US Assistant Secretary Of State Campbell Meets Red-Shirts Protesters

[whybother]

Morally he knows that going for elections is the right thing to do . And even the army thinks likewise

I know the story repeated 100 times . Well if you look at the foreign press BBC , CNN , almost in every article

that refers to the PM by name it is mentioned that he was elected by the parliament , a polite way to say "without

popular mandate" . Am sure the US also knows that ...

But its old story by now so yes as you say lets hope the reds want to move forward and work their differences

with the PM and terminate very very soon their protest .

No. I believe Abhisit thinks that he should be able to be in government until the scheduled elections.

He is being forced into calling elections. The army (and others) have said he should call elections before scheduled because of the violent protests, and to solve the political crisis, not because it's the moral thing to do.

[whybother]

<...>

Australia also called for elections here.

the UK also has done so.

Why not trash them?

When did Australia, the UK or the US call for elections here?

[pornsasi]

What you did say is: "Abhisit was elected by a doctored parliement"

"Doctored" ??? Do you understand the meaning of this term? From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

2 a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment <doctored the play to suit the audience> <the drink was doctored> b : to alter deceptively <accused of doctoring the election returns>

So, when you say "doctored" do you mean a? or b? Think of a doctored photo, a doctored passport, a doctored election pamphlet. All are lies, wrong... when you say "doctored" you are saying that the parliament was illegally and/or deceptively altered.

Ok, you know what I'm going to ask next. Where is your proof???

And did you read the post directly below yours? None of the several PMs before Abhisit had mandates, either.

A lie, told long enough, becomes the truth. Keep talking. And why did you think you had to play the Hitler/Nazi card?

Its not a lie and you know it . Either your political affiliation dont allow you to accept it , or you are plainly

ignorant on how a democracy , in this case the UK system, is supposed to work .

When you have the PPP reduced from 220+ elected MPs in the majority to less then 190 MPs in the opposition

all without an election and only , as a result of a court ruling , meaning decided by unelected officials ,

and the new PM still decide to go ahead and be the PM without reconsulting the people , what you have is a PM

without a popular mandate . Plain and simple

forget bout hitler

[pornsasi]

Morally he knows that going for elections is the right thing to do . And even the army thinks likewise

I know the story repeated 100 times . Well if you look at the foreign press BBC , CNN , almost in every article

that refers to the PM by name it is mentioned that he was elected by the parliament , a polite way to say "without

popular mandate" . Am sure the US also knows that ...

But its old story by now so yes as you say lets hope the reds want to move forward and work their differences

with the PM and terminate very very soon their protest .

No. I believe Abhisit thinks that he should be able to be in government until the scheduled elections.

He is being forced into calling elections. The army (and others) have said he should call elections before scheduled because of the violent protests, and to solve the political crisis, not because it's the moral thing to do.

Yes we agree for once , the army did tell him to have elections because of the political crisis , political crisis which is due to the PM not having a popular mandate .

[whybother]

Its not a lie and you know it . Either your political affiliation dont allow you to accept it , or you are plainly

ignorant on how a democracy , in this case the UK system, is supposed to work .

When you have the PPP reduced from 220+ elected MPs in the majority to less then 190 MPs in the opposition

all without an election and only , as a result of a court ruling , meaning decided by unelected officials ,

and the new PM still decide to go ahead and be the PM without reconsulting the people , what you have is a PM

without a popular mandate . Plain and simple

forget bout hitler

There were by-elections for the banned MPs. The PPP/PTP did not win all the by-elections. Every electorate (the people) had an MP representative.

The people weren't consulted when Somchai was elected to PM.

If the smaller parties had supported the Democrats straight after the election, then Abhisit would have been PM then "with a popular mandate" (ie with the support of the majority of elected MPs).

The smaller parties supported the Democrats later (after the PPP/PTP showed their incompetence in government) which put Abhisit in as PM "with a popular mandate" (ie with the support of the majority of elected MPs).

[whybother]

No. I believe Abhisit thinks that he should be able to be in government until the scheduled elections.

He is being forced into calling elections. The army (and others) have said he should call elections before scheduled because of the violent protests, and to solve the political crisis, not because it's the moral thing to do.

Yes we agree for once , the army did tell him to have elections because of the political crisis , political crisis which is due to the PM not having a popular mandate .

Not quite

[SICA]

Never understud why US always put his nose in other countries affairs. US allways like to control everything. This must have a end! It's not their problem. I'm Swiss and if Swizterland would have a conflict with Italy tommorrow (just for example), than it's not the USA's Problem either.

Yeah

Europe did great all on its own.

WW I

WW II

Your nation sucked in lots of stolen money from the nazis.

It is funny anyone from Europe trashing America.

All Europe ever did for 1000 years was have war. - Unbelieveable!

How many died in WW II in Europe? Was it 15 million or was it 20 million? - Battling for the rights of democracy and preserving the lives and innocence of Jewish and world freedom. That's a problem for you is it?

America is stupid but not that stupid Europe.

Australia also called for elections here.

the UK also has done so.

Why not trash them?

Because they're not sticking their nose in to other peoples politics. And the UK didn't call for elections, they called for peace, talks and unity.

Why are you getting so heated? We're not talking about all of those poor forgotten soldiers who lost their lives to keep democracy during World War 1 or 2, or the battles that raged before that. We're talking about whether it is a good thing for a US diplomat to entertain talks with these people.

PS - I think you'll find the US were also involved in WW2 and abruptly ended it with the slaughter of millions of innocent Japanese.

[lazurus]

What I meant was that unless you are targetting American interests getting on a list of terrorist organizations takes time. You can still get on it, so don't lose hope reds. There is a difference however between legitimate peaceful protests and terrorism. It is the violent nature of the attacks, and the use of intimidation and fear to influence the government that crosses the line. A prime minister does not need to be elected by the majority of the population to get the job, Samak didn't have 50%, Somchai wasn't elected into office by the people.

Throwing blood on the PM's home to intimidate him. Peaceful protest or Terrorism?

Launching grenades at the skytrain targeting civilians. Peaceful protest or Terrorism?

Shooting police and soldiers who are enforcing the law. Peaceful protest or Terrorism?

Intimidating the population by conducting unlawful searches. Peaceful protest or Terrorism?

Creating fear in the population to restrict their ability to travel and go to work. Peaceful protest or Terrorism?

Samak was elected by a parliament that had a popular mandate .

Somchai was just a replacement for Samak , like Gordon Brown for Tony Blair

Abhisit was elected by a doctored parliement where number of seats to each party did not reflect

a popular vote , thus he has no popular mandate . If he had one , he would not agree to elections before

due date .

There is a bit more to democracy then just respecting the constitution . Hitler also respected the constituition

Not that Abhisit is trhe same as Hitler of course . Perhaps you should go to the UK

and ask if something like this is possible there without mass protests

Throwing blood . Yes so what .... ? Big deal . And was not directly at the PM

Launching grenades ... no proof

Shooting police ... no proof

Rest yes true , hospital too , well they got paranoid with some reasons , i dont agree

with them but that is NOT terrorism

Samak had a coalition government because his party did not have a majority of the seats. Neither do the democrats, but they also had a large percentage of the votes so they also have a mandate. He has agreed to early elections because of pressure brought by protesters who are willing to use any method including criminal ones to topple the government. He could legally stay until 2011 but he is trying to avoid a war.

Using Hitler shows how desperate you are and that your arguments have to be augmented by trying to connect Abhisit with someone who is almost as universally despised as Thaksin.

If you think that there is no proof for shootings and grenade attacks you are certainly are good at ignoring reality. No matter what is presented you will simply refuse to believe it because then you'd have to admit what you have been part of.

[pornsasi]

No. I believe Abhisit thinks that he should be able to be in government until the scheduled elections.

He is being forced into calling elections. The army (and others) have said he should call elections before scheduled because of the violent protests, and to solve the political crisis, not because it's the moral thing to do.

Yes we agree for once , the army did tell him to have elections because of the political crisis , political crisis which is due to the PM not having a popular mandate .

Not quite

Allright lets not have a fight over this for too long . Other posters have their opinion , on both sides i think .

I think we would both agree that a peaceful solution has to be found soon and everything return to normal

[whybother]

No. I believe Abhisit thinks that he should be able to be in government until the scheduled elections.

He is being forced into calling elections. The army (and others) have said he should call elections before scheduled because of the violent protests, and to solve the political crisis, not because it's the moral thing to do.

Yes we agree for once , the army did tell him to have elections because of the political crisis , political crisis which is due to the PM not having a popular mandate .

Not quite

Allright lets not have a fight over this for too long . Other posters have their opinion , on both sides i think .

I think we would both agree that a peaceful solution has to be found soon and everything return to normal

OK. That we can agree on.

[lazurus]

Seh Daeng: Thaksin Appoints New Red Shirt Leaders

Dismissed army general General Kattiya Sawasdipol now claims that Thaksin Shinawatra has appointed three new red shirt leaders namely Arisman Pongruengrong, Suporn Attawong or Rambo Esarn, and Udon Thani leader Kwanchai Praipana.

Red leaders seem to have been the victim of a coup, what is this world coming to when you can't trust Seh Daeng. He's betrayed the Vietnamese as a US spy, he betrayed Lao's communists, he betrayed the muslims in Aceh when he spied on them, he has betrayed his own military, and is now undermining the red leaders. I hope they aren't too shocked.

Edited May 10, 2010 by lazurus

[tomyummer]

I wonder how much time Mr. Campbell has even spent in Thailand? Does he know the political culture and the players?

Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I'd say he knows quite a bit more about politics in Thailand than some of the forum members here.

Bingo

I wouldn't assume that...?! Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs he could just be another career bureaucrat whose only knowledge lies in how Washington likes to do things. Or maybe not. Considerations, considerations.

Here's his official bio: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/125594.htm

Yep. Right on.

[pornsasi]

Samak had a coalition government because his party did not have a majority of the seats. Neither do the democrats, but they also had a large percentage of the votes so they also have a mandate. He has agreed to early elections because of pressure brought by protesters who are willing to use any method including criminal ones to topple the government. He could legally stay until 2011 but he is trying to avoid a war.

Using Hitler shows how desperate you are and that your arguments have to be augmented by trying to connect Abhisit with someone who is almost as universally despised as Thaksin.

If you think that there is no proof for shootings and grenade attacks you are certainly are good at ignoring reality. No matter what is presented you will simply refuse to believe it because then you'd have to admit what you have been part of.

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

[noahvail]

Its not a lie and you know it . Either your political affiliation dont allow you to accept it , or you are plainly

ignorant on how a democracy , in this case the UK system, is supposed to work .

When you have the PPP reduced from 220+ elected MPs in the majority to less then 190 MPs in the opposition

all without an election and only , as a result of a court ruling , meaning decided by unelected officials ,

and the new PM still decide to go ahead and be the PM without reconsulting the people , what you have is a PM

without a popular mandate . Plain and simple

forget bout hitler

There were by-elections for the banned MPs. The PPP/PTP did not win all the by-elections. Every electorate (the people) had an MP representative.

The people weren't consulted when Somchai was elected to PM.

If the smaller parties had supported the Democrats straight after the election, then Abhisit would have been PM then "with a popular mandate" (ie with the support of the majority of elected MPs).

The smaller parties supported the Democrats later (after the PPP/PTP showed their incompetence in government) which put Abhisit in as PM "with a popular mandate" (ie with the support of the majority of elected MPs).

Thank you, WhyBother. I'm getting tired of having to answer the same old claptrap. Seems to me some people, because of their affiliation, can't let go of the lie and understand the truth.

Oh, and Pornsasi, I'd like to forget Hitler - but *you* brought him into this. And no, I'm not ignorant in politics; I've studied them well. Nor is my affiliation in question; I was neutral until the Chula hospital fiasco, and that caused me to lean away from the red shirts. That does not mean I'm a yellow shirt - just that the red shirts failed.

[pornsasi]

I wouldn't assume that...?! Considering that he is the Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs he could just be another career bureaucrat whose only knowledge lies in how Washington likes to do things. Or maybe not. Considerations, considerations.

Here's his official bio: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/125594.htm

And now some character assasination just because the US ASS dont share your views

Really pathetic

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[whybother]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

edit: and Campbell did not talk to the reds. He spoke to some ex-politicians.

Edited May 10, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

Thank you, WhyBother. I'm getting tired of having to answer the same old claptrap. Seems to me some people, because of their affiliation, can't let go of the lie and understand the truth.

Oh, and Pornsasi, I'd like to forget Hitler - but *you* brought him into this. And no, I'm not ignorant in politics; I've studied them well. Nor is my affiliation in question; I was neutral until the Chula hospital fiasco, and that caused me to lean away from the red shirts. That does not mean I'm a yellow shirt - just that the red shirts failed.

I am not pro-red either and moreover very opposed to Thaksin , mainly because of his human rights records .

In fact i wish the PM to succeed and be given a chance to show his sincerity

but that does not mean that i should call a cat a mice and be totally biased

[lazurus]

Samak had a coalition government because his party did not have a majority of the seats. Neither do the democrats, but they also had a large percentage of the votes so they also have a mandate. He has agreed to early elections because of pressure brought by protesters who are willing to use any method including criminal ones to topple the government. He could legally stay until 2011 but he is trying to avoid a war.

Using Hitler shows how desperate you are and that your arguments have to be augmented by trying to connect Abhisit with someone who is almost as universally despised as Thaksin.

If you think that there is no proof for shootings and grenade attacks you are certainly are good at ignoring reality. No matter what is presented you will simply refuse to believe it because then you'd have to admit what you have been part of.

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

Why bother talking to red leaders, they've all been replaced by Thaksin, now that must give them lots of legitimacy.

If it was true about the parliament requiring a popular mandate elections would have already been held.

Dead bodies, grenade fragments, video, witnesses those things are considered proof.

The US talks with Kim Jong Il, doesn't make him an outstanding leader. US has had long discussions with inmates at Guantanamo bay, doesn't mean they endorse their activities. Don't confuse discussion with approval.

Edited May 10, 2010 by lazurus

[pornsasi]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

[pornsasi]

Why bother talking to red leaders, they've all been replaced by Thaksin, now that must give them lots of legitimacy.

Right and Thaksin bought over the US state Department its clear now

[whybother]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

[jdinasia]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

Agree --- not only that but had the small parties down what they promised in 2007 before the election then PPP would never have had a coalition and the dems would have. The dems didn't cry --- why? It is part of democracy.

[lazurus]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

Hmmmm? The democrats owe their seats in parliament to a general election. They have a coalition in government, that parliament voted to have Abhisit become PM, thus fulfilling your definition of a popular mandate. Glad that's settled.

[pornsasi]

Everybody knows the political affiliation of most posters here . This forum head bears the "Nation" paper , so its not surprising .

Yes everyone knows how a coalition work , thats not the issue here . The issue is that any parliament must result

of a popular mandate , which is currently not the case

No there are no proofs , am so sorry for you .

If there was real proofs the US would not be talking to the red shirts .

If they talked to them its because they believe the movement have some legitimacy .

You've seen all the explanations, but you still come up with the "popular mandate" stuff.

How, in your opinion, does a government get a "popular mandate"?

And can you please explain how the PPP had a "popular mandate"?

And then maybe explain how that differs to the Democrats?

If you dont know then why are you telling me the PM has a popular mandate ? .

You get a popular mandate by having a general election of the parliament

followed by a vote of that parliament that elects the prime minister as part

of a coalition OR by the absolute majority in the rare case one party has it .

Anything else is NO popular mandate

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

If i am a red supporter then you must be a yellow supporter . Obviously ...

Nothing to do with Abhisit beeing a MP . Yes he was elected by a parliament

whose composition was changed , and which was not itself elected just before .

Therefore he has no popular mandate

[whybother]

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

If i am a red supporter then you must be a yellow supporter . Obviously ...

Nothing to do with Abhisit beeing a MP . Yes he was elected by a parliament

whose composition was changed , and which was not itself elected just before .

Therefore he has no popular mandate

So Somchai didn't have a popular mandate either, and he should have called elections.

edit: composition of parliaments often change with by-elections. That doesn't require a general election to take place.

Edited May 10, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

Hmmmm? The democrats owe their seats in parliament to a general election. They have a coalition in government, that parliament voted to have Abhisit become PM, thus fulfilling your definition of a popular mandate. Glad that's settled.

Yes you and a few yellows here have your views .

The rest of the world have theirs , which not the same .

So right , its settled

Edited May 10, 2010 by pornsasi

[pornsasi]

I ask because I never get a red supporter to explain their version. They just make statements without any detail backing it up.

So Abhisit was elected as an MP in a general election. He was elected by the parliament to be PM. He therefore has a "popular mandate".

If i am a red supporter then you must be a yellow supporter . Obviously ...

Nothing to do with Abhisit beeing a MP . Yes he was elected by a parliament

whose composition was changed , and which was not itself elected just before .

Therefore he has no popular mandate

So Somchai didn't have a popular mandate either, and he should have called elections.

Who cares about Somchai anyway . We can also talk bout the pope or Mick Jaeger

they are not the PM . Abhisit is

[lazurus]

It wasn't the Abhisit's decision for the PPP to commit electoral fraud and get themselves in trouble. Why hold an immediate election for the benefit of a party that already cheated to win the last one? The democrats came to power legally under the constitution, which is more important than your opinion.

Glad to see you wish to ignore Somchai who came to power the same way as Abhisit because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Edited May 10, 2010 by lazurus

[yoshiwara]

Within the ranks of the Red-Shirt demonstrators are some armed soldiers, effectively a paid militia to serve as a perimeter defense, to deter the police and army from overrunning the UDD camp and apprehending the core leadership in a sudden rush. These security forces are a mixed lot, ranging from well-trained and well-disciplined members of the Thai army, ex-ranger tigers, and some CNF ex-police, down to bangkok mafia enforcers and under-bosses, and an assortment of gun-toting betel-spitting yahoos from the paddies of over a dozen amphurs. The problem guys are gun-nut wingers, who got M79 equipped for this show, and are trying to foment a serious shoot-out, which will paint the police and army in blood. This was included in the price when they were hired for the security work, and the UDD core leadership is not happy with it, but there are a couple things preventing them from kicking these a55holes out of the ranks. Most importantly, they cannot totaly disagree with the argument put back to them by the shoot-first cadre that dirtying the police and army with blood is maybe the only viable counter right now against an army coup to hold the government in an other arbitration, dissolution, and re-election sale this year. The UDD does not want that. The UDD call for immediate dissolution and re-elections stems from the same countenanced loss of oppotunity.

The democrats waiting until November is counting on that outcome exactly to put the next round of elections into a time-frame that permits forming a different coalition of parties. The other problem with disentanglement from the shooters is a loss of vital components of that security, with intel from back-channels out of the police HQ, which are their vital signal to use their "out" before a real raid penetrates their camp to grab up the key leaders.

So the classic deal with the devil you know has them stuck, and the violence is getting serious.

This is a plain old bad time for everyone.

The same old guys are just parked on this topic, wanting to make their opinions into fact de-facto by just repeating them over and again pi55ing on every new contrib to the thread. BARF! Do your pathetic thing to mine, too. I don't care about bored punk-attitude outsiders who heckle from the side-lines.

You should have some respect. The Thai people are a beautiful bunch, and their country and history are seriously cool. They have come to the moment of truth on their political machinery, and have to step into the 21st century with it, good and bad with all of this mess. The process is messy enough on the loyalty re-shuffling level, but on top of which it is being harrassed by a bunck of KEE-NOK gun-talkers. I am sad the Thai people are getting robbed of this momentary opportunity for a breakthrough. The statements of the leaders on both sides do not go to much trouble to sound intelligent when there is killing taking place. They should be doing their best work right now on winning people with ideas, but the public debate has lost all imtimacy, and Thais are horrified by the criminal violence being thrown upon the scene by the shooters. I am glad Campbell put the US in a conciliatory position last week, but now more must be done, and the US cannot help much from a perfectly balanced middle spot on the fence. Good time for a gut-check. Good time to check your hate at the door, too. The carefully played police and army presences are left with no options now. Some of the eye to eye killing that is coming is gut-wrenching to think about. Soldiers on both sides will recognize former colleages and even family in their sights as they end this thing.

My friend, i hope the moderator ban you, i hope people like you will be banned from all forum in this world, MAFIA? im Italian, i dont see any mafia people there some days ago, i dont see a single weapon and im an ex soldier, i was a sniper, i think i can see also if they hide a gun down one tshirt.

You dont have respect for people that come from upcountry in the week end after work for jont them, for the real thai people that are there only for have better condition in theyr poor life, and again show the evidence, show a picture of this " some armed soldiers" were they are? I see only 1 ex ranger there the security gard of Seh Deng nothings else.

"paid militia to serve as a perimeter defense to deter the police and army from overrunning the UDD camp" what they use for defense theyr hand? very dangerous.

I think the media had make hundreds of picture and video.....no one show a single weapon.

Also The Prime Minister have the same idea:

"If the rally is not called off, protesters will face a very high risk. The terrorists will act again, they will use violence against protesters and their leaders," the prime minister said."

As i said before, stop talk show me the evidence of what you talk about and i will agree whit you, till that time shut up and stop make new account in Thaivisa for nothings.

PS: Dont use "SPQR" that was a Roman history, my history and you dont have respect whit your word also for that.

This is how the true red voice speaks.

Looking forward to the Thaksin style 'free speech'.

[whybother]

So Somchai didn't have a popular mandate either, and he should have called elections.

Who cares about Somchai anyway . We can also talk bout the pope or Mick Jaeger

they are not the PM . Abhisit is

He was elected to PM in the same way that Abhisit was and the reds weren't complaining then. So he is relevant.

The reds can't have it both ways, and just demand elections when their people aren't in power.