No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[tlansford]

then why didn't he just say "I will call for dissolving parliament on such & such date - no strings attached?

He did not say that. Why not? That would have been an honest offer.

Because their were strings attached ... like "End your protest". It seems the red shirts couldn't accept that condition.

BS

[tlansford]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see.

But you've seen the posts, and you know better.

Shame, shame, ...

They agreed to the deal and subsequently reneged.

That is where the shame shoud lie.

No, no, no - answer the other question - why didn't Abhisit just say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" ??

Because he wasn't intending to ... ?

Anyway, once you guys go back to all the conditions laid on by Abhisit, come back and tell me that you honestly would have take that deal yourself if you had been one of the protester.

(The posts are on TVF and if I had the time or the desire to look them up for you, I would, but I don't. AFAIK, Mr Photobucket-can-find-anything-in-30-seconds hasn't bothered, why should I ?)

[OzMick]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see.

But you've seen the posts, and you know better.

Shame, shame, ...

They agreed to the deal and subsequently reneged.

That is where the shame shoud lie.

No, no, no - answer the other question - why didn't Abhisit just say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" ??

Because he wasn't intending to ... ?

Anyway, once you guys go back to all the conditions laid on by Abhisit, come back and tell me that you honestly would have take that deal yourself if you had been one of the protester.

(The posts are on TVF and if I had the time or the desire to look them up for you, I would, but I don't. AFAIK, Mr Photobucket-can-find-anything-in-30-seconds hasn't bothered, why should I ?)

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

[phiphidon]

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

So what is it that makes the democrats unelectable? One minute it's because the PTP cheat and buy election votes, than it's because of their populist policies, now it's because of the unrest in April/May............what's it to be?

[whybother]

then why didn't he just say "I will call for dissolving parliament on such & such date - no strings attached?

He did not say that. Why not? That would have been an honest offer.

Because their were strings attached ... like "End your protest". It seems the red shirts couldn't accept that condition.

BS

What strings were attached then?

[Thaddeus]

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

So what is it that makes the democrats unelectable? One minute it's because the PTP cheat and buy election votes, than it's because of their populist policies, now it's because of the unrest in April/May............what's it to be?

Isn't there just a teensy weensy chance it could be all of the above.

[whybother]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see.

But you've seen the posts, and you know better.

Shame, shame, ...

They agreed to the deal and subsequently reneged.

That is where the shame shoud lie.

No, no, no - answer the other question - why didn't Abhisit just say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" ??

Because he wasn't intending to ... ?

Anyway, once you guys go back to all the conditions laid on by Abhisit, come back and tell me that you honestly would have take that deal yourself if you had been one of the protester.

(The posts are on TVF and if I had the time or the desire to look them up for you, I would, but I don't. AFAIK, Mr Photobucket-can-find-anything-in-30-seconds hasn't bothered, why should I ?)

Abhisit offered a specific date for the election with the acceptance of 5 conditions:

1) Keep the monarchy out of politics.

2) Reform to resolve problems in politics.

3) Media freedom.

4) Establishment of an independent committee to investigate April 10.

5) Reform "injustices" in the political system.

[OzMick]

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

So what is it that makes the democrats unelectable? One minute it's because the PTP cheat and buy election votes, than it's because of their populist policies, now it's because of the unrest in April/May............what's it to be?

No need to be obtuse Don. It was part of PTP's campaign that the Democrats were murderers responsible for 93 deaths. Repeat a lie often enough and some people will believe it, especially those predisposed by nature and nurture to gullibility.

[phiphidon]

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

So what is it that makes the democrats unelectable? One minute it's because the PTP cheat and buy election votes, than it's because of their populist policies, now it's because of the unrest in April/May............what's it to be?

Isn't there just a teensy weensy chance it could be all of the above.

No you're right, there can't possibly be any other reason why the dems have not won an election in 20 years...................

[tlansford]

looks like the TVF geriatrics ward, ... one of the last times this was mentioned was only 2 months ago.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5252411

But there have been many others as well.

For those too set in their views to either remember or to search for the information, you're welcome.

Edited June 27, 2012 by tlansford

[gemini81]

Of course, it was a much better idea to continue escalating the mindless violence until the inevitable crackdown was ordered. Then any and all that occur could be blamed on the government severely reducing their re-election chances. It's called strategic thinking.

So what is it that makes the democrats unelectable? One minute it's because the PTP cheat and buy election votes, than it's because of their populist policies, now it's because of the unrest in April/May............what's it to be?

Those are the reasons, you put them together all by yourself. Now you know (and we are aware you know) Media coverage painting them as protestors and victims was another misleading concept...they're just money hungry bums looking for handouts, recalling the days Thaksin offered loans for them to follishly use.

Had they burnt your apartment/condo down, would you still feel them same? What if you had a business that was shut down because of them? Still smiling and kissing their butts?

Edited June 27, 2012 by gemini81

[weka]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

[tlansford]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, it is also incorrect, nor would I know how you could possibly know my where-abouts at the time.

Given that the groups which eventually came under the umbrella of the UDD were formed in opposition to yet another coup in Thailand and due to the fact that many of these groups viewed the government of the day (it's hard not to reference the Democratic party, but I'll do my best) as coming to power in a judicial coup, do you not imagine that these same groups would have felt that, indeed, they were fighting for democracy by not permitting the same power-brokers who orchestrated the 2006 coup take away yet another democratically elected government? Is it so hard to imagine how these people might have felt and recognize that in their view, they were fighting for their rights to live in a democracy - in fact for the rights of all Thais to live in a democracy and not under the thumb of the military power brokers and their pawns (oops, another reference to the democrats - shucks, ...)

And if they had not fought for elections and democracy, why would they have expected the next election results to be respected by these same people?

That there were mistakes, miscalculations, and violence on all sides in 2010 is clear. There is no justification for the violence on either side, but the protests against the government of the day - that seems like the right thing to have done for Thais who believed in democracy.

Edited June 27, 2012 by tlansford

[Thaddeus]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant,

It is very relevant.

[nurofiend]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest?

[whybother]

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest?

It is not just "protest", it is "protest that way".

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant,

It is very relevant.

how is it relevant?

unless you were on the ground in the thick of the protests, it's not.

and even still, i have mates who were in the middle of it when trouble came to the khao san area, i certainly don't give their opinion on the 2010 protests in thailand any more merit than anyone else who is well read up enough about it.

i was in cm at the time, do i get some brownie points?

or does it just count if you were in bangkok, maybe looking out a window or watching the tv.

there's certainly enough footage of it available that you didn't 'have to be there man'.

unless you were a journalist or something, out there everyday, interviewing people etc. i don't see the relevance of being in thailand at the time!

[nurofiend]

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest?

It is not just "protest", it is "protest that way".

Sent from my shoe phone

whatever about how it turned out, i was asking what was the alternative to having a protest... it's a fair question.

i wasn't interested in getting into a 10 page who shot first argument which is what your reply would lead to.

[scorecard]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television. But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles. The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see. But you've seen the posts, and you know better. Shame, shame, ...

They agreed to the deal and subsequently reneged. That is where the shame shoud lie.

No, no, no - answer the other question - why didn't Abhisit just say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" ?? Because he wasn't intending to ... ? Anyway, once you guys go back to all the conditions laid on by Abhisit, come back and tell me that you honestly would have take that deal yourself if you had been one of the protester. (The posts are on TVF and if I had the time or the desire to look them up for you, I would, but I don't. AFAIK, Mr Photobucket-can-find-anything-in-30-seconds hasn't bothered, why should I ?)

So you seem to suggest that abhisit was totally obliged to say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" and step down.

Obliged under what regulation or whatever?

Why should he have stepped down, he was the PM and doing what he believed was right and appropriate and in the best interests of all Thais.

As stated many times, and again above, abhisit offered a deal about elections within a few months, the reds / udd agreed then reniged, and it doesn't take much analysis to know why they reniged.

Edited June 28, 2012 by scorecard

[nurofiend]

So you seem to suggest that abhisit was totally obliged to say "I will dissolve parliament on this day" and step down.

Obliged under what regulation or whatever?

Why should he have stepped down, he was the PM and doing what he believed was right and appropriate and in the best interests of all Thais.

As stated many times, and again above, abhisit offered a deal about elections within a few months, the reds / udd agreed then reniged, and it doesn't take much analysis to know why they reniged.

why did they reneged?

[weka]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest?

That's my point, why was it necessary to have EARLY elections? We all got the point that most Thais (aligned to either party) wanted an election. Why trash the place to get what was eventually coming?

[nurofiend]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

ok give me a plausible, now please note the importance of the word plausible, alternative for them to get early elections other than a public protest?

That's my point, why was it necessary to have EARLY elections? We all got the point that most Thais (aligned to either party) wanted an election. Why trash the place to get what was eventually coming?

because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament.

they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country.

[weka]

So, PPD and TL, was it really necessary for the red shirts to close that part of Bangkok to get an election win? Really? Even at the time without the aid of hindsight, and given the votes they had in the bag, (it seems you weren't here then TL, but you seem to have a handle on EVERYTHING).

Was it totally necessary and in the best interests of the country to get their early election that way?

Should we all applaud their democratic fortitude? - regardless of which side we're "on"?

Should the neutrals say, thanks UDD, you've done the country a great service?

I'will accept your opinion, please don't obfuscate with references to the Democrat party, after all an election result is the sole arbiter.

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant,

It is very relevant.

how is it relevant?

unless you were on the ground in the thick of the protests, it's not.

and even still, i have mates who were in the middle of it when trouble came to the khao san area, i certainly don't give their opinion on the 2010 protests in thailand any more merit than anyone else who is well read up enough about it.

i was in cm at the time, do i get some brownie points?

or does it just count if you were in bangkok, maybe looking out a window or watching the tv.

there's certainly enough footage of it available that you didn't 'have to be there man'.

unless you were a journalist or something, out there everyday, interviewing people etc. i don't see the relevance of being in thailand at the time!

It's totally relevant.

You cannot FEEL the tension by watching on TV. The effect of the curfews, the sight of seeing loud, intimidating pick ups of red thais zooming about yelling and whooping. The gangs of red shirted motorcycles taking up 3 lanes, the sights and smells of burning rubber a few blocks away. The conversations with Thais over the 2 months (in my experience the Thais I spoke to went from "fair enough, let them have their say about democracy, I support the freedom of speech" to " enough is enough, these people have come here not for free speech but to cripple my city"). The general impatience with the Government for not acting sooner. The questioning of the Police and why they weren't doing anything to protect Bangkokians. The worry and financial loss of people who had businesses in the area. The obvious discord from what the likes of BBC reporters were reporting to the world versus the annoyance of Bangkokians with the whole disruptive motives of the UDD

Of course all these things are different in real life as opposed to TV - compare the differences to people who have been flooded to people 4km's away who never had water in their house.

Of course it's relevant if you lived in Bangkok at the time, and these experiences and memories make it bloody difficult for one to agree that this was a necessary course of action in order to get what? - an election a few months earlier than it was planned.

The UDD f*cked up our lives for a couple of months here, and for what?

The fact is, if you weren't here then, well you couldn't FEEL what it was like to have your life and livlihood threatened by this "peaceful" democracy movement.

You definitely can have an opinion, but like my opinion of your neighbourhood in CM being full of a bunch of inbred hypochondriacs and opium addicts, it isn't formed with the benefit of real experience, only what I've seen and heard from afar.

Perhaps that's the reason so many Bangkokians cannot stomach these fighters for democracy. They burnt my offices in Central World. They stopped my income for 2 months. they caused caused weeks of anxiety and stress, and now we're supposed to believe that Abihisit and the army are to blame?

Are we supposed to concur that the Red Shirts were the victims?

That wasn't my experience in May 2010 - the UDD came here, (were paid to come here) to cause mayhem under the guise of democracy so that one family could get it's way - and that's what happened, and that's why we are where we are now.

Was it worth it?

Edited June 28, 2012 by weka

[nurofiend]

It's totally relevant.

You cannot FEEL the tension by watching on TV. The effect of the curfews, the sight of seeing loud, intimidating pick ups of red thais zooming about yelling and whooping. The gangs of red shirted motorcycles taking up 3 lanes, the sights and smells of burning rubber a few blocks away. The conversations with Thais over the 2 months (in my experience the Thais I spoke to went from "fair enough, let them have their say about democracy, I support the freedom of speech" to " enough is enough, these people have come here not for free speech but to cripple my city"). The general impatience with the Government for not acting sooner. The questioning of the Police and why they weren't doing anything to protect Bangkokians. The worry and financial loss of people who had businesses in the area. The obvious discord from what the likes of BBC reporters were reporting to the world versus the annoyance of Bangkokians with the whole disruptive motives of the UDD

Of course all these things are different in real life as opposed to TV - compare the differences to people who have been flooded to people 4km's away who never had water in their house.

Of course it's relevant if you lived in Bangkok at the time, and these experiences and memories make it bloody difficult for one to agree that this was a necessary course of action in order to get what? - an election a few months earlier than it was planned.

The UDD f*cked up our lives for a couple of months here, and for what?

The fact is, if you weren't here then, well you couldn't FEEL what it was like to have your life and livlihood threatened by this "peaceful" democracy movement.

You definitely can have an opinion, but like my opinion of your neighbourhood in CM being full of a bunch of inbred hypochondriacs and opium addicts, it isn't formed with the benefit of real experience, only what I've seen and heard from afar.

Perhaps that's the reason so many Bangkokians cannot stomach these fighters for democracy. They burnt my offices in Central World. They stopped my income for 2 months. they caused caused weeks of anxiety and stress, and now we're supposed to believe that Abihisit and the army are to blame?

That wasn't my experience in May 2010 - the UDD came here, (were paid to come here) to cause mayhem under the guise of democracy so that one family could get it's way - and that's what happened, and that's why we are where we are now.

Was it worth it?

most of your comment boils down to, you have to have been an annoyed person in bangkok who was personally affected to be able to understand why people in bangkok would be annoyed about it.

sorry, i don't buy that.

You definitely can have an opinion, but like my opinion of your neighbourhood in CM being full of a bunch of inbred hypochondriacs and opium addicts, it isn't formed with the benefit of real experience, only what I've seen and heard from afar.

i don't think that's a great analogy mate but i did

so you're saying people can't have a legitimate opinion about this if they weren't in bangkok, near it and personally affected by it?

Edited June 28, 2012 by nurofiend

[weka]

It's totally relevant.

You cannot FEEL the tension by watching on TV. The effect of the curfews, the sight of seeing loud, intimidating pick ups of red thais zooming about yelling and whooping. The gangs of red shirted motorcycles taking up 3 lanes, the sights and smells of burning rubber a few blocks away. The conversations with Thais over the 2 months (in my experience the Thais I spoke to went from "fair enough, let them have their say about democracy, I support the freedom of speech" to " enough is enough, these people have come here not for free speech but to cripple my city"). The general impatience with the Government for not acting sooner. The questioning of the Police and why they weren't doing anything to protect Bangkokians. The worry and financial loss of people who had businesses in the area. The obvious discord from what the likes of BBC reporters were reporting to the world versus the annoyance of Bangkokians with the whole disruptive motives of the UDD

Of course all these things are different in real life as opposed to TV - compare the differences to people who have been flooded to people 4km's away who never had water in their house.

Of course it's relevant if you lived in Bangkok at the time, and these experiences and memories make it bloody difficult for one to agree that this was a necessary course of action in order to get what? - an election a few months earlier than it was planned.

The UDD f*cked up our lives for a couple of months here, and for what?

The fact is, if you weren't here then, well you couldn't FEEL what it was like to have your life and livlihood threatened by this "peaceful" democracy movement.

You definitely can have an opinion, but like my opinion of your neighbourhood in CM being full of a bunch of inbred hypochondriacs and opium addicts, it isn't formed with the benefit of real experience, only what I've seen and heard from afar.

Perhaps that's the reason so many Bangkokians cannot stomach these fighters for democracy. They burnt my offices in Central World. They stopped my income for 2 months. they caused caused weeks of anxiety and stress, and now we're supposed to believe that Abihisit and the army are to blame?

That wasn't my experience in May 2010 - the UDD came here, (were paid to come here) to cause mayhem under the guise of democracy so that one family could get it's way - and that's what happened, and that's why we are where we are now.

Was it worth it?

most of your comment boils down to, you have to have been an annoyed person in bangkok who was personally affected to be able to understand why people in bangkok would be annoyed about it.

sorry, i don't buy that.

You definitely can have an opinion, but like my opinion of your neighbourhood in CM being full of a bunch of inbred hypochondriacs and opium addicts, it isn't formed with the benefit of real experience, only what I've seen and heard from afar.

i don't think that's a great analogy mate but i did

so you're saying people can't have a legitimate opinion about this if they weren't in bangkok, near it and personally affected by it?

I'm saying the process for forming your opinion lacks some important real life experiences - opine away to your hearts content. You may well be correct, but you'll never be able to draw on real experiences of Bkk in that time while forming your opinion - same as my (crude) opinion on your neighbourhood. Ergo it is relevant if you were here during that time.

Why couldn't the Reds just take the first election offer? Did they really have to trash the place to alleviate the fear and opinion that the Dems were going to back pedal. The Army weren't responsible for the conflict, and not solely responsible for the subsequent deaths - the actions of the red shirt leaders had the biggest hand in this disaster

[whybother]

because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament.

they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country.

The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people.

In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country.

[nurofiend]

I'm saying the process for forming your opinion lacks some important real life experiences - opine away to your hearts content. You may well be correct, but you'll never be able to draw on real experiences of Bkk in that time while forming your opinion - same as my (crude) opinion on your neighbourhood. Ergo it is relevant if you were here during that time.

Why couldn't the Reds just take the first election offer? Did they really have to trash the place to alleviate the fear and opinion that the Dems were going to back pedal. The Army weren't responsible for the conflict, and not solely responsible for the subsequent deaths - the actions of the red shirt leaders had the biggest hand in this disaster

you'll never be able to draw on real experiences of Bkk in that time while forming your opinion

i agree 100% but it doesn't make opinions about the political situation any less valid, that's my only point.

Ergo it is relevant if you were here during that time

opinions about how badly the protests affected life in bangkok at the time is relevant, but that's not the point tlansford was making.

so being there wasn't relevant to that, and that was my point.

The Army weren't responsible for the conflict, and not solely responsible for the subsequent deaths

you can't lay all the responsibility on the army... i agree

and you can't say they don't share any of it either.

and i agree with the second part too.

[nurofiend]

because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament.

they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country.

The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people.

In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country.

The public have a say in who runs the country by who they elect to represent them. Every MP of the Abhisit government was elected by the people.

i know all that, but don't you think the public should have the right to vote as a public, on what party they want in power?

In reality (as in many countries) it IS the few people in parliament that have the ultimate say on who runs their country.

yeah, but in reality, in many countries, who runs that country would be from the party that the public voted in.

unless you were referring to invisible hands etc. but that's a whole other ballgame.

[Moruya]

because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament.

they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country.

A few thousand paid morons in red shirts made the mistake of thinking they were the public. You seem to be making the same mistake.

If the same number of people called for Yingluck to resign, would you agree? I think not!

[nurofiend]

because, they felt that the public should have the ultimate say on who runs their country, not a few people in parliament.

they didn't feel they should have to wait another 2, well i think nearly 3 years to find out who the public want to rule their country.

A few thousand paid morons in red shirts made the mistake of thinking they were the public. You seem to be making the same mistake.

If the same number of people called for Yingluck to resign, would you agree? I think not!

A few thousand paid morons in red shirts made the mistake of thinking they were the public. You seem to be making the same mistake.

no, no

i think they were part of the public and then when all the public got to vote, most of that public, compared to any other party (48%, i'm aware), agreed with them.

If the same number of people called for Yingluck to resign, would you agree? I think not!

it depends on the reason, but atm, certainly not

the sole reason being that she was elected in by a public vote, abhisit was not

that's where my opinion differs on both situations.