Red Shirts Affirm Sunday's Rally In Bangkok To Be Staged Peacefully

[rubl]

You must be reading different sources to everybody else. The majority of the Thai press are saying that Bhumjaithai's hopes for the next election are bleak. That means that the forty MPs who were bought by the military and Amataya in order to install Abhisit most probably won't be around to support him any more. Do you think that they will be replaced by Democrats?

How can you say that BJT's hopes in the next election are bleak?

They just won a by-election quite easily over the PTP.

They won aby-election. WOW!

I do not think the BJT's will be replaced by Dem's. Most likely they will just return in the next general election. Up there the old 'patronage' system still works. BJT, PTP and a few others still profit from it.

PS just for the record. In the by-elections of December 12th the EC just endorsed a BJT, a CTP and a Dem's MP. PTP Preechapol Pongpanit and BJT Boonjong Wongtrairat election is not endorsed, complaints are being investigated.

[Emptyset]

Well, if your last assertion is true then they made a big mistake in giving up when they did. Those in the "war room" apparently estimated that there'd be 200 to 500 deaths and that this was acceptable. Much if not most of the violence took place when/where the leaders were not present. Many of those involved were Bangkok residents, presumably the "underclass", there was nothing to stop them from simply going home. Why deny these people any agency? They were riled up & willing to fight. It's likely mostly due to frustration that comes from years of being screwed by those with more money & privilege than them. Riots like this take place in Europe often enough, especially in Paris during recent times. Yes, they were violent, but the violence is on a par with or at least not that much worse than used recently in Greece, Toronto and London. Protesters with rocks, molotovs & home-made missiles.

Now normally, these people wouldn't have died in great numbers because they could've been dealt with by riot police, water cannons and so on. But the presence of - just a few, possibly less than ten - armed men was enough to ensure that security forces would have to use live rounds. Now they might've turned to this option anyway, we simply don't know. And when it became clear to the protest leaders that there were armed men moving amongst them, even if they didn't have anything to do with them, they should've disbanded immediately to avoid putting lives at risk. That's unforgivable, even if not by design. But why keep talking about those that died as pawns with no agency? They've likely been described as stupid & brainless their whole lives, at least accord them some dignity in death, I'm sure they made their own choices, such as they were.

Anyway, there's a lot of focus here on the red shirt violence but little on the state violence, it's highly unlikely that the army acted responsibly as a whole and that all of the shootings on their part were justified. Whereas if you go on red shirt forums it's the opposite, focus is wholly on the state's role. Shame there's little middle ground. Both sides need to take responsibility and be brought to justice. But the government is doing something about the red shirt's part in the violence, what is it doing about its own sides part? So far we seem to have heard nothing but blanket denials.

You hid behind a veneer of rationality, giving lip service to being even handed, when you in fact you are being nothing but disingenuous. Sneaking in your little bits of misinformation.

Please document the "war room" acceptability of 200-500 deaths? You throw that out as it is a fact, when you just made it up or are repeating UDD generated propaganda.

The reason the violence took place away from where the leadership was because most of the violence took place outside the barricades. But you again, are ignoring what was being said on the stage during that time. The Army did not attack the protestors, when the Army started setting up blockades to cutoff supplies, they were attacked by people mobilized and organized by the UDD leadership. The UDD leadership was in full control of the armed elements. They were not operating on their own.

I stood in my office on the afternoon of the 19th and watched Arisman, with an armed escort, organize the tire fires (and attempting to burn the buses they towed there) at the Asok/Suk intersection in order to block the road before they moved down to SET to burn it down.

Don't try to be disingenuous with me, I personally watched this easily avoided tragedy unfold and nothing pisses me off more then an apologist like you trying to rationalize it by saying this was the work of just a few and was not the goal all along of certain factions within the UDD.

TH

I'm not trying to be disingenuous with you. Stop insisting I am. You were there, I wasn't. It might well have been the goal of certain factions. I certainly wouldn't put it past Thaksin and some of the others involved. However, you're just one source and like most people I'm trying to patch together what happened from various sources. So sorry if there's some uncertainty, each person only has a partial view. I've spoken to several people I know personally that were there and it's clear that the fault isn't entirely on the side of the red shirts. What misinformation have I slipped in?

I just googled for the 200-500 deaths and found it here, though I'm sure I originally saw it somewhere else. Perhaps in The Nation or the other one:

UPDATE: 5:25: Matichon reports that Chami S, a list Democrat MP and head of the Democrats War Room, as stating that the 35 deaths so far is quite low and is viewed that the government has the advantage because it is just soliders entering the fringe of the protest area where the protesters hae weapons and are firing on soldiers and this means the government still has an opportunity to change the game by proving that the deaths came from the protesters and was not the work of soldiers. “Chami has told the Democrat spokesman to give daily press conferences to counter the Puea Thai news and that each time they need to state that all the problems today arise from Thaksin and if Thaksin orders the situation to stop then the situation will be over” a source states: A source within the Democrat War Room states that that the protests will likely last another week and the 35 deaths is acceptable because we have estimated 200-500 deaths. In regards to the coalition partners abandoning the government, this is unlikely as Bhum Jai Thai still supports the government. A senior Democrat source states that many Democrat MPs accept that there is a possibility that at the end of this all, Abhisit will have to resign in order to accept responsibility so that people will still support the Democrats and so that the Democrats can still be in government or if not then after the election.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/32567/breaking-military-move-in-on-protest-site/ (scroll down)

[Emptyset]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military)

Well, that's a lie, as you're fully aware. It's a lie because Abhisit came to power democratically and without any interference by the army.

It's widely believed Anupong played a part in the deal. And not just by red shirts. I would call this "interference":

"But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government." http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090626.php

[rubl]

From the website quoted by Emptyset

"The Thai army today launched a final crackdown on the main redshirt protest area today, leading to the surrender of the main protest leaders. Redshirt leaders told protesters at the group’s rally site in Bangkok of their intention to surrender to police, and asked the protesters to evacuate the site and return home. This provoked anger among a hardcore group of armed militants. These have fought on, burning the shopping malls under which the reds have sheltered at their main protest site since earlier today."

Please go home, all these months when we were loudly saying 'to the last drop of our blood' we weren't really serious. At least not as far as our blood is concerned. Don't forget to re-run the taped sessions from the red stage here, as broadcasted on PTV. Remember, 'burn-it-my-way' !

[rubl]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military)

Well, that's a lie, as you're fully aware. It's a lie because Abhisit came to power democratically and without any interference by the army.

It's widely believed Anupong played a part in the deal. And not just by red shirts. I would call this "interference":

"But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government." http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090626.php

Interference? If the army and/or Gen Anupong had requested them to come and see him, that would be interference.

This "A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition." suggest the politicians asked for advice. Not really the same, my friend.

[thaihome]

I'm not trying to be disingenuous with you. Stop insisting I am. You were there, I wasn't. It might well have been the goal of certain factions. I certainly wouldn't put it past Thaksin and some of the others involved. However, you're just one source and like most people I'm trying to patch together what happened from various sources. So sorry if there's some uncertainty, each person only has a partial view. I've spoken to several people I know personally that were there and it's clear that the fault isn't entirely on the side of the red shirts. What misinformation have I slipped in?

More of the same. Can you even write a sentence without it being some sort of fallacy argument? Does not appear so.

I just googled for the 200-500 deaths and found it here, though I'm sure I originally saw it somewhere else. Perhaps in The Nation or the other one:

UPDATE: 5:25: Matichon reports that Chami S, a list Democrat MP and head of the Democrats War Room, as stating that the 35 deaths so far is quite low and is viewed that the government has the advantage because it is just soliders entering the fringe of the protest area where the protesters hae weapons and are firing on soldiers and this means the government still has an opportunity to change the game by proving that the deaths came from the protesters and was not the work of soldiers. “Chami has told the Democrat spokesman to give daily press conferences to counter the Puea Thai news and that each time they need to state that all the problems today arise from Thaksin and if Thaksin orders the situation to stop then the situation will be over” a source states: A source within the Democrat War Room states that that the protests will likely last another week and the 35 deaths is acceptable because we have estimated 200-500 deaths. In regards to the coalition partners abandoning the government, this is unlikely as Bhum Jai Thai still supports the government. A senior Democrat source states that many Democrat MPs accept that there is a possibility that at the end of this all, Abhisit will have to resign in order to accept responsibility so that people will still support the Democrats and so that the Democrats can still be in government or if not then after the election.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/32567/breaking-military-move-in-on-protest-site/ (scroll down)

This was a political "war room" setup by the coalition to counter Puea Thai Party’s political offensive in the Parliament that they tried to do during the protests. It had nothing to do with controlling the security forces operations. One of the scenarios they ran was what if there were hundreds of protestors killed and what would they do to keep control of the majority in Parliment.

That is not what your reference to it implied. Another fallacy argument.

TH

[Pi Sek]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military)

Well, that's a lie, as you're fully aware. It's a lie because Abhisit came to power democratically and without any interference by the army.

It's widely believed Anupong played a part in the deal. And not just by red shirts. I would call this "interference":

"But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government." http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090626.php

Hi emptyset - I never knew about that meeting and thank you for providing your source. However, "A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition" doesn't hold too much water.

Why would the politicians ask Anupong for advice over forming a coalition? Did they ask for advice or permission? And finally why would a source leak this info if the source didn't find it "unacceptable" that PPP were disbanded?

My conclusions to the above questions (which are my own and will differ from others') suggests that this meeting was more about the army "giving approval" than "interference". I also notice the political names are the odious types such as Suthep rather than the upstanding ones like Abhisit.

Having said all of that... as I didn't know about this meeting, I have to date branded the idea that the current Dem govt was military-installed as an "outright lie". I now see that, through the information you have provided, that it is merely "unproven speculation". For this I thank you.

[Emptyset]

I'm not trying to be disingenuous with you. Stop insisting I am. You were there, I wasn't. It might well have been the goal of certain factions. I certainly wouldn't put it past Thaksin and some of the others involved. However, you're just one source and like most people I'm trying to patch together what happened from various sources. So sorry if there's some uncertainty, each person only has a partial view. I've spoken to several people I know personally that were there and it's clear that the fault isn't entirely on the side of the red shirts. What misinformation have I slipped in?

More of the same. Can you even write a sentence without it being some sort of fallacy argument? Does not appear so.

I just googled for the 200-500 deaths and found it here, though I'm sure I originally saw it somewhere else. Perhaps in The Nation or the other one:

UPDATE: 5:25: Matichon reports that Chami S, a list Democrat MP and head of the Democrats War Room, as stating that the 35 deaths so far is quite low and is viewed that the government has the advantage because it is just soliders entering the fringe of the protest area where the protesters hae weapons and are firing on soldiers and this means the government still has an opportunity to change the game by proving that the deaths came from the protesters and was not the work of soldiers. "Chami has told the Democrat spokesman to give daily press conferences to counter the Puea Thai news and that each time they need to state that all the problems today arise from Thaksin and if Thaksin orders the situation to stop then the situation will be over" a source states: A source within the Democrat War Room states that that the protests will likely last another week and the 35 deaths is acceptable because we have estimated 200-500 deaths. In regards to the coalition partners abandoning the government, this is unlikely as Bhum Jai Thai still supports the government. A senior Democrat source states that many Democrat MPs accept that there is a possibility that at the end of this all, Abhisit will have to resign in order to accept responsibility so that people will still support the Democrats and so that the Democrats can still be in government or if not then after the election.

http://asiancorrespo...n-protest-site/ (scroll down)

This was a political "war room" setup by the coalition to counter Puea Thai Party's political offensive in the Parliament that they tried to do during the protests. It had nothing to do with controlling the security forces operations. One of the scenarios they ran was what if there were hundreds of protestors killed and what would they do to keep control of the majority in Parliment.

That is not what your reference to it implied. Another fallacy argument.

TH

Right. And I made a genuine mistake in not mentioning that in the original post. I don't like your implication that I'm somehow deliberately trying to mislead people or that I have an alterior motive. I didn't base any "argument" on it anyway, did I? Although I did say that they found it "acceptable". Well it seems to me that if that was their estimate before they started the crackdown, then it was acceptable to them. I mean they did have other options, like giving in to the red shirts demands, which didn't seem particularly unreasonable to me at the time (certainly more reasonable than 500 deaths). I'm not sure why you're getting so heated with me.

[Emptyset]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military)

Well, that's a lie, as you're fully aware. It's a lie because Abhisit came to power democratically and without any interference by the army.

It's widely believed Anupong played a part in the deal. And not just by red shirts. I would call this "interference":

"But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government." http://nationmultime...cs_30090626.php

Hi emptyset - I never knew about that meeting and thank you for providing your source. However, "A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition" doesn't hold too much water.

Why would the politicians ask Anupong for advice over forming a coalition? Did they ask for advice or permission? And finally why would a source leak this info if the source didn't find it "unacceptable" that PPP were disbanded?

My conclusions to the above questions (which are my own and will differ from others') suggests that this meeting was more about the army "giving approval" than "interference". I also notice the political names are the odious types such as Suthep rather than the upstanding ones like Abhisit.

Having said all of that... as I didn't know about this meeting, I have to date branded the idea that the current Dem govt was military-installed as an "outright lie". I now see that, through the information you have provided, that it is merely "unproven speculation". For this I thank you.

Thanong disagrees with you. He obviously thinks the evidence is solid enough (not that that's saying much if you read Thanong regularly). Anupong was one of The Nation's men of the year for 2008:

"General Anupong Paochinda speaks the loudest. For good or bad reasons, he speaks with his tanks. But he does not need to roll out his tanks onto the streets in the old-fashioned style of military coup. The appearance of having many tanks behind his back is good enough. Whenever there is political instability, the role of the men in green uniform is prominent. This is the reality of Thai politics.

Anupong has played his game shrewdly. Without his manoeuvring, Abhisit Vejjajiva would not have become prime minister."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/29/headlines/headlines_30092044.php

[ianbaggie]

These are honest, well intentioned Thai people, who have been completely misled, by the biggest fool that Thailand has ever produced. Every single time they go out into the streets, they are sabotaging their own country. They are destroying the image of law and order, and are killing the tourism sector. Bookings are down nationwide, during the peak holiday season, due to their earlier foolishness. Yes, it will be better if there are peaceful demonstrations, but any street action at this point looks like unrest for foreigners contemplating a trip to Thailand. And who knows, maybe the black shirts will hijack the proceedings again. The red shirts seemed to lose control before, so who is to say that will not happen again. They seem to be as incompetent as anyone out there. What these people do not understand is that their neighbors are losing their jobs in the tourism sector, as they protest. And for what? What is the end result? Abhisit missed a historic opportunity when he did not call snap elections back in May. He could have stolen the election. The big dummy Thaksin would not have had the time to prepare, and buy the vote. Had he called elections in 30 days, more than likely the democrats would have walked away with it all, and this may have been settled. Instead Abhisit showed a tremendous lack of courage, and did what all politicians do. He tried to buy time, and in the process showed a great lack of vision, which was exactly what Thailand needed at that time.

Yeahhhhh!! thats right - honest & well intentioned - i remember the footage of red shirts having their bags emptied of what they STOLE from centralworld after burning it down before they goit onto the buses back to Isan- remember - watches, clothes, jewelry, money - your definition of honest and well intentioned and mine is different - the list is endless including forcing patients out of their beds- MANY Thais will never forget the red shirts despicable behaviour

[Emptyset]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military)

Well, that's a lie, as you're fully aware. It's a lie because Abhisit came to power democratically and without any interference by the army.

It's widely believed Anupong played a part in the deal. And not just by red shirts. I would call this "interference":

"But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government." http://nationmultime...cs_30090626.php

Hi emptyset - I never knew about that meeting and thank you for providing your source. However, "A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition" doesn't hold too much water.

Why would the politicians ask Anupong for advice over forming a coalition? Did they ask for advice or permission? And finally why would a source leak this info if the source didn't find it "unacceptable" that PPP were disbanded?

My conclusions to the above questions (which are my own and will differ from others') suggests that this meeting was more about the army "giving approval" than "interference". I also notice the political names are the odious types such as Suthep rather than the upstanding ones like Abhisit.

Having said all of that... as I didn't know about this meeting, I have to date branded the idea that the current Dem govt was military-installed as an "outright lie". I now see that, through the information you have provided, that it is merely "unproven speculation". For this I thank you.

Sorry, to answer all this I'd really have to link you to Wassana's columns, which can't be linked here. Many on all sides of the spectrum strongly believe Anupong brokered the deal. Yes, it was Suthep, Newin and a few others involved, not Abhisit. Anyway, in a democratic country, is it acceptable for the army chief to first disregard your orders when you've asked him to help with the dispersal of protesters, then go on national TV calling for you to step down? And of course, if you want to sack him, you can't because it'll result in an immediate coup. Acceptable and democratic, or a sign of a dangerously powerful military with the intention of undermining an elected government?

[rubl]

Sorry, to answer all this I'd really have to link you to Wassana's columns, which can't be linked here. Many on all sides of the spectrum strongly believe Anupong brokered the deal. Yes, it was Suthep, Newin and a few others involved, not Abhisit. Anyway, in a democratic country, is it acceptable for the army chief to first disregard your orders when you've asked him to help with the dispersal of protesters, then go on national TV calling for you to step down? And of course, if you want to sack him, you can't because it'll result in an immediate coup. Acceptable and democratic, or a sign of a dangerously powerful military with the intention of undermining an elected government?

I think this link is allowed:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/11/06/review-of-wassana/

[Emptyset]

Sorry, to answer all this I'd really have to link you to Wassana's columns, which can't be linked here. Many on all sides of the spectrum strongly believe Anupong brokered the deal. Yes, it was Suthep, Newin and a few others involved, not Abhisit. Anyway, in a democratic country, is it acceptable for the army chief to first disregard your orders when you've asked him to help with the dispersal of protesters, then go on national TV calling for you to step down? And of course, if you want to sack him, you can't because it'll result in an immediate coup. Acceptable and democratic, or a sign of a dangerously powerful military with the intention of undermining an elected government?

I think this link is allowed:

http://asiapacific.a...iew-of-wassana/

Thanks, moreover:

"The military’s alternative to outright takeover in January 2008 was thus to take a back seat to those opposed to Samak Sundaravej and indirectly influence the dis-assembling of the People’s Power party administration. This it did in on three occasions. First, the armed forces put little effort into protecting Samak’s government (and later that of PM Somchai Wongsawat) from unruly crowds which took over Government House, attempted to capture Parliament, and hijacked two international airports. In essence, the Army under Gen.Anupong Paochinda was refusing to protect Thailand’s chief of government—the Prime Minister, though the Army Commander also refused to launch a coup against the government. Secondly, the military at least twice called on PM Somchai to resign. This happened once on October 16, when Gen.Anupong, at the head of a contingent of Thailand’s top brass, appeared on Thai television to call for PM Somchai Wongsawat’s resignation to take responsibility for bloodshed on October 7. [13] In late November Anupong again called on Somchai to either dissolve the Lower House or resign to avert the political storm, rather than face down the PAD demonstrators. Though the Constitution Court managed to finish off the Somchai government, forcing the dissolution of Palang Prachachon, pro-Thaksin MPs clearly had the numbers to reconstitute a new ruling coalition. Here the armed forces again entered the fray.

Thirdly, in mid-December 2008, the military indirectly helped to usher in the anti-Thaksin coalition government of Democrat Abhisit Vechachiwa. A troika of pro-Prem soldiers was apparently instrumental in this oblique intervention: Army Chief Anupong Paochinda, retired Gen. Prawit Wongsawat, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Prayuth Chanucha. In early December, on the heels of the court verdict, talks began between these soldiers and members of several political parties, including the Democrat, Chart Thai, Puea Paendin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, as well as several members of the new pro-Thaksin Puea Thai party to set up an anti-Thaksin ruling coalition. The three soldiers also contacted apparent Thaksin loyalist and long-time politico Newin Chidchob—who proved to be less than loyal to his erstwhile patron. [14]"

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/09/24/thailand%E2%80%99s-military-perpetually-political-forever-factionalized-again-ascendant/

[rubl]

begin removed, see original post of Emptyset for complete reply ...

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/09/24/thailand%E2%80%99s-military-perpetually-political-forever-factionalized-again-ascendant/

From that link I like to quote:

The Democrats’ Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban was the key civilian go-between between his party and Thailand’s armed forces. In an interview, he discussed how these conversations bore fruit for the formation of a Democrat-led coalition:

I had good ties with senior figures in the Military and I particularly admired Gen.Prawit [Wongsawan]. He could be reliable and was respected by younger military officers. So I got in touch with him. He said the military was ready to follow orders if they were lawful and legitimate…He wished me good luck. [After meeting potential coalition partners], I told them that I had someone apart from me who could give them assurances.

[thaihome]

Right. And I made a genuine mistake in not mentioning that in the original post. I don't like your implication that I'm somehow deliberately trying to mislead people or that I have an alterior motive. I didn't base any "argument" on it anyway, did I? Although I did say that they found it "acceptable". Well it seems to me that if that was their estimate before they started the crackdown, then it was acceptable to them. I mean they did have other options, like giving in to the red shirts demands, which didn't seem particularly unreasonable to me at the time (certainly more reasonable than 500 deaths). I'm not sure why you're getting so heated with me.

Not trying to mislead, but yet you go ne to say why didn't the government give into the demands. The government twice offered early elections.

The first time on national TV in late March in the early days of the protest and when it looked liked the Weng was going to accept, a mysterious text message was recieved by Jutuporn and immediatly he broke up the meeting.

Then again, on May 5, Abhisit offered his roadmap and when it appeared and Veera said they would accept it, Seh Deang started saying Thaksin callled him and Veera was no longer a UDD leader and the deal was rejected and the radical leadership was in charge. Veera is now reviled as a traitor to the UDD.

Your "alterior motive" is plain as day.

TH

[phetaroi]

Interesting that one photo depicts a man who is dressing in a Communist uniform, while the other is trying to look like...well, can't quite tell from the pic whether it's Osama or Fidel. Either way...quite telling.

Now I suppose the pro-Red Shirts on the forum here will say those are government men faking it to stir up trouble.

OK, it's worth a reply. What is it about these photographs of 2 people out of 10,000 odd that is quite telling?

Well let's see now. We know that the only democracy that the Red Shirts really approve is the democracy where their side wins. Sort of sounds like elections in communist nations. Weng and others in the RED Shirt movement were, indeed, communists. They chose RED shirts as their symbol...a color symbol which, at various times and places in the world has symbolized communism. There is nothing about the Red Shirt movement that has anything to do with democracy, other than that they consistently say that word.

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military) I don't really understand why you accuse the red shirt movement of being anti democracy. I wonder what you will say when/if Phuea Thai win the next election with an overall majority? Will you trot out the same old accusation about the election being bought or will you accept that the Thai electorate have democratically elected a new goverment?

First of all, I don't think you understand how a parliamentary system of government works. It was not Mr. Abhiset who conducted the military coup. He was the elected government -- through parliamentary procedures -- after the military coup. If the Phuea Thai wins the next election...so be it. That's fine. But, the demonstrations and rioting and arson that occurred leading up to and on May 19 does not equal an election. If Phuea Thai wins an ELECTION, fine. If they riot, loot, and burn...that's not an election and that's not fine.

[Emptyset]

Right. And I made a genuine mistake in not mentioning that in the original post. I don't like your implication that I'm somehow deliberately trying to mislead people or that I have an alterior motive. I didn't base any "argument" on it anyway, did I? Although I did say that they found it "acceptable". Well it seems to me that if that was their estimate before they started the crackdown, then it was acceptable to them. I mean they did have other options, like giving in to the red shirts demands, which didn't seem particularly unreasonable to me at the time (certainly more reasonable than 500 deaths). I'm not sure why you're getting so heated with me.

Not trying to mislead, but yet you go ne to say why didn't the government give into the demands. The government twice offered early elections.

The first time on national TV in late March in the early days of the protest and when it looked liked the Weng was going to accept, a mysterious text message was recieved by Jutuporn and immediatly he broke up the meeting.

Then again, on May 5, Abhisit offered his roadmap and when it appeared and Veera said they would accept it, Seh Deang started saying Thaksin callled him and Veera was no longer a UDD leader and the deal was rejected and the radical leadership was in charge. Veera is now reviled as a traitor to the UDD.

Your "alterior motive" is plain as day.

TH

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths. What were the red shirt demands after Abhisit handed down his road map? PTV restored, a serious investigation into the events of April 10th (e.g. Suthep handing himself in to police) & specifying the house dissolution date. Though I'm of the opinion that red shirts should've took Abhisit's offer without making any counter-demands, I don't think the counter-demands they did make are so unreasonable, I mean at least when compared to 500 deaths... but this applies to both sides, were the red shirt counter-demands so important to them that lives were worth sacrificing for them? I think not. Veera obviously thought not. That said I'm of the opinion Abhisit should've called elections in 2009, as Chang Noi* suggested back then:

"Embrace the proposal to return to the 1997 constitution with some fixes for its few well-known failings. Amnesty the 220 banned politicians. Don't try to stifle the red voice; listening is better. Punish the yellow on par with the red or others will do it for you. Stop worrying about the Nicaraguan special ambassador. Bring back a properly elected parliament and government as soon as possible. Accept the result and let the system work. Never again give the puppet players the support they don't deserve." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2009/04/20/opinion/The-rage-before-the-rampage-30100801.html

*Yep, the guys that wrote the book "Thaksin" which is easily the most authoritative book about him in English and savages him in all respects. But likely Thaihome will accuse Chang Noi of being 'someone' who's swallowed Robert Amsterdam's propaganda wholesale... that certainly seems to be his main line of attack against anyone with any red sympathies whatever. Even though some of us have been talking to red shirts since well before Amsterdam emerged as their defender and consider much of his writing hyperbolic & inaccurate.

[rubl]

begin removed, look at original post ...

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths. What were the red shirt demands after Abhisit handed down his road map? PTV restored, a serious investigation into the events of April 10th (e.g. Suthep handing himself in to police) & specifying the house dissolution date. Though I'm of the opinion that red shirts should've took Abhisit's offer without making any counter-demands, I don't think the counter-demands they did make are so unreasonable, I mean at least when compared to 500 deaths... but this applies to both sides, were the red shirt counter-demands so important to them that lives were worth sacrificing for them? I think not. Veera obviously thought not. That said I'm of the opinion Abhisit should've called elections in 2009, as Chang Noi* suggested back then:

"Embrace the proposal to return to the 1997 constitution with some fixes for its few well-known failings. Amnesty the 220 banned politicians. Don't try to stifle the red voice; listening is better. Punish the yellow on par with the red or others will do it for you. Stop worrying about the Nicaraguan special ambassador. Bring back a properly elected parliament and government as soon as possible. Accept the result and let the system work. Never again give the puppet players the support they don't deserve." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2009/04/20/opinion/The-rage-before-the-rampage-30100801.html

*Yep, the guys that wrote the book "Thaksin" which is easily the most authoritative book about him in English and savages him in all respects. But likely Thaihome will accuse Chang Noi of being 'someone' who's swallowed Robert Amsterdam's propaganda wholesale... that certainly seems to be his main line of attack against anyone with any red sympathies whatever. Even though some of us have been talking to red shirts since well before Amsterdam emerged as their defender and consider much of his writing hyperbolic & inaccurate.

Giving in to demands of 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' who managed to lop 60+ grenades in two months time? Give in to 'barehanded protesters' with whom the army 'exchanged' gunfire? Give in to months of hate speeches on PTV, most filmed on the red stage on Ratchaprasong? Give in to a mob running out of control? Giving in to a group ultimately responsible for 90 deaths because of their actions?

I feel sorry for the original red-shirts, their cause dreadfully harmed by UDD leaders under control and paid for by k. Thaksin. In 2010 it really started when k. Thaksin ill-gotten gains were confiscated, or 46 out of 76 billion. That's when the protests really started. Go figure.

[Emptyset]

begin removed, look at original post ...

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths. What were the red shirt demands after Abhisit handed down his road map? PTV restored, a serious investigation into the events of April 10th (e.g. Suthep handing himself in to police) & specifying the house dissolution date. Though I'm of the opinion that red shirts should've took Abhisit's offer without making any counter-demands, I don't think the counter-demands they did make are so unreasonable, I mean at least when compared to 500 deaths... but this applies to both sides, were the red shirt counter-demands so important to them that lives were worth sacrificing for them? I think not. Veera obviously thought not. That said I'm of the opinion Abhisit should've called elections in 2009, as Chang Noi* suggested back then:

"Embrace the proposal to return to the 1997 constitution with some fixes for its few well-known failings. Amnesty the 220 banned politicians. Don't try to stifle the red voice; listening is better. Punish the yellow on par with the red or others will do it for you. Stop worrying about the Nicaraguan special ambassador. Bring back a properly elected parliament and government as soon as possible. Accept the result and let the system work. Never again give the puppet players the support they don't deserve." http://www.nationmul...e-30100801.html

*Yep, the guys that wrote the book "Thaksin" which is easily the most authoritative book about him in English and savages him in all respects. But likely Thaihome will accuse Chang Noi of being 'someone' who's swallowed Robert Amsterdam's propaganda wholesale... that certainly seems to be his main line of attack against anyone with any red sympathies whatever. Even though some of us have been talking to red shirts since well before Amsterdam emerged as their defender and consider much of his writing hyperbolic & inaccurate.

Giving in to demands of 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' who managed to lop 60+ grenades in two months time? Give in to 'barehanded protesters' with whom the army 'exchanged' gunfire? Give in to months of hate speeches on PTV, most filmed on the red stage on Ratchaprasong? Give in to a mob running out of control? Giving in to a group ultimately responsible for 90 deaths because of their actions?

I feel sorry for the original red-shirts, their cause dreadfully harmed by UDD leaders under control and paid for by k. Thaksin. In 2010 it really started when k. Thaksin ill-gotten gains were confiscated, or 46 out of 76 billion. That's when the protests really started. Go figure.

Yep, some saw it as giving in. Some saw it as compromise for the sake of the nation. The IRA did far worse that the red shirts yet the British govt compromised with them to create (relative) peace. Though it must be said the British government were far from angels and neither is the current Thai government. Do you think the red shirts are just going to go away? There are millions of them and many obviously feel even more aggrieved than they did before April. So what is your suggestion? Wipe them all out? You seem to be under the impression that they'll just forget their grievances and sit quietly at home, if it weren't for Thaksin, still stirring the pot...

[rubl]

begin removed, look at original post ...

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths. What were the red shirt demands after Abhisit handed down his road map? PTV restored, a serious investigation into the events of April 10th (e.g. Suthep handing himself in to police) & specifying the house dissolution date. Though I'm of the opinion that red shirts should've took Abhisit's offer without making any counter-demands, I don't think the counter-demands they did make are so unreasonable, I mean at least when compared to 500 deaths... but this applies to both sides, were the red shirt counter-demands so important to them that lives were worth sacrificing for them? I think not. Veera obviously thought not. That said I'm of the opinion Abhisit should've called elections in 2009, as Chang Noi* suggested back then:

"Embrace the proposal to return to the 1997 constitution with some fixes for its few well-known failings. Amnesty the 220 banned politicians. Don't try to stifle the red voice; listening is better. Punish the yellow on par with the red or others will do it for you. Stop worrying about the Nicaraguan special ambassador. Bring back a properly elected parliament and government as soon as possible. Accept the result and let the system work. Never again give the puppet players the support they don't deserve." http://www.nationmul...e-30100801.html

*Yep, the guys that wrote the book "Thaksin" which is easily the most authoritative book about him in English and savages him in all respects. But likely Thaihome will accuse Chang Noi of being 'someone' who's swallowed Robert Amsterdam's propaganda wholesale... that certainly seems to be his main line of attack against anyone with any red sympathies whatever. Even though some of us have been talking to red shirts since well before Amsterdam emerged as their defender and consider much of his writing hyperbolic & inaccurate.

Giving in to demands of 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' who managed to lop 60+ grenades in two months time? Give in to 'barehanded protesters' with whom the army 'exchanged' gunfire? Give in to months of hate speeches on PTV, most filmed on the red stage on Ratchaprasong? Give in to a mob running out of control? Giving in to a group ultimately responsible for 90 deaths because of their actions?

I feel sorry for the original red-shirts, their cause dreadfully harmed by UDD leaders under control and paid for by k. Thaksin. In 2010 it really started when k. Thaksin ill-gotten gains were confiscated, or 46 out of 76 billion. That's when the protests really started. Go figure.

Yep, some saw it as giving in. Some saw it as compromise for the sake of the nation. The IRA did far worse that the red shirts yet the British govt compromised with them to create (relative) peace. Though it must be said the British government were far from angels and neither is the current Thai government. Do you think the red shirts are just going to go away? There are millions of them and many obviously feel even more aggrieved than they did before April. So what is your suggestion? Wipe them all out? You seem to be under the impression that they'll just forget their grievances and sit quietly at home, if it weren't for Thaksin, still stirring the pot...

The common red-shirts will reorganize, in part helped by the same old leaders. Their choice (I hope). They may want to concentrate on their backyard first, getting rid of the old patronage system, more / better education. Slowly getting into local government, slowly getting into central government. Human beings are impatient, but these things take time even when everyone is cooperating.

Merry Christmas to you all.

[Ricardo]

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths.

Sorry, what "500 deaths" are you referring to ?

[Emptyset]

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths.

Sorry, what "500 deaths" are you referring to ?

The 2-500 apparently estimated by the Democrat "war room" I previously mentioned. Go back through the thread for details.

[Ricardo]

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths.

Sorry, what "500 deaths" are you referring to ?

The 2-500 apparently estimated by the Democrat "war room" I previously mentioned. Go back through the thread for details.

Thanks, I'd stopped following the thread, after the first few pages.

So these 500 deaths didn't actually happen, they were all just part of the political speculation & disinformation & mud-slinging floating round, during the 'peaceful protests'. Glad to learn that. :jap:

I wonder what 'price' the organisers had been prepared to pay, as a result of letting their rally change from a peaceful-but-embarrassing protest to a a violent attempt to overthrow the legal government, using Seh-Daeng's warriors ?

[slapout]

Seems the anti government, pro Thaksin, red shirts, keep a supply of mouth pieces in the wings rotating onto this forum. Most of us would like to read real facts from this group or any other group/individual and not distorted figures, nor references to opinion/supposition which are indicated as fact.

Individuals who put forth the mention tripe really do a disservice to any valid organization/individual who might have the good of the general population at heart.

[Emptyset]

I didn't say "why didn't they" - I said I thought giving in to the red shirt demands were more reasonable than 500 deaths.

Sorry, what "500 deaths" are you referring to ?

The 2-500 apparently estimated by the Democrat "war room" I previously mentioned. Go back through the thread for details.

Thanks, I'd stopped following the thread, after the first few pages.

So these 500 deaths didn't actually happen, they were all just part of the political speculation & disinformation & mud-slinging floating round, during the 'peaceful protests'. Glad to learn that. :jap:

I wonder what 'price' the organisers had been prepared to pay, as a result of letting their rally change from a peaceful-but-embarrassing protest to a a violent attempt to overthrow the legal government, using Seh-Daeng's warriors ?

Where was it claimed that they actually happened?

Well, they were obviously prepared to go to jail or into exile. How is trying to force an election an attempt to "overthrow" the government? The two things are clearly not the same. As I mentioned in the other thread, certain generals made an attempt to force an immediate house dissolution, the price they were willing to pay was many deaths - but even forcing an election is not the same as overthrowing, not to me at least.

[hanuman1]

Sorry, to answer all this I'd really have to link you to Wassana's columns, which can't be linked here. Many on all sides of the spectrum strongly believe Anupong brokered the deal. Yes, it was Suthep, Newin and a few others involved, not Abhisit. Anyway, in a democratic country, is it acceptable for the army chief to first disregard your orders when you've asked him to help with the dispersal of protesters, then go on national TV calling for you to step down? And of course, if you want to sack him, you can't because it'll result in an immediate coup. Acceptable and democratic, or a sign of a dangerously powerful military with the intention of undermining an elected government?

I think this link is allowed:

http://asiapacific.a...iew-of-wassana/

Thanks, moreover:

"The military’s alternative to outright takeover in January 2008 was thus to take a back seat to those opposed to Samak Sundaravej and indirectly influence the dis-assembling of the People’s Power party administration. This it did in on three occasions. First, the armed forces put little effort into protecting Samak’s government (and later that of PM Somchai Wongsawat) from unruly crowds which took over Government House, attempted to capture Parliament, and hijacked two international airports. In essence, the Army under Gen.Anupong Paochinda was refusing to protect Thailand’s chief of government—the Prime Minister, though the Army Commander also refused to launch a coup against the government. Secondly, the military at least twice called on PM Somchai to resign. This happened once on October 16, when Gen.Anupong, at the head of a contingent of Thailand’s top brass, appeared on Thai television to call for PM Somchai Wongsawat’s resignation to take responsibility for bloodshed on October 7. [13] In late November Anupong again called on Somchai to either dissolve the Lower House or resign to avert the political storm, rather than face down the PAD demonstrators. Though the Constitution Court managed to finish off the Somchai government, forcing the dissolution of Palang Prachachon, pro-Thaksin MPs clearly had the numbers to reconstitute a new ruling coalition. Here the armed forces again entered the fray.

Thirdly, in mid-December 2008, the military indirectly helped to usher in the anti-Thaksin coalition government of Democrat Abhisit Vechachiwa. A troika of pro-Prem soldiers was apparently instrumental in this oblique intervention: Army Chief Anupong Paochinda, retired Gen. Prawit Wongsawat, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Prayuth Chanucha. In early December, on the heels of the court verdict, talks began between these soldiers and members of several political parties, including the Democrat, Chart Thai, Puea Paendin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, as well as several members of the new pro-Thaksin Puea Thai party to set up an anti-Thaksin ruling coalition. The three soldiers also contacted apparent Thaksin loyalist and long-time politico Newin Chidchob—who proved to be less than loyal to his erstwhile patron. [14]"

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/09/24/thailand%E2%80%99s-military-perpetually-political-forever-factionalized-again-ascendant/

A big thank-you to Emptyset for trying flesh out an objective viewpoint with this and a lot of his/her other posts. No mean feat in a forum where hatred often repels any chance of impartiality. More power to your elbow, my friend. Don't let them grind you down!

Merry Christmas to all!

[Emptyset]

Sorry, to answer all this I'd really have to link you to Wassana's columns, which can't be linked here. Many on all sides of the spectrum strongly believe Anupong brokered the deal. Yes, it was Suthep, Newin and a few others involved, not Abhisit. Anyway, in a democratic country, is it acceptable for the army chief to first disregard your orders when you've asked him to help with the dispersal of protesters, then go on national TV calling for you to step down? And of course, if you want to sack him, you can't because it'll result in an immediate coup. Acceptable and democratic, or a sign of a dangerously powerful military with the intention of undermining an elected government?

I think this link is allowed:

http://asiapacific.a...iew-of-wassana/

Thanks, moreover:

"The military's alternative to outright takeover in January 2008 was thus to take a back seat to those opposed to Samak Sundaravej and indirectly influence the dis-assembling of the People's Power party administration. This it did in on three occasions. First, the armed forces put little effort into protecting Samak's government (and later that of PM Somchai Wongsawat) from unruly crowds which took over Government House, attempted to capture Parliament, and hijacked two international airports. In essence, the Army under Gen.Anupong Paochinda was refusing to protect Thailand's chief of government—the Prime Minister, though the Army Commander also refused to launch a coup against the government. Secondly, the military at least twice called on PM Somchai to resign. This happened once on October 16, when Gen.Anupong, at the head of a contingent of Thailand's top brass, appeared on Thai television to call for PM Somchai Wongsawat's resignation to take responsibility for bloodshed on October 7. [13] In late November Anupong again called on Somchai to either dissolve the Lower House or resign to avert the political storm, rather than face down the PAD demonstrators. Though the Constitution Court managed to finish off the Somchai government, forcing the dissolution of Palang Prachachon, pro-Thaksin MPs clearly had the numbers to reconstitute a new ruling coalition. Here the armed forces again entered the fray.

Thirdly, in mid-December 2008, the military indirectly helped to usher in the anti-Thaksin coalition government of Democrat Abhisit Vechachiwa. A troika of pro-Prem soldiers was apparently instrumental in this oblique intervention: Army Chief Anupong Paochinda, retired Gen. Prawit Wongsawat, and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Prayuth Chanucha. In early December, on the heels of the court verdict, talks began between these soldiers and members of several political parties, including the Democrat, Chart Thai, Puea Paendin, Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana, as well as several members of the new pro-Thaksin Puea Thai party to set up an anti-Thaksin ruling coalition. The three soldiers also contacted apparent Thaksin loyalist and long-time politico Newin Chidchob—who proved to be less than loyal to his erstwhile patron. [14]"

http://asiapacific.a...gain-ascendant/

A big thank-you to Emptyset for trying flesh out an objective viewpoint with this and a lot of his/her other posts. No mean feat in a forum where hatred often repels any chance of impartiality. More power to your elbow, my friend. Don't let them grind you down!

Merry Christmas to all!

Thanks Hanuman, appreciate it.

Season's greetings and best wishes to all whichever side of the colour divide you're on. I'm sure we all want what's best for Thailand and agree democracy is the way forward. I can honestly see the arguments from every side, and whilst some are flat out wrong (i.e. PAD's "new politics"), I can certainly see there's a lot of truth in the arguments from both Abhisit supporters and reds, neither side is completely wrong, compromise is crucial. But compromise comes from talking, not gun battles & hate campaigns and I've stressed this to both sides...

[termad]

Considering the way that Abhisit came to power (after the previous democratically elected government was overthrown by the Military) I don't really understand why you accuse the red shirt movement of being anti democracy. I wonder what you will say when/if Phuea Thai win the next election with an overall majority? Will you trot out the same old accusation about the election being bought or will you accept that the Thai electorate have democratically elected a new goverment?

First of all, I don't think you understand how a parliamentary system of government works. It was not Mr. Abhiset who conducted the military coup. He was the elected government -- through parliamentary procedures -- after the military coup. If the Phuea Thai wins the next election...so be it. That's fine. But, the demonstrations and rioting and arson that occurred leading up to and on May 19 does not equal an election. If Phuea Thai wins an ELECTION, fine. If they riot, loot, and burn...that's not an election and that's not fine.

I don't believe anybody in Thailand doesn't believe that quite huge sums of money were on the table to get Newin Chidbob and his forty friends of Newin (all elected Phuea Thai MP's) to join the Democrats and form the Bhumjaithai party. Is that what you mean by democratic parliamentry procedures? The extensive press coverage at the time of Anupong with Newin (whilst the deal to buy the forty MP's was being brokered) and later photographs of Abhisit stolling with his arm around Newin's shoulder said it all.

[rubl]

I don't believe anybody in Thailand doesn't believe that quite huge sums of money were on the table to get Newin Chidbob and his forty friends of Newin (all elected Phuea Thai MP's) to join the Democrats and form the Bhumjaithai party. Is that what you mean by democratic parliamentry procedures? The extensive press coverage at the time of Anupong with Newin (whilst the deal to buy the forty MP's was being brokered) and later photographs of Abhisit stolling with his arm around Newin's shoulder said it all.

Some articles from December 2008:

""I do what I am obligated to do because I have to find a way out for Thailand, regardless of my personal feelings," he said explaining why he had distanced his faction from his Pheu Thai allies.

He said it was painful to have to turn down Thaksin's asking him to reaffirm his political loyalty. He still had fond memories of Thaksin's leadership and had no intention of |severing their ties."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090618.php

"How did Abhisit go from fighting Newin's "boss" to becoming his "boss" himself? If you are one of the Democrat leader's supporters, you can take heart in the fact that, in the current circumstances, there is no better way. It's either this, or we remain stuck in the detrimental PAD versus nominees showdown.

Or you can consider this a new form of coup d'etat. First, Newin's old boss was neutralised, then his party was disbanded and more legal traps were laid down, leaving all the rats with only one option. The military, it was alleged, also played a major role, telling the former Democrat rivals including Newin: "Join them, or else.""

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/opinion/opinion_30090636.php