No One Can Afford To Lose This Bruising Battle: Thai Talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK

No one can afford to lose this bruising battle

By Suthichai Yoon

The Nation

If Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva dissolves the House of Representatives in the first week of May, as he has promised to do, election day should fall on either June 26 or July 3. That means we have only 6-7 weeks before the Thai people are asked to decide who should receive the mandate to form the next government.

Three organic laws to implement the new constitutional amendments - mainly to reduce the number of constituent MPs to 375 and raise party list MPs to 125 - are awaiting the Senate's final approval in the second and third readings. Barring some last-minute obstacles, the passage is effectively assured.

The two major parties - the Democrats and Pheu Thai - have scheduled their election campaign "kick-off" dates: April 20 for the former and April 23 for Pheu Thai. Both are expected to roll out their respective populist policies to win votes, regardless of whether they can win the hearts and minds of the grassroots villagers or not.

To all intents and purposes, the upcoming election will boil down to a battle between PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

It's the Democrat Party's slogan "Move On With People's Policies" versus Pheu Thai's "Thaksin Thinks, Pheu Thai Acts." There is no doubting that Thaksin is pulling out all the stops to win this election because losing this battle would mean an indefinite extension of his stay abroad. His time is running out.

Abhisit can't afford to lose either. He sees this as a crucial test for his leadership. He needs a second term to enhance his legitimacy as a popularly elected prime minister, to shoot down Thaksin's standing charge that the Democrat leader "stole" the political prize from Pheu Thai, which still remains the biggest party in the House. Abhisit has insisted that he was chosen by a majority of MPs in the House to become PM - the same parliamentary system that propelled Somchai Wongsawat and Samak Sundaravaj (both Thaksin's nominees) to the premiership.

Political pundits are split on their predictions for the outcome of the election. One theory gives Pheu Thai a comfortable majority to form the next government, with little or no help from the medium-sized and small parties. In this scenario, the Democrats would be edged out to become the opposition party but with an effective number to keep a close watch on the Thaksin-led government.

The second scenario is that the Democrat Party, winning somewhere between 200 to 210 seats, would join with its existing partners - Bhumjai Thai and Chart Thai Pattana - to form the next government with more or less the same line-up as the present one.

If Pheu Thai wins big - close to 300 seats in a 500-member House - to form a single-party government, the big question is: How will Thaksin return to Thailand, and in what capacity?

Thaksin and his party's leaders have made it clear all along that once they manage to win the majority in the House, the first major move would be to amend relevant laws and orders to enable Thaksin to return to Thailand. How they would propose and pass laws to offer amnesty to Thaksin to avoid his two-year jail sentence remains unclear. And that probably is the most controversial and sensitive issue of all.

Most post-election projections are gloomy. If the Democrats can't win an absolute majority - and most public opinion polls suggest so - any attempt to form a coalition to pre-empt Pheu Thai would be met with strong "red-shirt" demonstrations that could further destabilise Thailand's politics.

On the other hand, if Pheu Thai follows through on its promise to get Thaksin back after forming the next government, strong protests could also surface. Add to that the possible negative reaction from certain military factions against Thaksin's return to power, whether directly or otherwise, and this could plunge the country into another extended period of chaos.

While the appeal from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) to cast a "No" vote in the upcoming election to neutralise the poll outcome may not stir any real political momentum, the Thai people's general mood remains edgy and nervous. Conspicuously absent from the pronouncements of the major political opponents in this new confrontation is the call for national reconciliation, no matter who wins or loses.

The politicians say this exercise is to return power to the people. But judging from the sabre-rattling from both sides now, this election looks more like the beginning of hand-to-hand combat in which neither side is willing to concede defeat, while the referee's hands are tied behind his back.

And in the end, the spectators will be the real losers.

-- The Nation 2011-04-21

[timekeeper]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

[jayboy]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

[gregb]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

Please. Give it a rest. Those lies get old. Thaksin was the one who ordered the red shirt protesters used as human shields to protect his armed thugs in black. Abhisit no more presided over a massacre than Thaksin won a Nobel peace prize. Abhisit did the best he could given a maniac who has no compunction about killing ordinary civilians for his own nefarious purposes. Thaksin ordered innocent people killed during his illegal war on drugs, and he ordered his own supporters put in harms way again during the red shirt terrorist campaign.

[jayboy]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

Please. Give it a rest. Those lies get old. Thaksin was the one who ordered the red shirt protesters used as human shields to protect his armed thugs in black. Abhisit no more presided over a massacre than Thaksin won a Nobel peace prize. Abhisit did the best he could given a maniac who has no compunction about killing ordinary civilians for his own nefarious purposes. Thaksin ordered innocent people killed during his illegal war on drugs, and he ordered his own supporters put in harms way again during the red shirt terrorist campaign.

There are several demonstrable errors in your post, but from the tone of your remarks it's probably not worth entering into a discussion.

[timekeeper]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

i think you got it the wrong way round, Thaksin financed an attempted overthrow of a legitimate government and in doing so, his paid for foot soldiers were killed in an exchange of fire which was begun by the reds, ''Men in Black'' Thaksin paid for mercenaries, killing soldiers trying to clear an illegally occupied area of Bangkok in April

after months of more deaths of police, army and civilians at the hands of the red revolutionaries, Abhisit and his elected officials together finally made the decision to remove them

they were warned to leave, they were warned a confrontation was imminent, they had the choice to leave and they knew should not have been there

those who stayed knew there was going to be shooting and they openly supported Thaksin's mercenaries like Sa Daeng

anyone who is involved in any illegal activities runs the risk of confrontation with the law.

no matter how you want to twist it around, had the Reds not been there illegally, there would have been no deaths

they came for a fight, they got one, they lost.

now they should man up and stop whining on about it

they got paid for attending the revolution, they got paid by the government and Thaksin for dying for it

i have no sympathy for them

if they want change use the ballot box not the gun

[ballpoint]

To all intents and purposes, the upcoming election will boil down to a battle between PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra.

But, for some parts of the country, it is very much seen by the people as simply a local battle between Thaksin and Newin. Many people looking more at local, rather than national, control. From what I've had said to me by many residents of Buri Ram, as long as Newin's men are in charge there they don't really care about who he aligns with to form the government.

[jayboy]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

i think you got it the wrong way round, Thaksin financed an attempted overthrow of a legitimate government and in doing so, his paid for foot soldiers were killed in an exchange of fire which was begun by the reds, ''Men in Black'' Thaksin paid for mercenaries, killing soldiers trying to clear an illegally occupied area of Bangkok in April

after months of more deaths of police, army and civilians at the hands of the red revolutionaries, Abhisit and his elected officials together finally made the decision to remove them

they were warned to leave, they were warned a confrontation was imminent, they had the choice to leave and they knew should not have been there

those who stayed knew there was going to be shooting and they openly supported Thaksin's mercenaries like Sa Daeng

anyone who is involved in any illegal activities runs the risk of confrontation with the law.

no matter how you want to twist it around, had the Reds not been there illegally, there would have been no deaths

they came for a fight, they got one, they lost.

now they should man up and stop whining on about it

they got paid for attending the revolution, they got paid by the government and Thaksin for dying for it

i have no sympathy for them

if they want change use the ballot box not the gun

It's a point of view but not one that stands up to serious analysis.I'm not suggesting that there aren't many that share these views.

You also make a number of factual errors which a study of the history and context might have avoided.It's astonishing how little research these foreign advocates of repression are prepared to do.

Picking up just one point, there is of course agreement that the ballot box rather than the gun is the best way forward.The fact you could make this point without apparently appreciating the irony is quite amusing.If you bothered to dig into the background you would understand that the Thai people have consistently expressed their wishes at the ballot box and have been frustrated by a greedy band of feudalists, criminal generals and corporate monopolists.

[hyperdimension]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You are sounding just like Robert Amsterdam. Do you see Amsterdam's writings as factual and unbiased?

Do you actually think that life in Thailand will be any better and more democratic with Thaksin back in power?

Edited April 21, 2011 by hyperdimension

[jayboy]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You are sounding just like Robert Amsterdam. Do you see Amsterdam's writings as factual and unbiased?

Do you actually think that life in Thailand will be any better and more democratic with Thaksin back in power?

If Robert Amsterdam made my quoted comment, then he is speaking no more than the truth.As far as the rest of his case it is clearly partisan, shining light where it seems to benefit Thaksin and avoiding scrutiny when it doesn't.Nevertheless there is much in his submission which is pertinent, and never properly discussed in Thailand.On this forum the Thaksin haters seem to prefer attacking Amsterdam personally rather than attempting a rational analysis of his case.

I don't think Thaksin is a suitable person to lead Thailand - too corrupt and too divisive, but he will remain influential as the politician who changed Thai politics forever.I believe Abhisit has the potential to be a great PM, but there will need to be many compromises - accepting the legitimacy of the red shirt movement, abandoning the greedy and cruel elite dominance, accepting democracy and above all getting the generals off his back.The latter are out of control and leading the country - if given the chance - to disaster.

[timekeeper]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

i think you got it the wrong way round, Thaksin financed an attempted overthrow of a legitimate government and in doing so, his paid for foot soldiers were killed in an exchange of fire which was begun by the reds, ''Men in Black'' Thaksin paid for mercenaries, killing soldiers trying to clear an illegally occupied area of Bangkok in April

after months of more deaths of police, army and civilians at the hands of the red revolutionaries, Abhisit and his elected officials together finally made the decision to remove them

they were warned to leave, they were warned a confrontation was imminent, they had the choice to leave and they knew should not have been there

those who stayed knew there was going to be shooting and they openly supported Thaksin's mercenaries like Sa Daeng

anyone who is involved in any illegal activities runs the risk of confrontation with the law.

no matter how you want to twist it around, had the Reds not been there illegally, there would have been no deaths

they came for a fight, they got one, they lost.

now they should man up and stop whining on about it

they got paid for attending the revolution, they got paid by the government and Thaksin for dying for it

i have no sympathy for them

if they want change use the ballot box not the gun

It's a point of view but not one that stands up to serious analysis.I'm not suggesting that there aren't many that share these views.

You also make a number of factual errors which a study of the history and context might have avoided.It's astonishing how little research these foreign advocates of repression are prepared to do.

Picking up just one point, there is of course agreement that the ballot box rather than the gun is the best way forward.The fact you could make this point without apparently appreciating the irony is quite amusing.If you bothered to dig into the background you would understand that the Thai people have consistently expressed their wishes at the ballot box and have been frustrated by a greedy band of feudalists, criminal generals and corporate monopolists.

its easy to say that i have erred without substantiating your claims

anyone can do that, if you are are really a history graduate then lets hear your corrections otherwise its simply red biased rhetoric spouted by someone who cannot give it ''serious analysis''

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

[koosdeboer]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You are sounding just like Robert Amsterdam. Do you see Amsterdam's writings as factual and unbiased?

Do you actually think that life in Thailand will be any better and more democratic with Thaksin back in power?

If Robert Amsterdam made my quoted comment, then he is speaking no more than the truth.As far as the rest of his case it is clearly partisan, shining light where it seems to benefit Thaksin and avoiding scrutiny when it doesn't.Nevertheless there is much in his submission which is pertinent, and never properly discussed in Thailand.On this forum the Thaksin haters seem to prefer attacking Amsterdam personally rather than attempting a rational analysis of his case.

I don't think Thaksin is a suitable person to lead Thailand - too corrupt and too divisive, but he will remain influential as the politician who changed Thai politics forever.I believe Abhisit has the potential to be a great PM, but there will need to be many compromises - accepting the legitimacy of the red shirt movement, abandoning the greedy and cruel elite dominance, accepting democracy and above all getting the generals off his back.The latter are out of control and leading the country - if given the chance - to disaster.

Maybe the following article is interesting reading http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MD13Ae01.html

ASIA HAND

Do or die for Thai democracy

By Shawn W Crispin

[jayboy]

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

[bkkbill]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

Please. Give it a rest. Those lies get old. Thaksin was the one who ordered the red shirt protesters used as human shields to protect his armed thugs in black. Abhisit no more presided over a massacre than Thaksin won a Nobel peace prize. Abhisit did the best he could given a maniac who has no compunction about killing ordinary civilians for his own nefarious purposes. Thaksin ordered innocent people killed during his illegal war on drugs, and he ordered his own supporters put in harms way again during the red shirt terrorist campaign.

There are several demonstrable errors in your post, but from the tone of your remarks it's probably not worth entering into a discussion.

And here I thought for once we wouldn't have to be subjected to the dribble.

[timekeeper]

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

really, and if i personally knew people who took the money for their vote?

would it still be nonsense?

[timekeeper]

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

and by side stepping the issues, you show yourself not to be capable of providing any evidential rebuttal to any of my assertions, hence you become what i accused you of :

just another red head spouting red biased rhetoric who cannot give it ''serious analysis''

[jayboy]

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

and by side stepping the issues, you show yourself not to be capable of providing any evidential rebuttal to any of my assertions, hence you become what i accused you of :

just another red head spouting red biased rhetoric who cannot give it ''serious analysis''

I will try and contain my disappointment at the end of our dialogue.

[timekeeper]

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

and by side stepping the issues, you show yourself not to be capable of providing any evidential rebuttal to any of my assertions, hence you become what i accused you of :

just another red head spouting red biased rhetoric who cannot give it ''serious analysis''

I will try and contain my disappointment at the end of our dialogue.

not to worry, you aren't the first red head to concede defeat, and with the election coming, you surely won't be the last............

[hyperdimension]

You are sounding just like Robert Amsterdam. Do you see Amsterdam's writings as factual and unbiased?

Do you actually think that life in Thailand will be any better and more democratic with Thaksin back in power?

If Robert Amsterdam made my quoted comment, then he is speaking no more than the truth.

You used the word "massacre", which Amsterdam also uses in describing the deaths, however it is an exaggeration as the definition of massacre is "kill a large number of people indiscriminately". What happened in Rwanda in 1994 was massacre.

And just because "Abhisit presided over" the events does it mean he is responsible? He only called in military to cordone off the main protest area, by which time there was substantial resistance from armed protesters before the soldiers even reached the Ratchaprasong area.

On this forum the Thaksin haters seem to prefer attacking Amsterdam personally rather than attempting a rational analysis of his case.

A major problems is that he writes proliferously and is paid to do it; analyzing and countering every absurd statement that he makes would be exhausting and not worth the effort for someone who is not paid to do so.

I don't think Thaksin is a suitable person to lead Thailand - too corrupt and too divisive, but he will remain influential as the politician who changed Thai politics forever.I believe Abhisit has the potential to be a great PM, but there will need to be many compromises - accepting the legitimacy of the red shirt movement, abandoning the greedy and cruel elite dominance, accepting democracy and above all getting the generals off his back.The latter are out of control and leading the country - if given the chance - to disaster.

So despite all the problems surrounding Abhisit and the current government, you do consider them as the better choice than Thaksin and Pheu Thai in the upcoming election. If Thaksin regains power I think your list of problems will remain and probably even grow. e.g. "the greedy and cruel elite dominance" is personified by Thaksin himself. He would want to gain as close to 100% control of the military as possible to prevent any coup against him and to ensure that they will attack without hesitation when he says so.

[jayboy]

So despite all the problems surrounding Abhisit and the current government, you do consider them as the better choice than Thaksin and Pheu Thai in the upcoming election. If Thaksin regains power I think your list of problems will remain and probably even grow. e.g. "the greedy and cruel elite dominance" is personified by Thaksin himself. He would want to gain as close to 100% control of the military as possible to prevent any coup against him and to ensure that they will attack without hesitation when he says so.

The question you ask about the choice in the next election is a fair one.To be honest I feel drawn both ways given my general support for Abhisit and the weakness of the Peua Thai leadership.If the Peua Thai was well led, I would vote for that party - all hypothetical of course because I don't have a vote.Generally I would support the choice of the Thai people, unlike the elite and their military backers who resort to criminal acts if the result goes the "wrong" way.

Your comment that Thaksin personifies the dominating elite is one I've heard before, but it's really not very intelligent.Yes he is a rich businessman of the political class.Is that your point?

I agree a re-elected Thaksin (doubtful but again in the realms of the hypothetical) would want to dominate the military, or at least neutralise it.Is it unreasonable to take steps to stop criminals within the military launching a coup against the wishes of the Thai people?

[hyperdimension]

If the Peua Thai was well led, I would vote for that party

Similarly, if there was a party in opposition whose politicians could match or exceed the integrity and competence of Abhisit and Korn and were not backed by the unelected elites, I would support them.

Generally I would support the choice of the Thai people

The problem is when Thai people don't base their decision informedly, and instead engage in vote buying and/or simply vote the way that their family or friends tell them to vote. Many don't even follow the news day to day and so aren't aware of what has been going on. They are easily influenced by propaganda, intimidation and some cash.

Your comment that Thaksin personifies the dominating elite is one I've heard before, but it's really not very intelligent.Yes he is a rich businessman of the political class.Is that your point?

You said that if Abhisit were to remain in power post-election, he would need to try "abandoning the greedy and cruel elite dominance". My point was that if instead Thaksin were to return to power, "the greedy and cruel elite dominance" would not be abandoned as you would like to happen but instead would be running the country. You say "he is a rich businessman of the political class", but a prime leader of a country should not be as blatantly corrupt and extremely self-enriching as he was.

I agree a re-elected Thaksin (doubtful but again in the realms of the hypothetical) would want to dominate the military, or at least neutralise it.Is it unreasonable to take steps to stop criminals within the military launching a coup against the wishes of the Thai people?

I think the wishes of the Thai people are far less a priority to him than his own goals of power and money. His reason for preventing a coup against him would be so that he could remain in power, regardless of the wishes of the Thai people. He would want to shift the loyalty of the military to serve him first and foremost, and with his cash it would not be impossible. You state "criminals within the military", but how different would that be if Thaksin, himself a criminal, was in control of the military, other than there being no more coups?

Edited April 21, 2011 by hyperdimension

[gregb]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

Please. Give it a rest. Those lies get old. Thaksin was the one who ordered the red shirt protesters used as human shields to protect his armed thugs in black. Abhisit no more presided over a massacre than Thaksin won a Nobel peace prize. Abhisit did the best he could given a maniac who has no compunction about killing ordinary civilians for his own nefarious purposes. Thaksin ordered innocent people killed during his illegal war on drugs, and he ordered his own supporters put in harms way again during the red shirt terrorist campaign.

There are several demonstrable errors in your post, but from the tone of your remarks it's probably not worth entering into a discussion.

And here I thought for once we wouldn't have to be subjected to the dribble.

Agreed. I'd love to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who could keep any degree of rational objectivity without resorting to the tired cliches. Sadly, I think Amsterdam pays far too much to allow any sort of honest discussion on the subject. It brings out the worst in me.

I have always been impressed by Suthichai Yoon's analysis of situations. He is one of the better Nation editors. It is interesting to hear his suggestion that if the election does not come off the way the red shirts want, they will take to the streets again rather than supporting the democracy they claim to want.

I've always thought their arguments that this wasn't a valid government because their elected representatives switched allegiances after the election was a hollow argument. It seems this time, even though every one now knows full well the proclivities of their representatives to maximize their own personal gain, Sutachai Yoon is suggesting they will protest against a legitimately elected government again if that government isn't run by them.

I guess we are doomed to repeat this charade until Thaksin runs out of money and can no longer finance the disinformation campaign which is funding these repeated protests against the democratic institutions. It just goes to show that nobody in Thailand truly wants democracy. All any of the groups actually want is control, and if they don't get it, they'll take to the streets.

Some days I wish we'd just have the civil war and get it over with. At least then we might be able to move on.

[seri thai]

its hard to think of another country that would allow a choice between a highly educated oxford graduate with an untarnished reputation and a cowardly, corrupt, convicted fugitive

TIT......

"Untruthful? My nephew Algernon? Impossible he is an Oxonian"

-Oscar Wilde

[Crushdepth]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You seem unaware of the Tak Bai incident where 85 muslims mysteriously suffocated, or Thaksin's war on drugs which left about 3,000 bodies behind.

As for 'unarmed protesters', I must assume you spent last year living down a hole in Afghanistan.

[rreddin]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You are sounding just like Robert Amsterdam. Do you see Amsterdam's writings as factual and unbiased?

Do you actually think that life in Thailand will be any better and more democratic with Thaksin back in power?

It is pointless asking a farang that question. We do not have a vote and our opinions count for nothing here. There are, however, very many Thais (who do have a vote) that believe life in Thailand would be better and more democratic for them if Mr Thaksin was back in power.

[jayboy]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You seem unaware of the Tak Bai incident where 85 muslims mysteriously suffocated, or Thaksin's war on drugs which left about 3,000 bodies behind.

As for 'unarmed protesters', I must assume you spent last year living down a hole in Afghanistan.

If you don't mind I will not discuss all this further with you.I don't mind debating well argued and knowledgeable opponents who hold very different views from my own.But I do require a basic level of knowledge and sophistication from interlocutors.All I can say is that these matters have been discussed many times on the forum and I'm sure you will find members who enjoy the verbal equivalent of a pub brawl.But it is not going to be me.

[jdinasia]

I would support the choice of the Thai people, unlike the elite and their military backers who resort to criminal acts if the result goes the "wrong" way.

A great description of the redshirt leaders, their late General Seh Daeng etc

That some people want to simplify the feudalistic hold that Thaksin and many of the other regional political machines hold over the rural electorate shouldn't surprise anyone that is familiar with propaganda. That the same people would describe the "widely popular" crackdown on an armed insurrection in the middle of Bangkok as a "massacre" and then avoid dealing with the repercussions of the war on drugs killing exponentially more innocents and not in the heat of battle or facing an armed enemy ..... well .... just more propaganda.

[gregb]

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You seem unaware of the Tak Bai incident where 85 muslims mysteriously suffocated, or Thaksin's war on drugs which left about 3,000 bodies behind.

As for 'unarmed protesters', I must assume you spent last year living down a hole in Afghanistan.

If you don't mind I will not discuss all this further with you.I don't mind debating well argued and knowledgeable opponents who hold very different views from my own.But I do require a basic level of knowledge and sophistication from interlocutors.All I can say is that these matters have been discussed many times on the forum and I'm sure you will find members who enjoy the verbal equivalent of a pub brawl.But it is not going to be me.

There is no point in having any discussions with Red Shirt True Believers. (RSTB) It has taken on all the elements of a religion, where the RSTB congregation refuses to believe any claims that their high priests are actually lying in most instances. The RSTB pope Thaksin speak excathedra, and that is all there is to it. The only people anyone in the RSTB church wants to speak with are those who can be converted.

I enjoy playing with the Jehova's Witnesses who occasionally show up at my door as well, but try and have any rational conversation with them and you quickly understand that it is impossible. They have their beliefs, and anything which contradicts that dogma is obviously wrong. Even if you could agree on most issues of morality, the fact that you could disagree on one of their most sacred tenets of the bible makes any kind of a meeting of the minds impossible.

So why don't we call this what it actually is, and move on. I know what Thaksin is, and I know the kind of people who support him. Some are genuinely well meaning, but still wrong. Yes, the military isn't great, but at least they acted when Thaksin tried to subvert the people of this kingdom. They have at least proved their willingness to step forward and try to do the right thing, and I will trust them over the RSTB fanatics any day. They carry their own set of toxins, which need to be dealt with, but first we have to expunge the chief toxin in this battle, Thaksin himself.

After the RSTB cult is broken up, maybe we can really start to have real conversations on what is going on in Thailand. Until that happens though, I doubt there is any point in discourse. It certainly serves no purpose with the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my village.

As to the actual subject matter, here's to hoping that Suthichai Yoon is wrong and that the red shirts respect the results of the election, even when it places them back in the opposition party.

[jdinasia]

In a strictly numerical way the extrajudicial murders of 2700+ (1400+ reputed to have no known ties to drugs) under Thaksin is worse than the deaths of 70+ people participating in an armed insurrection. I, however, did not make that point earlier. Instead I responded directly to someone that uses emotive language to describe the actions of the Thai security forces last April and May and diminishing language like "widely popular" and never "massacre" when describing the deaths that are exponentially higher in the war on drugs. The fact that many many Thai people were pushing for a crackdown on the reds for a long time during their takeover of downtown BKK, and the overall lack of political response from the electorate over the use of security forces to get the reds out of BKK, would in fact, suggest it was "widely popular." In fact, for the first time I can think of, security forces were used in BKK causing many deaths and the government did not fall. (Which, by the way, is why I think the reds went down that violent road, to force the government to fall!) These two events are "entwined" in how people diminish one and demonize the other, and when called on it, start using personal attacks to try and strengthen a spurious argument

[whybother]

If the Democrats can't win an absolute majority - and most public opinion polls suggest so - any attempt to form a coalition to pre-empt Pheu Thai would be met with strong "red-shirt" demonstrations that could further destabilise Thailand's politics.

If, after the election, the Democrats form a coalition along the same lines as they currently have, what reason will the red shirts use for their protests?

They've had their election (which they could have had 5-6 months ago). And the majority would have decided they don't want Thaksin in power.

What's to protest about?