement he made today, just a pity he didn't make it 7 days ago, and actually did the deed. However, a thought (no, another Samuel Johnson quote) to let you ponder upon, again from 1751:

"No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority".

Edited April 23, 2010 by pagallim