Abhisit Slams Thai Govt On Issues About Thaksin

[gemini81]

Thanks for posting.

Nice audio on the Red Shirt grenade launch.

btw, rixalex... you're not alone in your astonishment.

.

No problem. Couple this with the infamous doctored audio recording of Abhisit, along with the fake claims about the army murders beforehand (army supposedly killing soldiers for betraying orders to shoot at red shirts - all proven lies), and it becomes pretty clear the whole campagin was a massive attempt to smear Abhisit, the army, and everybody else with authority who opposed Thaksin.

You can preach to the converted as much as you like, set up straw man arguments (doctored recordings etc), chatter hysterical propaganda but the awkward fact remains Abhisit has a case to answer on the deaths of civilians.In the official enquiries the army has refused to co-operate.To date the HRW report is (shockingly in my view) the only reliable report available but there are still many unanswered questions (including I agree the behaviour of redshirts).Abhisit as much as the army has tried to wriggle out of any kind of accountability.Despite all efforts this issue like this can't be swept away.Ask Mubarak.

Force was the only way, no other alternative with violents mobsters. He let them bed down longer than any other leader would ever even think of. Doesn't need more explanation, other than why they didn't crack down harder on those fools who laid siege to a city.

[hammered]

Here's some much needed perspective on which "people were shot"

IMO they got off very lightly indeed. But carrying on milking it - that is part of the plan, after all.

So the health worker, journos, photographers and those taken shelter in the agreed refuge of a temple all deserved what they got and infact got off lightly. The HRW report part on the temple incident is very worrying imho. This whole thing is screaming out for an impartial inquiry where evidence is legally required to be given. It isnt going to go away and until the truth is out there will be no healing and if it doesnt come out things wont be getting any better. The main opposition party is led by guy that many in the country think is responsible for a massacre and who isnt even being investigated. Where is that going to lead in a democracy. I would have though a decent man would have demanded he be investigated and stood aside refusing any role in his party until cleared. Enough people go on about all the bad things Thaksin has done and how he should leave poltics and Thailand alone and there is a good case in that arguement except when his claims of double standard seem to be justified in the way the teflon party and its leaders wander around with their sense of self entitlement and never ever face any problem whatever they do. How do people think that goes down with the vast rural mass who see the legal system as loaded in their daily life and who see young people form their villages shot down in the streets for demonstrating against a variety of overthrows of the governments they elected? It isnt surprising that so many sympathise with Thaksin and his legal woes and think it unfair

If only Abhisit and his dems had refused to accpet the coup or anything that came of it and if only they had not accepted power handed to them in some arcane deal and after they had spent months calling for Somchai etc to call an election things may have been a little different. If only the democrats and their leaders had actually once stood up for a democratic value instead of just lusting for power and anything that would remove their opponents. Hell they may have even sidelined Thaksin by having him stuck outside of the country with Abhisit and his boys leading the democracy clarion call against a military putsch instead of appearing to be quite into anything like that which helped them and their mates without involving any difficult choices or stands.

It didnt have to be like this for Abhisit and his party but they chose the easy route engineered by others for them and now they have to live what comes of it, and part of that is a refreshed ever popular and empowered Thaksin and made so as much as anything by the mistakes of the Dems and their shadowy allies

Edited September 16, 2011 by hammered

[rixalex]

And as for "Abhisit as much as the army has tried to wriggle out of any kind of accountability", IFAIR Abhisit has repeatedly stated he is prepared to answer questions about the clampdown, and has already stood through a parliament session - full of childish and pathetic shouted accusations from the likes of Chalerm and Juttaporn - and walked away with his reputation unscathed.

He may have said he is prepared to be accountable but to date has shown no signs of transparency or honesty on this issue.His whole demeanor is one of defensiveness, and resentment that any questions are asked at all.There has been no proper inquiry since the army has refused to co-operate.He has also failed to show any remorse or regret for the Thais mowed down on Bangkok streets.To say "not all redshirts are bad" is not sufficient.To be fair I think he has a reasonable case to make (and I certainly don't presume guilt) but he lacks the political skills and perhaps the basic humanity to make it.

You are demanding transparency for something that is in the main, already transparent. We know what happened. We saw what happened - or at least some of us did:

The reds were becoming more violent, were taunting the armed forces, and after weeks and weeks, were showing no sign of ever leaving the area they were illegally occupying. The government repeatedly told them to leave or stand the chance of being hurt whilst being forcefully removed. No different really from a policeman telling a suspect fleeing to stop, drop their weapon, or be shot.

Plenty of warning was given. Those who ignored the warning, suffered from that decision; their decision. I feel the same degree of sympathy as i do for the fleeing suspect who refuses to stop.

Where my sympathy does lie is with those who got injured or killed, and who had nothing to do with supporting the protest. This includes soldiers, reporters, medics etc. Them or their families should receive full apologies and compensation from those responsible. In the case of the authorities being the ones responsible, they may have a chance of receiving this. In the case of the red shirts being responsible, they have zero chance, judging on past history.

Abhisit has been 100 times more willing to stand up, man up, and look at his role in all of this than Thaksin ever has - he is still trotting out the tired old crap about him having had nothing to do with it. The pressure should be on him to accept responsibility, more than anybody else. It was his battle. It was him that led the red shirts to being on the street, breaking the law, in the first place.

[rixalex]

I totally agree with the buck stops with the leader of the government. Funnily enough those who disagree with this statement now were happy to cheer comments i made a few years ago using the same arguement to sat Thaksin should bear responsibility for the drug war deaths

You can't make the same argument when circumstances are completely different.

[Buchholz]

The astonishment deepens, rixalex.

.

[hammered]

I totally agree with the buck stops with the leader of the government. Funnily enough those who disagree with this statement now were happy to cheer comments i made a few years ago using the same arguement to sat Thaksin should bear responsibility for the drug war deaths

You can't make the same argument when circumstances are completely different.

Yes the drug war wasnt controversial at all and was cheerled by virtually everyone where as the Abhisit incident was highly controverisal definitely didnt have the support of the majority but was however equally avoidable. The Abhisit incident was more akin to the Suchinda one, or maybe to the actions against the what Im sure the defenders of Abhisit see as the illegal, violent and murderous uprisings against Gaddafi, Assad etc

Edited September 16, 2011 by hammered

[rixalex]

Enough people go on about all the bad things Thaksin has done and how he should leave poltics and Thailand alone and there is a good case in that arguement except when his claims of double standard seem to be justified in the way the teflon party and its leaders wander around with their sense of self entitlement and never ever face any problem whatever they do.

If you want to look at certain cases selectively, it's easy to make a case of the system being biased one way or another. The truth is, all sides have in their history, examples of times when they seemingly got off scot-free, and examples of times when they didn't.

Had the Dems just won the last election, with a banned politician blatantly as their frontman, or with a number of blatant lies in their campaigning, right now we would be hearing from all the reds about how it is that if it were them, the courts would have taken action, but because it is the Dems, nothing happens.

[rixalex]

The astonishment deepens, rixalex.

.

Indeed. Genuinely saddens me. Oh well...

[rixalex]

Yes the drug war wasnt controversial at all and was cheerled by virtually everyone where as the Abhisit incident was highly controverisal definitely didnt have the support of the majority but was however equally avoidable. The Abhisit incident was more akin to the Suchinda one, or maybe to the actions against the what Im sure the defenders of Abhisit see as the illegal, violent and murderous uprisings against Gaddafi, Assad etc

I think your memory has become clouded. My recollection after all those weeks of the military dithering, hesitating, and the reds becoming increasing entrenched in their position, was people thinking something along the lines of "for <deleted> sake, how much longer is this going to go on - Abhisit has to man up and deal with this, and remove these people by force, or he has to stand down". People wanted action. People were tired of the stalemate. And considering how out of control it all was at one point, to end up with the death figure that we did, was sad but surprising. Could have been much much higher.

[hammered]

Enough people go on about all the bad things Thaksin has done and how he should leave poltics and Thailand alone and there is a good case in that arguement except when his claims of double standard seem to be justified in the way the teflon party and its leaders wander around with their sense of self entitlement and never ever face any problem whatever they do.

If you want to look at certain cases selectively, it's easy to make a case of the system being biased one way or another. The truth is, all sides have in their history, examples of times when they seemingly got off scot-free, and examples of times when they didn't.

Had the Dems just won the last election, with a banned politician blatantly as their frontman, or with a number of blatant lies in their campaigning, right now we would be hearing from all the reds about how it is that if it were them, the courts would have taken action, but because it is the Dems, nothing happens.

That is how many many people and maybe a majority seethings and why however much people may want to argue against the notion they see the charges against Thaksin as poltical persecution and see no problem with disappearing those charges. It doesnt matter how hard his enemies want to argue he is a criminal. Huge numebrs will never buy that arguement. Their perception is Thaksin is the poor peoples rep in the elite and because of that he is persecuted in ways others avoid. Thaksin has cleverly linked his fate to their fate. Undoing that is going to be difficult as it seems his party could run a hampster for PM and a set of gerbil for every MP position and still anhialate Abhisit and his party, so in the end it is going to come down to a deal The problem is that the longer that is put off the stronger Thaksin's hand becomes. His weakest point electorally was Samak. Now he is stronger there and that will likely increase as his party undoes all the careful appointments made by Suthep and BJT and likely undoes all the charter changes that BJT and the Dems made to advantage them. A large and important part of the Thai print media has also given up on the anti-Thaksin all the time stuff and the reds are less scared too now. Momentum is with Thaksins side

[Thai at Heart]

Here's some much needed perspective on which "people were shot"

IMO they got off very lightly indeed. But carrying on milking it - that is part of the plan, after all.

So the health worker, journos, photographers and those taken shelter in the agreed refuge of a temple all deserved what they got and infact got off lightly. The HRW report part on the temple incident is very worrying imho. This whole thing is screaming out for an impartial inquiry where evidence is legally required to be given. It isnt going to go away and until the truth is out there will be no healing and if it doesnt come out things wont be getting any better. The main opposition party is led by guy that many in the country think is responsible for a massacre and who isnt even being investigated. Where is that going to lead in a democracy. I would have though a decent man would have demanded he be investigated and stood aside refusing any role in his party until cleared. Enough people go on about all the bad things Thaksin has done and how he should leave poltics and Thailand alone and there is a good case in that arguement except when his claims of double standard seem to be justified in the way the teflon party and its leaders wander around with their sense of self entitlement and never ever face any problem whatever they do. How do people think that goes down with the vast rural mass who see the legal system as loaded in their daily life and who see young people form their villages shot down in the streets for demonstrating against a variety of overthrows of the governments they elected? It isnt surprising that so many sympathise with Thaksin and his legal woes and think it unfair

If only Abhisit and his dems had refused to accpet the coup or anything that came of it and if only they had not accepted power handed to them in some arcane deal and after they had spent months calling for Somchai etc to call an election things may have been a little different. If only the democrats and their leaders had actually once stood up for a democratic value instead of just lusting for power and anything that would remove their opponents. Hell they may have even sidelined Thaksin by having him stuck outside of the country with Abhisit and his boys leading the democracy clarion call against a military putsch instead of appearing to be quite into anything like that which helped them and their mates without involving any difficult choices or stands.

It didnt have to be like this for Abhisit and his party but they chose the easy route engineered by others for them and now they have to live what comes of it, and part of that is a refreshed ever popular and empowered Thaksin and made so as much as anything by the mistakes of the Dems and their shadowy allies

The problem is that I am sure that the army have got someone high up in the Democrats absolving them of any responsiblity for what went on that day. I really do not think that there is much to be gained by chasing after who may have committed any crime that day. It was a very sad day for Thailand, and I don't think raking over the coals is going to bring any type of reconciliation at all. In fact I believe it will make it worse.

[hammered]

Yes the drug war wasnt controversial at all and was cheerled by virtually everyone where as the Abhisit incident was highly controverisal definitely didnt have the support of the majority but was however equally avoidable. The Abhisit incident was more akin to the Suchinda one, or maybe to the actions against the what Im sure the defenders of Abhisit see as the illegal, violent and murderous uprisings against Gaddafi, Assad etc

I think your memory has become clouded. My recollection after all those weeks of the military dithering, hesitating, and the reds becoming increasing entrenched in their position, was people thinking something along the lines of "for <deleted> sake, how much longer is this going to go on - Abhisit has to man up and deal with this, and remove these people by force, or he has to stand down". People wanted action. People were tired of the stalemate. And considering how out of control it all was at one point, to end up with the death figure that we did, was sad but surprising. Could have been much much higher.

Im not in Bangkok. A lot of people favoured an instant election if truth be told including many who werent Thaksin fans, but who basically just see the election as the best way out of poltical crisis in a democracy. While the reds insistance on not waiting 6 months was a negative for them, so too was Abhsiits refusal to call a snap election. People I know didnt want to see death whatever side they were on as the resulting intractable polarization was going to mena there would be lsoers and most anti-Thaksinistas know waht side the majority are on

An interesting question would be, would Abhisit and his party have fared so badly as they did earlier this year if they had called a snap election back then?

[asiascharlie]

Anyone who would slam Abhist for trying to keep Thaksin 2.0 out of government has little understanding of what is happening in Thailand .Thaksin has divided this country and will push it to the brink of civil war and yet you buffaloes still moo about democracy .Thakisn never has and never will have anything to do with democracy .He doesnt even like it as stated by he himself .This sad chapter in Thai politics has only shown that given the chance the law can be totally disregarded and money talks and country who cares . Promising the poor unsustainable handouts is beyond low especially when you have no intent of delivering .Abhisit was here before the low life that is Thaksin and he will be here long after because he fights the fight everyday .He doesnt run away when he isnt able to bribe the judges to forget the law for him .

[asiascharlie]

addressed to forum not just you hammered sorry

[rixalex]

Yes the drug war wasnt controversial at all and was cheerled by virtually everyone where as the Abhisit incident was highly controverisal definitely didnt have the support of the majority but was however equally avoidable. The Abhisit incident was more akin to the Suchinda one, or maybe to the actions against the what Im sure the defenders of Abhisit see as the illegal, violent and murderous uprisings against Gaddafi, Assad etc

I think your memory has become clouded. My recollection after all those weeks of the military dithering, hesitating, and the reds becoming increasing entrenched in their position, was people thinking something along the lines of "for <deleted> sake, how much longer is this going to go on - Abhisit has to man up and deal with this, and remove these people by force, or he has to stand down". People wanted action. People were tired of the stalemate. And considering how out of control it all was at one point, to end up with the death figure that we did, was sad but surprising. Could have been much much higher.

Im not in Bangkok. A lot of people favoured an instant election if truth be told including many who werent Thaksin fans, but who basically just see the election as the best way out of poltical crisis in a democracy. While the reds insistance on not waiting 6 months was a negative for them, so too was Abhsiits refusal to call a snap election. People I know didnt want to see death whatever side they were on as the resulting intractable polarization was going to mena there would be lsoers and most anti-Thaksinistas know waht side the majority are on

An interesting question would be, would Abhisit and his party have fared so badly as they did earlier this year if they had called a snap election back then?

I think they would have fared much better but that was their decision to make, and i would defend their right to it, just as i would now if an armed group took to the streets demanding that Yingluck call an immediate snap election.

Had Abhisit caved in to their demands, the election that would have followed, would most likely have been fraught with irregularities - more fraught than normal i mean - and we could well have ended up in the exact same position, with a group on the streets demanding new elections because they didn't like the outcome.

Holding strong, as Abhisit did, kept us on the democratic track, whereby those in power get to see out their term, and then offer the power up, and if needs be, hand it over, when they call the election.

[jayboy]

We know what happened. We saw what happened - or at least some of us did:

Where my sympathy does lie is with those who got injured or killed, and who had nothing to do with supporting the protest. This includes soldiers, reporters, medics etc. Them or their families should receive full apologies and compensation from those responsible. In the case of the authorities being the ones responsible, they may have a chance of receiving this. In the case of the red shirts being responsible, they have zero chance, judging on past history.

Sometimes it's not necessary to provide counterarguments when views are expressed that so clearly pigeon hole the poster.I think we understand exactly what you are saying.

I'm sure that many will agree with you, indeed will be "astonished" that anybody should question the establishment's narrative.Intellectual curiosity is not for everyone.

Those who don't have the benefit of "knowing exactly what happened" will continue to discuss and debate.

[rixalex]

We know what happened. We saw what happened - or at least some of us did:

Where my sympathy does lie is with those who got injured or killed, and who had nothing to do with supporting the protest. This includes soldiers, reporters, medics etc. Them or their families should receive full apologies and compensation from those responsible. In the case of the authorities being the ones responsible, they may have a chance of receiving this. In the case of the red shirts being responsible, they have zero chance, judging on past history.

Sometimes it's not necessary to provide counterarguments when views are expressed that so clearly pigeon hole the poster.I think we understand exactly what you are saying.

I'm sure that many will agree with you, indeed will be "astonished" that anybody should question the establishment's narrative.Intellectual curiosity is not for everyone.

Those who don't have the benefit of "knowing exactly what happened" will continue to discuss and debate.

I don't follow the "establishment's narrative", or anybody else's for that matter, i follow what i witnessed with my own eyes, as someone living and working in Bangkok throughout it all. Do you have yourself any first-hand experiences to call upon in the forming of opinion in this matter? Just curious. Not for a minute suggesting an opinion formed in the absence of would have no value, just that it might add some strength.

With regards your snide insults, for which you are sadly but undoubtedly renowned - in these parts at least (i'm quite sure that in person you are far more civil) - they, as always, get the response they deserve; that being, none.

[JurgenG]

Anyone who would slam Abhist for trying to keep Thaksin 2.0 out of government has little understanding of what is happening in Thailand .Thaksin has divided this country and will push it to the brink of civil war and yet you buffaloes still moo about democracy .Thakisn never has and never will have anything to do with democracy .He doesnt even like it as stated by he himself .This sad chapter in Thai politics has only shown that given the chance the law can be totally disregarded and money talks and country who cares . Promising the poor unsustainable handouts is beyond low especially when you have no intent of delivering .Abhisit was here before the low life that is Thaksin and he will be here long after because he fights the fight everyday .He doesnt run away when he isnt able to bribe the judges to forget the law for him .

You completely missed the point. Until 2005, early 2006, Thailand was a normal country, with a party in power and an opposition. Some people were supporting one side, others the other side. But there was no hate, no fight.

Then came Sondhi, a local Rupert Murdoch in more evil (yes, it's possible). Thaksin refused to bail him out when he went bankrupt, so Sondhi set up the PAD with a bunch of loonies friend of him, with an obsession : destroy Thaksin. He started by a campaign of defamation for which he was later convicted, all the lies and half truth of the evil doing of Thaksin come from there, Then there were fight in the street, occupation of the government house (yes, the government house !), they shut down the airport. Then Sondhi organized witch hunts on Facebook, if you know a Thaksin supporter, name and shame them , get them fired. If you think about it, Mao and his cultural revolution was an amateur compared to Sondhi, Fortunately, Thai are of the indolent kind and western countries were able to rein the army.

And what did Abhisit did during the unrest ? Nothing at all ! Only later he ditched his old friends from the PAD when they became a liability (hence the "no" vote). How can you trust someone who betrayed everybody ?

Everything is facts. If someone doesn't agree, lets discuss about it.

Edited September 16, 2011 by JurgenG

[Crushdepth]

Anyone who would slam Abhist for trying to keep Thaksin 2.0 out of government has little understanding of what is happening in Thailand .Thaksin has divided this country and will push it to the brink of civil war and yet you buffaloes still moo about democracy .Thakisn never has and never will have anything to do with democracy .He doesnt even like it as stated by he himself .This sad chapter in Thai politics has only shown that given the chance the law can be totally disregarded and money talks and country who cares . Promising the poor unsustainable handouts is beyond low especially when you have no intent of delivering .Abhisit was here before the low life that is Thaksin and he will be here long after because he fights the fight everyday .He doesnt run away when he isnt able to bribe the judges to forget the law for him .

You completely missed the point. Until 2005, early 2006, Thailand was a normal country, with a party in power and an opposition. Some people were supporting one side, others the other side. But there was no hate, no fight.

Then came Sondhi, a local Rupert Murdoch in more evil (yes, it's possible). Thaksin refused to bail him out when he went bankrupt, so Sondhi set up the PAD with a bunch of loonies friend of him, with an obsession : destroy Thaksin. He started by a campaign of defamation for which he was later convicted, all the lies and half truth of the evil doing of Thaksin come from there, Then there were fight in the street, occupation of the government house (yes, the government house !), they shut down the airport. Then Sondhi organized witch hunts on Facebook, if you know a Thaksin supporter, name and shame them , get them fired. If you think about it, Mao and his cultural revolution was an amateur compared to Sondhi, Fortunately, Thai are of the indolent kind and western countries were able to rein the army.

And what did Abhisit did during the unrest ? Nothing at all ! Only later he ditched his old friends from the PAD when they became a liability (hence the "no" vote). How can you trust someone who betrayed everybody ?

Everything is facts. If someone doesn't agree, lets discuss about it.

Oh come on. There was a *huge* build up in resentment towards Thaksin for years ahead of the coup that had *nothing* to do with Sondhi and everything to do with the way Thaksin conducted himself. It was this resentment that made PAD possible, without it the demonstrations would never have happened.

[rixalex]

Anyone who would slam Abhist for trying to keep Thaksin 2.0 out of government has little understanding of what is happening in Thailand .Thaksin has divided this country and will push it to the brink of civil war and yet you buffaloes still moo about democracy .Thakisn never has and never will have anything to do with democracy .He doesnt even like it as stated by he himself .This sad chapter in Thai politics has only shown that given the chance the law can be totally disregarded and money talks and country who cares . Promising the poor unsustainable handouts is beyond low especially when you have no intent of delivering .Abhisit was here before the low life that is Thaksin and he will be here long after because he fights the fight everyday .He doesnt run away when he isnt able to bribe the judges to forget the law for him .

You completely missed the point. Until 2005, early 2006, Thailand was a normal country, with a party in power and an opposition. Some people were supporting one side, others the other side. But there was no hate, no fight.

The hate and the fight all began back in 2001 when Thaksin went to ridiculous and blatant lengths to try and hide his assets, and was found not guilty by judges who admitted they had cowered to him and his electoral mandate. That was the catalyst for all that followed. It emboldened Thaksin and his party into believing that providing they could win the vote, laws did not apply to them, and especially not if they could install family members into top positions throughout all departments, which is exactly what they proceeded to do. This is what sowed the seeds of hatred and fight for many, and Sondhi simply used this - yes, more than likely for his own personal reasons - but he didn't have to pay people to follow him, they had their own reasons, especially so when Thaksin pushed through that really stinky deal in selling his business. For many he had simply gone too far. He didn't care about democracy, and stated as much. The coup came and nobody came out to stand in front of the tanks. They were welcomed with flowers. That said it all.

[JurgenG]

Just want to make my point clear.

Yes, before Sondhi, a lot of people didn't like Thaksin, like a lot of people don't like Blair, Bush, Sakorzy, Obama ... But they were no hate, at least not at the average voter level. I remember the last election before the coup, my gf made a mistake and voted for Thaksin (her representative in our area). Later she was scolded by her friend but she was laughing at her mistake. When we went to vote on July 3, nobody was laughing.

The turning point is Sondhi with the PAD and his Manager news site. Everyday the hate was going up a notch. I live with a democrat, I really saw the evolution on a daily basis, I know what I'm talking about.

[Buchholz]

You completely missed the point. Until 2005, early 2006, Thailand was a normal country, with a party in power and an opposition. Some people were supporting one side, others the other side. But there was no hate, no fight.

Then came Sondhi, a local Rupert Murdoch in more evil (yes, it's possible). Thaksin refused to bail him out when he went bankrupt, so Sondhi set up the PAD with a bunch of loonies friend of him, with an obsession : destroy Thaksin. He started by a campaign of defamation for which he was later convicted, all the lies and half truth of the evil doing of Thaksin come from there, Then there were fight in the street, occupation of the government house (yes, the government house !), they shut down the airport. Then Sondhi organized witch hunts on Facebook, if you know a Thaksin supporter, name and shame them , get them fired. If you think about it, Mao and his cultural revolution was an amateur compared to Sondhi, Fortunately, Thai are of the indolent kind and western countries were able to rein the army.

And what did Abhisit did during the unrest ? Nothing at all ! Only later he ditched his old friends from the PAD when they became a liability (hence the "no" vote). How can you trust someone who betrayed everybody ?

Everything is facts.

thanks for the laughable rendition...

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Facebook witch hunts getting people fired...

[JurgenG]

^

The witch hunt has been widely documented, made the first page of manager a couple of time.

For the other items, I guess the fact you are unusually speechless means you have nothing to object ?

More precisely, you can't object anything

Edited September 16, 2011 by JurgenG

[rixalex]

Just want to make my point clear.

Yes, before Sondhi, a lot of people didn't like Thaksin, like a lot of people don't like Blair, Bush, Sakorzy, Obama ... But they were no hate, at least not at the average voter level. I remember the last election before the coup, my gf made a mistake and voted for Thaksin (her representative in our area). Later she was scolded by her friend but she was laughing at her mistake. When we went to vote on July 3, nobody was laughing.

The turning point is Sondhi with the PAD and his Manager news site. Everyday the hate was going up a notch. I live with a democrat, I really saw the evolution on a daily basis, I know what I'm talking about.

But they were no hate, at least not at the average voter level.

In the spirit of making your point clear, could you expand a little on precisely what the term "average voter level" means, and how it is you know what this group, whoever they are, were thinking.

[JurgenG]

^ Sorry, can't reply this one, it's getting too personal.

But as I'm in a generous mood, so I want to share these words of wisdom from Ortega y Gasset, a great Spanis thinker :

"When a lot of people agree on something, it's either a stupid idea or a beautiful woman."

Abhisit or Yingluck

One more :

"I love talking about nothing. It's the only thing I know anything about"

Oscar Wilde

Edited September 16, 2011 by JurgenG

[serenitynow]

And as for "Abhisit as much as the army has tried to wriggle out of any kind of accountability", IFAIR Abhisit has repeatedly stated he is prepared to answer questions about the clampdown, and has already stood through a parliament session - full of childish and pathetic shouted accusations from the likes of Chalerm and Juttaporn - and walked away with his reputation unscathed.

He may have said he is prepared to be accountable but to date has shown no signs of transparency or honesty on this issue.His whole demeanor is one of defensiveness, and resentment that any questions are asked at all.There has been no proper inquiry since the army has refused to co-operate.He has also failed to show any remorse or regret for the Thais mowed down on Bangkok streets.To say "not all redshirts are bad" is not sufficient.To be fair I think he has a reasonable case to make (and I certainly don't presume guilt) but he lacks the political skills and perhaps the basic humanity to make it.

Where else have you seen examples of democratically elected leaders standing in the dock recently? It ain't gonna happen. Nor will Thaksin be judged for his southern massacres, war on drugs or murdering security personnel and his own gullible cannon fodder from last year. There's no justice here, only naked power, which until Abhisit came along, we used to watch you worship at the altar of. as you do once again now.

[gemini81]

Anyone who would slam Abhist for trying to keep Thaksin 2.0 out of government has little understanding of what is happening in Thailand .Thaksin has divided this country and will push it to the brink of civil war and yet you buffaloes still moo about democracy .Thakisn never has and never will have anything to do with democracy .He doesnt even like it as stated by he himself .This sad chapter in Thai politics has only shown that given the chance the law can be totally disregarded and money talks and country who cares . Promising the poor unsustainable handouts is beyond low especially when you have no intent of delivering .Abhisit was here before the low life that is Thaksin and he will be here long after because he fights the fight everyday .He doesnt run away when he isnt able to bribe the judges to forget the law for him .

You nailed it. Along with his honesty, his traits persevere beyond crooks.

[bangkokrick]

Abhisit positions himself as the (seen) leader of the prevent Thaksin from returning side.

Abhisit's criticism of the transfers wouldnt be as hollow if his government hadnt made many many times more to fill positions with their political mates.

Abhisit's call on the government to state they were not treating Thaksin specially would not ring so hollow if his government hadnt made Thaksin a special case with a foreign minister dedicated to houding the man around the globe while doing utterly nothing to bring home such notables as Kamnan Poh and Vattana who reportedly reside just over the border.

Two sides of the same coin with power reversed but this time by a decisive electoral decision. One would think that Abhisit would be concentrating on a different issue to that which saw his party thumped at the recent election if he were looking to future electoral success. Maybe he isnt looking at that route to power however

They were hardly thumped, but yes they are in power and the sole reason id to bring back Thaksin how ever much they try to deny it. Yingluck has hardly been vocal since she got into power, except for matters including her brother.

[Buchholz]

^

The witch hunt has been widely documented, made the first page of manager a couple of time.

For the other items, I guess the fact you are unusually speechless means you have nothing to object ?

More precisely, you can't object anything

I'd just love to start with the so-called "witch hunt" on Facebook.

Share your "widely documented" material with the forum, please. I consider myself fairly informed and this is the first I hear of its mention.

For other items, they can come in due time, but I'd like to hear about this Facebook situation that somehow ranks in the Top #5 important events.

Of all the cockamamie going-on's in Thailand over the past 5 years and you consider worthy enough to be mentioned in a short paragraph summation of the time just seems strange given what I've so far learned of it so far, after looking it up.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Buchholz

[rubl]

Just want to make my point clear.

Yes, before Sondhi, a lot of people didn't like Thaksin, like a lot of people don't like Blair, Bush, Sakorzy, Obama ... But they were no hate, at least not at the average voter level. I remember the last election before the coup, my gf made a mistake and voted for Thaksin (her representative in our area). Later she was scolded by her friend but she was laughing at her mistake. When we went to vote on July 3, nobody was laughing.

The turning point is Sondhi with the PAD and his Manager news site. Everyday the hate was going up a notch. I live with a democrat, I really saw the evolution on a daily basis, I know what I'm talking about.

As you know what you are talking about I assume you are also knowledgable on PTV broadcasts (shoutcasts ?), doctored tapes, maybe red-shirt schools operated by Dr. weng and his wife. K. Abhisit has been demonised in a way that he can probably not walk around safely in a larger part of the North-East of Thailand. Whereas k. Sondhi has been charged for defamation a few times, none of the UDD leaders turned MP have seen their cases progress that far yet.

This current government is seen very busy with k. Thaksin as related in the OP. Well maybe the day will come with his children waiting to see. I think it was you who first wrote 'one man, one party, no compromise'. Pray tell me, ever heard about democracy?