A Knife To Everyone's Back - Thailand's Political Landscape

[jayboy]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

Many are knocking Abhisit but does anyone have a sensible suggestion as to who is qualified to replace him with the qualities to unite the country and carry it forward in difficult times in addition to retaining the respect and confidence of the International community? Abhisit may not be perfect but I cannot think of anyone who could do a better job.

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

[hammered]

A few months ago Apisit demanded a previous deputy Minister of Health from a coalition party resign due to suspicions of corruption.

He insisted both Cabinet members from Poomjaitai and Chart Thai Pattana resign their cabinet seats last week, risking facing the ire of both parties.

As for proof of Thaksin controlling everything in Pheua Maeow, as Pheua Thai is often referred to in the Thai press,

Thaksin phones in to meetings of Pheua Thai very frequently now, telling them what to do,settling disputes. 2 or 3 Pheua Thai MPs resigned recently from the executive board as all power still rests with Thaksin- they are just puppets.

Chalerm himself has said the theme and thrust in the next election campaign will be to bring Thaksin back- he knows that without Thaksin, the party will break up into factions so everything has to be for the boss- to save themselves.

Sombat, a fairly new red leader has it right when he says the red rallies are just top down affairs, the masses just clapping leaders' speeches with little critical thinking going on, the people have to think for themselves- but that's a very far cry from what Thaksin, top down efficiency CEO of Thailand wants.

I take it a lot have missed Sombats frank analysis

The interesting thing about the Chalerm, Chavalit, Shin line of the election will be a referendum on bringing Thaksin back is where will Mingkwan stand. He did have a lot of support form PTP MPs who wanted a more away from Thaksin line based on belief that Thaksin was fighting a losing battle and that if it came tio conclusion they would all crash down with him whereas a tad independent Mingkwan could keep them in the game with a gradual move away from Thaksin. Will those MPs and Mingkwan now quiesce and pray they were wrong or will the Chalermites and Chavlitas end up breaking the Mingkwanites away? Now in there remains Thaksins problem. He cant select someone he doesnt trust but can he select the ultra loyalists who may alienate the pragmatic? Thaksin needs a strong showing in the by elections needing wins in Ayuthaya, Korat, Surin and Khon Kaen and wins with decent majorities. A defeat in even one would be difficult.

[hammered]

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

Many are knocking Abhisit but does anyone have a sensible suggestion as to who is qualified to replace him with the qualities to unite the country and carry it forward in difficult times in addition to retaining the respect and confidence of the International community? Abhisit may not be perfect but I cannot think of anyone who could do a better job.

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

Interesting anlysis as ever. There seem to be tug of wars going on everywhere. One interesting aspect is the change in army leadership. While a lot has been done on Gen Prayuth's supposed ultra anti-red feelings little analysis has been done on the relative closeness of Prayuth and Anupong to certain factions. One school of thought goes that while Anupong was closeest to BJT and possibly Suthep, Prayuth is actually closer to Abhisit. That analysis woudl also explain Abhisits sudden confidence in dealing with coalition allies who thought they were immune to the rules (on this point being a powerful poltician in Thailand means showing you are immune to rules to show your power, or at least has done up to very very recently). Interesting developments with Snoh too.

[whybother]

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

The more people that see that Abhisit isn't a pawn of the PAD, the more that will support him. If he gives in (or if his party force him to give in) to PAD demands, the fence sitters will fall to the other side.

There are quite a few electorates where the PPP won with a small percentage of the votes. It's in these areas that the PTP will have the most trouble keeping their seats. The BJT pressure will also be a problem for the PTP.

(An MP doesn't need to get 50% to get voted in, he just needs to get the most votes and above 20%).

Generally, the international community has no problem with the current government. The April/May riots were a blip, but they realise that it wasn't the one sided affair put across by the red shirts. The government need to remove the SOE as soon as possible, and remove the censorship of the media (and in turn, the PTP/red shirts need to stop inciting violence). The biggest problem with Thailand for the international community is the corruption, so any moves to reduce that will reduce any pressure on the government.

Personally, I can't see any reason for a coup, nor do I see that it would be supported by the general population.

[Siripon]

So a verdict on the possible dissolution of the Democrats may be announced as early as Monday!

If the Democrats are dissolved, perhaps Sanan will make a move.

The only reason I see for a coup is if a government comprising Pheua Thai push for an amnesty for Thaksin.

[random]

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

The more people that see that Abhisit isn't a pawn of the PAD, the more that will support him. If he gives in (or if his party force him to give in) to PAD demands, the fence sitters will fall to the other side.

There are quite a few electorates where the PPP won with a small percentage of the votes. It's in these areas that the PTP will have the most trouble keeping their seats. The BJT pressure will also be a problem for the PTP.

(An MP doesn't need to get 50% to get voted in, he just needs to get the most votes and above 20%).

Generally, the international community has no problem with the current government. The April/May riots were a blip, but they realise that it wasn't the one sided affair put across by the red shirts. The government need to remove the SOE as soon as possible, and remove the censorship of the media (and in turn, the PTP/red shirts need to stop inciting violence). The biggest problem with Thailand for the international community is the corruption, so any moves to reduce that will reduce any pressure on the government.

Personally, I can't see any reason for a coup, nor do I see that it would be supported by the general population.

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

The dems have to pay for these actions,a s well as the continued pointless SoE, dissolution next week will be perfect and the hopefully a new government can start to file charges agaisnt abhisit and his ilk who will be without their parliamentary status for the events in April/May.

Edited November 25, 2010 by random

[whybother]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

Edited November 25, 2010 by whybother

[hammered]

Utter classic parlaimentary play where each MP may have to stand up in turn and vote on each specific ammnedment. If accepted it means PTP MPs will be forced to vote on each ammnedment rather than just wengies one and then walk out. If that happens they havent been told how to vote on other ones so......

Totally amusing if this one comes off. Bet the blackberries are going with instructions right now

[Buchholz]

Utter classic parliamentary play where each MP may have to stand up in turn and vote on each specific ammnedment. If accepted it means PTP MPs will be forced to vote on each amendment rather than just wengies one and then walk out. If that happens they haven't been told how to vote on other ones so......

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva hopes that the People's Alliance for Democracy or PAD protesters will now be appeased as the charter draft proposed by the red-shirt group was shot down by the legislators.

The yellow-shirt group is protesting the amendments outside of Parliament, with strong opposition for the particular draft drawn up by a committee led by red-shirt leader Weng Tochirakarn.

TAN Network

[random]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

[whybother]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

"I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds" - then why are you saying that there were 90 deaths at the hands of the military? How do you call it all state sanctioned murder when the reds were shooting back, and probably that the reds started the shooting on April 10?

Even the death in Vipavardi Rangsit probably wasn't random firing. It was a tense situation, and a soldier probably thought they were being attacked from behind.

I can accept that you don't you agree with the army causing deaths, but you seem to put ALL of the blame on them, and ignore anything that the red shirts did.

Maybe it was an understatement, but given some of the results of previous coups and protests in Thailand, and the fact that there wasn't any international condemnation, it's not too far off.

[Buchholz]

A joint session of Senate and House of Representatives has 620 members.

The meeting today had 571 Parliamentarians, of which 443 were MPs and 128 were Senators.

At least 310 votes are required to pass a draft and move it along.

Today, the first reading of Red Shirt Leader Weng's Amendment was voted on.

It was rejected by a vote of 235 against it and 222 for it.

There were 123 abstentions.

.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Buchholz

[random]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

"I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds" - then why are you saying that there were 90 deaths at the hands of the military? How do you call it all state sanctioned murder when the reds were shooting back, and probably that the reds started the shooting on April 10?

Even the death in Vipavardi Rangsit probably wasn't random firing. It was a tense situation, and a soldier probably thought they were being attacked from behind.

I can accept that you don't you agree with the army causing deaths, but you seem to put ALL of the blame on them, and ignore anything that the red shirts did.

Maybe it was an understatement, but given some of the results of previous coups and protests in Thailand, and the fact that there wasn't any international condemnation, it's not too far off.

Well neither of us have exact figures and neither of us know exactly who murdered who, and we will never know while an investigation is tainted, that said though if the government did have irrefutable proof that reds were killing reds then i am sure they would be pretty quick to publish the evidence, the fact that this has not happened speaks volumes imo.

Do you have any proof that the reds fired first on April 10th? is your use of the word 'probably' based on anything other than your bias?

The shooting on Viphawadi was pure and simple, random firing from the army at people that posed no immediate threat, the guy was on a moped and wearing army uniform, also as far as I remember they were approaching from the front. I see that use of the word 'probably' again, probably is just your opinion and stands no test, if I say the army were probably responsible for ALL the deaths will you accept that or ask me for proof?

finally, i don't ignore everything the red shirts did, I do however put the majority of the blame at the door of abhisit, suthep and the army for the slaughter, because make no mistake that is what it is, I am yet to see any footage of an armed protester shot, I have seen plenty of footage of unarmed protesters being shot.

So was there over 90 deaths at the hands of the military? taking into account people are still missing then it is possible, in fact let me use your word, it is probably that the army are responsible for over 90 deaths, even the murder of unarmed people in a temple, every person that survived that, including journalists are certain the shots were fired by the army, also medics were fired at when they tried to enter to help people.

I guess we just see things differently, and at the end of the day NEITHER of us has any proof, we can only offer speculation, you think you are right, I think you are wrong.

edit, oh, I nearly forgot, whoever was responsible, do you think the death of over 90 people, buildings burnt (again we don't know who by), tourism ravaged, and the thai government being made a laughing stock is just a 'blip'

Edited November 25, 2010 by random

[whybother]

<snip>

edit, oh, I nearly forgot, whoever was responsible, do you think the death of over 90 people, buildings burnt (again we don't know who by), tourism ravaged, and the thai government being made a laughing stock is just a 'blip'

"Thai government being made a laughing stock"?? Really? Where?

As I said "Maybe it was an understatement, but given some of the results of previous coups and protests in Thailand, and the fact that there wasn't any international condemnation, it's not too far off." We'll see if it's a blip in a year or so. Already tourism seems to be going on it's merry way (down, but not necessarily all because of the violence. International investment is continuing. The government is still sending members to the UN, ASEAN, other countries.

One reason why there isn't the international condemnation is because the army had to fight armed protesters. If there were armed protests in western countries, there would be a similar outcome.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

Sweet mother of...

An intelligent jayboy post? I must be drinking too much...I agree with your conclusions, Sir. I'm as shocked as you are, I'm sure.

Well neither of us have exact figures and neither of us know exactly who murdered who, and we will never know while an investigation is tainted, that said though if the government did have irrefutable proof that reds were killing reds then i am sure they would be pretty quick to publish the evidence, the fact that this has not happened speaks volumes imo.

Do you have any proof that the reds fired first on April 10th? is your use of the word 'probably' based on anything other than your bias?

if I say the army were probably responsible for ALL the deaths will you accept that or ask me for proof?

finally, i don't ignore everything the red shirts did, I do however put the majority of the blame at the door of abhisit, suthep and the army for the slaughter, because make no mistake that is what it is, I am yet to see any footage of an armed protester shot, I have seen plenty of footage of unarmed protesters being shot.

I guess we just see things differently, and at the end of the day NEITHER of us has any proof, we can only offer speculation, you think you are right, I think you are wrong.

edit, oh, I nearly forgot, whoever was responsible, do you think the death of over 90 people, buildings burnt (again we don't know who by), tourism ravaged, and the thai government being made a laughing stock is just a 'blip'

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

Amen.

Hi Mr Random.

Where do I begin. I guess...what kind of evidence would you be willing to accept? I mean, as evidence of MiB brutally betraying Reds as sacrificial lambs? I'm not entirely sure you're aware of how chaotic exchanging live rounds can be, especially during and very much directly after contact. It's not a clean crime scene, where Dexter and the forensics come in and do their blood splatter tests and whatnot.

The weapons used are going to be Thai military issued rifles. You realise the Army is not really all that great at keeping their weapons in their control, yes? Sometimes for very facepalm reasons ('stolen' from armoury on base, etc); sometimes for very honourable reasons (stolen from their hands by unarmed protesters):

Unsurprisingly, there is only ONE way unarmed protesters get rifles off Army soldiers. And that is when the soldiers refuse to fire, indiscriminately or otherwise.

The above picture was pulled from an amazing series of photographs of the violence on April 9, when a full month of protests had passed, a month where Abhisit was outspoken in favour of the protesters' right to protest peacefully - he simply pleaded with them to keep it peaceful, and to keep moving so as not to cause suffering for other Thais and local businesses and traffic. In return, they stormed Parliament House and violently took hundreds of rifles off peaceful soldiers who refused to use their weapons - bashing up a few soldiers who refused to fire in self defence....just for good measure.

The series of photos are here. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/unrest_in_thailand.html

They give a clear insight into the realities of April 9 violence. You might want to investigate how many rifles the Reds confiscated from those soldiers on April 9. You might want to investigate how many they returned.

As for your claims that you have yet to see an armed Red Shirt fired upon, I can only suggest you watch this video to start with. If you confirm you can see the evidence therein, I can provide you with hundreds more. If you cannot, there is no real point, I guess.

As for who was 'responsible', let me gently ask you what you would have done in Abhisit's position? How would you, as PM of a nation of 70,000,000 - with a capital city of 10-20mil - dealt with protesters who were clearly not peaceful, who were clearly armed in part, violently storming Parliament and running riot through the inner city, causing hundreds of millions of $ in damages to infrastructure, tourism, the economy, etc?

What would you have done, over what period of time? Keep in mind that the leaders were openly calling for violent uprising - of course there are hundreds of videos of the leaders given orders to violently engage.

As to whether or not there is proof, I assure you there is a great deal of evidence which illuminates the matter very clearly. I forget what it was you are trying to prove, but by all means, please present both your arguments and the corresponding footage / evidence / logic.

In - ANY - other country in the world, there would have been a bloodbath. You want to know what would happen in Moscow? This is how Putin feels about NON-armed, NON-intrusive, genuinely peaceful placard-holding protesting:

You will be beaten on your skull with a truncheon.

And that's that.

Put weapons in Russian protesters hands? The death toll would not be 91.

It would be 991. This...is the realities of the world.

When you hold a capital city hostage for two months, there is not a PM on the planet - not a military on the planet....who'd be able to keep the death toll as low as Abhisit and the Army were able to keep it in Bangkok during April / May 2010. Not even...remotely.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TheyCallmeScooter

[Siam Simon]

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

The more people that see that Abhisit isn't a pawn of the PAD, the more that will support him. If he gives in (or if his party force him to give in) to PAD demands, the fence sitters will fall to the other side.

There are quite a few electorates where the PPP won with a small percentage of the votes. It's in these areas that the PTP will have the most trouble keeping their seats. The BJT pressure will also be a problem for the PTP.

(An MP doesn't need to get 50% to get voted in, he just needs to get the most votes and above 20%).

Generally, the international community has no problem with the current government. The April/May riots were a blip, but they realise that it wasn't the one sided affair put across by the red shirts. The government need to remove the SOE as soon as possible, and remove the censorship of the media (and in turn, the PTP/red shirts need to stop inciting violence). The biggest problem with Thailand for the international community is the corruption, so any moves to reduce that will reduce any pressure on the government.

Personally, I can't see any reason for a coup, nor do I see that it would be supported by the general population.

Yep, no chance of a coup at the moment. The risk of that happening will become much greater when Abhisit starts the real drive on corruption. There's no chance of him going directly for the Military on this: He tried it a while ago over the fake bomb detectors and was severely slapped down by Gen Anupong. Trying to clean up government and the civil service will be where he can excel, but even that is fraught with danger due to lines of patronage.

[Siam Simon]

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

Sweet mother of...

An intelligent jayboy post? I must be drinking too much...I agree with your conclusions, Sir. I'm as shocked as you are, I'm sure.

Well neither of us have exact figures and neither of us know exactly who murdered who, and we will never know while an investigation is tainted, that said though if the government did have irrefutable proof that reds were killing reds then i am sure they would be pretty quick to publish the evidence, the fact that this has not happened speaks volumes imo.

Do you have any proof that the reds fired first on April 10th? is your use of the word 'probably' based on anything other than your bias?

if I say the army were probably responsible for ALL the deaths will you accept that or ask me for proof?

finally, i don't ignore everything the red shirts did, I do however put the majority of the blame at the door of abhisit, suthep and the army for the slaughter, because make no mistake that is what it is, I am yet to see any footage of an armed protester shot, I have seen plenty of footage of unarmed protesters being shot.

I guess we just see things differently, and at the end of the day NEITHER of us has any proof, we can only offer speculation, you think you are right, I think you are wrong.

edit, oh, I nearly forgot, whoever was responsible, do you think the death of over 90 people, buildings burnt (again we don't know who by), tourism ravaged, and the thai government being made a laughing stock is just a 'blip'

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

Amen.

Hi Mr Random.

Where do I begin. I guess...what kind of evidence would you be willing to accept? I mean, as evidence of MiB brutally betraying Reds as sacrificial lambs? I'm not entirely sure you're aware of how chaotic exchanging live rounds can be, especially during and very much directly after contact. It's not a clean crime scene, where Dexter and the forensics come in and do their blood splatter tests and whatnot.

The weapons used are going to be Thai military issued rifles. You realise the Army is not really all that great at keeping their weapons in their control, yes? Sometimes for very facepalm reasons ('stolen' from armoury on base, etc); sometimes for very honourable reasons (stolen from their hands by unarmed protesters):

Unsurprisingly, there is only ONE way unarmed protesters get rifles off Army soldiers. And that is when the soldiers refuse to fire, indiscriminately or otherwise.

The above picture was pulled from an amazing series of photographs of the violence on April 9, when a full month of protests had passed, a month where Abhisit was outspoken in favour of the protesters' right to protest peacefully - he simply pleaded with them to keep it peaceful, and to keep moving so as not to cause suffering for other Thais and local businesses and traffic. In return, they stormed Parliament House and violently took hundreds of rifles off peaceful soldiers who refused to use their weapons - bashing up a few soldiers who refused to fire in self defence....just for good measure.

The series of photos are here. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/unrest_in_thailand.html

They give a clear insight into the realities of April 9 violence. You might want to investigate how many rifles the Reds confiscated from those soldiers on April 9. You might want to investigate how many they returned.

As for your claims that you have yet to see an armed Red Shirt fired upon, I can only suggest you watch this video to start with. If you confirm you can see the evidence therein, I can provide you with hundreds more. If you cannot, there is no real point, I guess.

As for who was 'responsible', let me gently ask you what you would have done in Abhisit's position? How would you, as PM of a nation of 70,000,000 - with a capital city of 10-20mil - dealt with protesters who were clearly not peaceful, who were clearly armed in part, violently storming Parliament and running riot through the inner city, causing hundreds of millions of $ in damages to infrastructure, tourism, the economy, etc?

What would you have done, over what period of time? Keep in mind that the leaders were openly calling for violent uprising - of course there are hundreds of videos of the leaders given orders to violently engage.

As to whether or not there is proof, I assure you there is a great deal of evidence which illuminates the matter very clearly. I forget what it was you are trying to prove, but by all means, please present both your arguments and the corresponding footage / evidence / logic.

In - ANY - other country in the world, there would have been a bloodbath. You want to know what would happen in Moscow? This is how Putin feels about NON-armed, NON-intrusive, genuinely peaceful placard-holding protesting:

You will be beaten on your skull with a truncheon.

And that's that.

Put weapons in Russian protesters hands? The death toll would not be 91.

It would be 991. This...is the realities of the world.

When you hold a capital city hostage for two months, there is not a PM on the planet - not a military on the planet....who'd be able to keep the death toll as low as Abhisit and the Army were able to keep it in Bangkok during April / May 2010. Not even...remotely.

So, cutting through all the evangelism, you're saying that Russia is a typical example of how a civilised country would react to violent protest, and that 91 deaths is a 'result'?

[hanuman1]

A good article would have pointed out to the Reds that Abhisit is their best 'chance' of slow improvements, of slow change to the status quo. They don't want slow change, which I understand, but they shouldn't be fooled into thinking they have a shot. They are being fooled this way, and the end result is any rioting they do will result in only one thing: The Army getting more powerful.

Welcome back. And fair point.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

So, cutting through all the evangelism, you're saying that Russia is a typical example of how a civilised country would react to violent protest, and that 91 deaths is a 'result'?

Not sure how you derived that from my post?

Not sure why you'd call a VERY understated attempt at correcting the recent record 'evangelism'?

Not sure why you'd call a government who bludgeon the skulls of unarmed / unintrusive peaceful protesters 'civilised'?

Not sure why you'd call a government who, after two months of inaction and concessions and requests and deadlines in the face of terror, finally restored law and order, anything but civilised?

[rubl]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

On April 10th the army got the order by the current lawfully government to disperse the protesters. That's when troubles really started with then unknowns and now probably clearly identified red-shirts started shooting and lobbing grenades. Till the final clearance a total of 90 people died. Those died because of army actions were unfortunate, but warned. Those army, police personel and the lady at BTS Saladaeng were murdered, cold-bloodedly. A government may allow police and/or army to go 'all the way' if necessary. All others have no such authority.

Did any 'deserve' to be killed? Most likely not, but through actions of a militant red-shirt faction it became more and more unavoidable. Of course

k. Abhisit could have taken it laying down, but that would have caused even more problems.

I do believe this to be correct and unlike others can prove some of it.

[Siam Simon]

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

On April 10th the army got the order by the current lawfully government to disperse the protesters. That's when troubles really started with then unknowns and now probably clearly identified red-shirts started shooting and lobbing grenades. Till the final clearance a total of 90 people died. Those died because of army actions were unfortunate, but warned. Those army, police personel and the lady at BTS Saladaeng were murdered, cold-bloodedly. A government may allow police and/or army to go 'all the way' if necessary. All others have no such authority.

Did any 'deserve' to be killed? Most likely not, but through actions of a militant red-shirt faction it became more and more unavoidable. Of course

k. Abhisit could have taken it laying down, but that would have caused even more problems.

I do believe this to be correct and unlike others can prove some of it.

That word "probably" again.

Anyway, notwithstanding debates about why it was so necessary, did the Army move in on the protestors on April 10 with the intention of using foot clappers had the protestors refused to disperse? As much as I abhor the murder of Col Romklao and his colleagues, I suspect there would have been a huge death toll on that day had the Army operation not collapsed.

[whybother]

Anyway, notwithstanding debates about why it was so necessary, did the Army move in on the protestors on April 10 with the intention of using foot clappers had the protestors refused to disperse? As much as I abhor the murder of Col Romklao and his colleagues, I suspect there would have been a huge death toll on that day had the Army operation not collapsed.

So you're supporting the armed response by the red shirts?

[rubl]

(quote name='random' timestamp='1290655694' post='4046384')

sorry whybother, I really don't want to keep locking horns with you, but you call the April/May riots (your word, personally i would call them state funded murder) a blip. How can you call the death of over 90 people at the hands of the military a blip. even if you buy into the suggestion (which i know you do) that all the murders were committed by red shirts and the army played no part in the murder of unarmed people (despite evidence that they were firing randomly such as when they killed one of their own on Viphawadi Road) it would still be an understatement to refer to this matter as a blip.

(/quote)

First of all, I have never said that all the deaths were committed by the red shirts. I have never even suggested that most of them were.

Are you really suggesting that all the deaths were caused by the army? Or that all the deaths were of unarmed innocent protesters? Are you still trying to say that the protesters weren't armed?

Has there been any condemnation from any international government?

edit to your edit: Even if the Democrats are disbanded next week, that won't mean that the PTP will get back into government. The new-democrats will be in government and can call an election or try to elect a new PM (which the PTP did after Samak had to step down, and tried to do after the PPP was disbanded). The PTP could have called an election when the PPP were disbanded. Were they worried that they would lose more seats like they did in the by-elections?

I don't for one minute think that reds did not murder reds, but I do believe that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed and murdered by the military, such as the journalist/photographers. the trend on here seems to be to say the military did not kill anyone and that all were killed by the reds, or those killed by the army deserved to be killed, whether armed or not. maybe I was wrong to attribute that to you.

My gripe however was the use of the word 'blip' to describe the events.

On April 10th the army got the order by the current lawfully government to disperse the protesters. That's when troubles really started with then unknowns and now probably clearly identified red-shirts started shooting and lobbing grenades. Till the final clearance a total of 90 people died. Those died because of army actions were unfortunate, but warned. Those army, police personel and the lady at BTS Saladaeng were murdered, cold-bloodedly. A government may allow police and/or army to go 'all the way' if necessary. All others have no such authority.

Did any 'deserve' to be killed? Most likely not, but through actions of a militant red-shirt faction it became more and more unavoidable. Of course

k. Abhisit could have taken it laying down, but that would have caused even more problems.

I do believe this to be correct and unlike others can prove some of it.

That word "probably" again.

Anyway, notwithstanding debates about why it was so necessary, did the Army move in on the protestors on April 10 with the intention of using foot clappers had the protestors refused to disperse? As much as I abhor the murder of Col Romklao and his colleagues, I suspect there would have been a huge death toll on that day had the Army operation not collapsed.

Well, some stated the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesters on the 10th of April. That's when the unexpected unknowns started firing. With these thousands of round seemingly fired in anger (or fear) there were 19 casualties including Army personel.

Somehow I suspect that the death toll might have been NILL if the red-shirt protesters had disbanded peacefully.

Edited November 27, 2010 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

Well, some stated the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesters on the 10th of April. That's when the unexpected unknowns started firing. With these thousands of round seemingly fired in anger (or fear) there were 19 casualties including Army personel.

Somehow I suspect that the death toll might have been NILL if the red-shirt protesters had disbanded peacefully.

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

[whybother]

Well, some stated the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesters on the 10th of April. That's when the unexpected unknowns started firing. With these thousands of round seemingly fired in anger (or fear) there were 19 casualties including Army personel.

Somehow I suspect that the death toll might have been NILL if the red-shirt protesters had disbanded peacefully.

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

And the red shirts would have continued to invade parliament, continued to invade Thaicom, continued to confront troops whereever they were stationed, and continued to disrupt people going about their business.

At what point should 100,000 people stop disrupting the business and lives of a few million?

[Siam Simon]

Well, some stated the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesters on the 10th of April. That's when the unexpected unknowns started firing. With these thousands of round seemingly fired in anger (or fear) there were 19 casualties including Army personel.

Somehow I suspect that the death toll might have been NILL if the red-shirt protesters had disbanded peacefully.

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

And the red shirts would have continued to invade parliament, continued to invade Thaicom, continued to confront troops whereever they were stationed, and continued to disrupt people going about their business.

At what point should 100,000 people stop disrupting the business and lives of a few million?

Well, I'm the type who holds the view that disruption is always infinitely preferable to loss of life, so we will just have to differ on this.

[rubl]

I am aware that the EC is not currently discussing vote buying in the General Election as that was already discussed and certain dems were found guilty, my point is that when the current EC cases find the dems guilty of both issues currently being dealt with, the signs and the donation, since both issues were at the time of the previous General Election will you agree that these two acts (along with the already dealt with vote buying) will pretty much render all the seats won by the dems during the General Election were won as a result of election fraud, they broke EC rules on three matters to win seats, so when the guilty verdict quite rightly comes in I guess you and I can agree that the seats won by the dems were as a result of electoral fraud and there needs to be no more discussion about who won seats etc, as the seats were not won, they were in effect gained because of fraud.

Stop trying to deflect the conversation off at another tangent, it is a simple question i ask you and I will simplify it.

If/When the dems are found guilty of breaching EC rules, in relation to signs and a donation (added to their already proven guilt in vote buying) so you agree that ALL seats won by them (in the General Election) now have to be put in doubt as ALL seats were won as a result of breaching EC rules. (whether the breaches affected the outcome or not is irrelevant as there is no way of proving this, the fact is there is a great possibility that it affected it).

Deflect? You mix if's and when's, make paragraph-long single sentences which may or may not be logically correct depending on whether to use the 'if' or the 'when'. You also keep adding things to your list of accusations. You say 'agree, two cases' following by 'broke rules on three matters'. Stick to facts, not speculation, nor activities not under consideration.

If the EC decides against the Dem's in the THB 29M case it will be a breach of election rules, not election fraud. The second case is still very unclear, any comment now would be useless speculation.

Under your conditions I cannot give an answer on fairness of won seats as I do not accept some of your conditions or more correctly some assumptions behind them. As said before I will not speculate and certainly not when someone tries his best to push me towards an answer someone likes to hear.

Give a hypothetical answer, I have seen you give them before in relation to the reds.

if the dems are found guilty of the two charges they currently face, will you agree that these breaches won them seats, and therefore agree that those breaches could have stopped the opposition having a clear majority, and also agree that these ill gotten seats put them in position to lead a coalition when a free and fair election on their part would have hindered this?

I guess a refusal of a simple yes or no answer pretty much answers my question and will show a high level of hypocrisy, you are not happy to be truthful when it comes to the dems, but will happily throw round aspersions as though they are facts about anyone that opposes the dems.

It's ok, we can all see it, no need to try and hide it, just come out and say what you think, you think it is ok for the dems to break rules without punishment.

This accusation of hypocrisy and being unhappy to be truthful was unjust and undeserved. With the court ruling today deciding to drop case 1 and case 2 still in it's early phases further speculation seems unnecessary and premature.

Just my random thoughts

[rubl]

Well, some stated the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesters on the 10th of April. That's when the unexpected unknowns started firing. With these thousands of round seemingly fired in anger (or fear) there were 19 casualties including Army personel.

Somehow I suspect that the death toll might have been NILL if the red-shirt protesters had disbanded peacefully.

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

And the red shirts would have continued to invade parliament, continued to invade Thaicom, continued to confront troops whereever they were stationed, and continued to disrupt people going about their business.

At what point should 100,000 people stop disrupting the business and lives of a few million?

Well, I'm the type who holds the view that disruption is always infinitely preferable to loss of life, so we will just have to differ on this.

Next time someone comes to break into or burn your house, you will happily assist him, I guess ?

[Siam Simon]

Next time someone comes to break into or burn your house, you will happily assist him, I guess ?

I take every care to avoid violence. But what has your remark to do with the debacle of April/May?

[rubl]

Next time someone comes to break into or burn your house, you will happily assist him, I guess ?

I take every care to avoid violence. But what has your remark to do with the debacle of April/May?

Just read some of our discussion again and all will be clear to you, dear chap.