Red Shirts Block Abhisit From Seminar

[473geo]

Abhist is entitled to feel as secure as any other citizen in Thailand, with this comes the responsibility for his own welfare, he made the correct decision to avoid the meeting if his safety as in question. Should he have the support of the ruling party? only if he is the leader I would expect, but yes he should expect to have freedom to carry out his duties.

I'm a little bit lost as to how any of the posters here would deny the use of historical evidence and example in a debate, but there you go it appears to be the new, no answer, answer, to any attempt to draw comparrison into a topic!

So, pray tell, what ever did the Romans for us?

Base for language, did you not study Latin?

I might have gone back in time a wee bit too much. Maybe I was a bit puzzled by the remark on 'use of historical evidence'.

As I indicated before, in the 'tit for tat' game all seems allowed, but hardly justified. He did that, so we can do this? Is that progress farang or Thai style? May PAD members and/or yellow-shirts now throw rocks or even tiny, little pebbles at PM Yingluck's car when she's inspecting her realm? Without fear of being crucified by opponents who have a mandate to do so, that is?

Rocks, eggs, if people feel aggrieved who are we to dictate how the electorate respond, at the moment either Yingluck is smarter than Abhisit in avoiding such situation, or the public has no inclination to carry the criticism spouted on this forum out into the public domain

[rubl]

So, pray tell, what ever did the Romans for us?

Base for language, did you not study Latin?

I might have gone back in time a wee bit too much. Maybe I was a bit puzzled by the remark on 'use of historical evidence'.

As I indicated before, in the 'tit for tat' game all seems allowed, but hardly justified. He did that, so we can do this? Is that progress farang or Thai style? May PAD members and/or yellow-shirts now throw rocks or even tiny, little pebbles at PM Yingluck's car when she's inspecting her realm? Without fear of being crucified by opponents who have a mandate to do so, that is?

Rocks, eggs, if people feel aggrieved who are we to dictate how the electorate respond, at the moment either Yingluck is smarter than Abhisit in avoiding such situation, or the public has no inclination to carry the criticism spouted on this forum out into the public domain

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shout up

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[Noistar]

I might have gone back in time a wee bit too much. Maybe I was a bit puzzled by the remark on 'use of historical evidence'.

As I indicated before, in the 'tit for tat' game all seems allowed, but hardly justified. He did that, so we can do this? Is that progress farang or Thai style? May PAD members and/or yellow-shirts now throw rocks or even tiny, little pebbles at PM Yingluck's car when she's inspecting her realm? Without fear of being crucified by opponents who have a mandate to do so, that is?

Rocks, eggs, if people feel aggrieved who are we to dictate how the electorate respond, at the moment either Yingluck is smarter than Abhisit in avoiding such situation, or the public has no inclination to carry the criticism spouted on this forum out into the public domain

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shout up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

[philw]

Abhist is entitled to feel as secure as any other citizen in Thailand, with this comes the responsibility for his own welfare, he made the correct decision to avoid the meeting if his safety as in question. Should he have the support of the ruling party? only if he is the leader I would expect, but yes he should expect to have freedom to carry out his duties.

I'm a little bit lost as to how any of the posters here would deny the use of historical evidence and example in a debate, but there you go it appears to be the new, no answer, answer, to any attempt to draw comparrison into a topic!

I seem to be inadvertently muddying the waters.

Historical evidence is of no relevance (IMHO) to this topic. It seems that posters are anti-Abhisit.

It is not for anyone in Government to determine if 'he is the leader I would expect'.

Abhisit IS the ELECTED leader of the Opposition. His status is therefore assured as of July/Aug 2011. The ruling party are obliged to treat him with the respect his POSITION deserves.

In his role you might as well call him "John Smith".

I don't understand how the past relates to the topic. I would concede that the reasons for the protest are based on issues from the past. However the resolution of those issues is not for the protesters to determine. Until the law holds Abhisit to account, it is only reasonable for Abhisit to continue to perform his duties, which he seems (IMHO) to be doing flawlessly. Unlike his opposite number.

(he says as he ducks!)

Um.....he is not being prevented from performing his duties.

A small demo is not the thuggery you, and others on here, seek to portray.

It's pathetically amusing how this is talked up and exaggerated.

Historical evidence is relevant

[philw]

I might have gone back in time a wee bit too much. Maybe I was a bit puzzled by the remark on 'use of historical evidence'.

As I indicated before, in the 'tit for tat' game all seems allowed, but hardly justified. He did that, so we can do this? Is that progress farang or Thai style? May PAD members and/or yellow-shirts now throw rocks or even tiny, little pebbles at PM Yingluck's car when she's inspecting her realm? Without fear of being crucified by opponents who have a mandate to do so, that is?

Rocks, eggs, if people feel aggrieved who are we to dictate how the electorate respond, at the moment either Yingluck is smarter than Abhisit in avoiding such situation, or the public has no inclination to carry the criticism spouted on this forum out into the public domain

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shout up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

But, sorry to correct you, there has been no assault on the opposition.

This thread is full of outrage, but somehow for the rest of Thailand, a minor event is already forgotten.

Tell me more about how the democratic process under AV and the RTA is better..........

[rubl]

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shut up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

But, sorry to correct you, there has been no assault on the opposition.

This thread is full of outrage, but somehow for the rest of Thailand, a minor event is already forgotten.

Tell me more about how the democratic process under AV and the RTA is better..........

Please don't tell how much better is was under the previous government. Let's just stick to the Pheu Thai / UDD government we have currently and which seems to switch from political party to pressure group mode at will. Red-shirt block, next according to historical relevance and justice yellow-shirt may block again. Progress as some here want it, it seems.

[philw]

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shut up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

But, sorry to correct you, there has been no assault on the opposition.

This thread is full of outrage, but somehow for the rest of Thailand, a minor event is already forgotten.

Tell me more about how the democratic process under AV and the RTA is better..........

Please don't tell how much better is was under the previous government. Let's just stick to the Pheu Thai / UDD government we have currently and which seems to switch from political party to pressure group mode at will. Red-shirt block, next according to historical relevance and justice yellow-shirt may block again. Progress as some here want it, it seems.

And the point is ?

[473geo]

I might have gone back in time a wee bit too much. Maybe I was a bit puzzled by the remark on 'use of historical evidence'.

As I indicated before, in the 'tit for tat' game all seems allowed, but hardly justified. He did that, so we can do this? Is that progress farang or Thai style? May PAD members and/or yellow-shirts now throw rocks or even tiny, little pebbles at PM Yingluck's car when she's inspecting her realm? Without fear of being crucified by opponents who have a mandate to do so, that is?

Rocks, eggs, if people feel aggrieved who are we to dictate how the electorate respond, at the moment either Yingluck is smarter than Abhisit in avoiding such situation, or the public has no inclination to carry the criticism spouted on this forum out into the public domain

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shout up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

Freedom of expression..you don't condone it? I just can't understand what the man has done to attract this kind of treatment....yes the government should take responsibility and look into this right away

Edited August 27, 2012 by 473geo

[hellodolly]

"Abhisit dismissed Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung's comments that the red shirts' action was normal political activity, saying instigated turmoil violated others' rights".

Any comment from their leader, Yingluck?

Rumor is she said big brother OKed it.

Don't forget, she's still getting over the affects of the efforts from her first year as PM.

Doubt we'll ever get a consensus on this thread. The Abhisit haters won't let go of their obsession that he deserved it. Any notion of the Red Shirts being at fault is therefore superfluous

I think you are correct there will be no consensus, but your reasoning is a little skewed, you see if Abhisit had the courage recently to request PAD allowed parliament to function, then he might have cause for complaint, there is no need for the reds to block Abhisit from anything

However for him to cry now when the 'blockade' did not suit his agenda?

Fair comment or not?

I missed that announcement where Abhist would not allow the parliament to function. I know he has been objecting to policies that he feels are not in the best interest of Thailand. But that is his job with out it We would not need a Parliament. Thaksin would be back in a flash declaring himself Emperor or some other ridicules title.

Being as he was doing his duty it was not fair to stop him from entering the premisses. But then again when you have no idea's of your own just a brain dead worship of Thaksin and a red shirt it is OK under the present Government to act that way.

[philw]

Just for fun,but in the interests of honest debate, what is the real objection to someone like Thaksin as " Emperor "

What if Thai politics takes a course that you don't approve ?

We live in Asia.

Anything and everything can and does happen.

[Thaddeus]

Just for fun,but in the interests of honest debate, what is the real objection to someone like Thaksin as " Emperor "

If you need to ask that question, I doubt you would understand some of the answers, let alone listen to them.

[dickyknee]

Just for fun,but in the interests of honest debate, what is the real objection to someone like Thaksin as " Emperor "

What if Thai politics takes a course that you don't approve ?

Will he be wearing a long cape with a hood and shoot sparks from his finger tips when he gets pissed at someone?

[nurofiend]

i gotta say, abhisit was right in this instance.

he would have been taking a great risk if he had tried to drive to his destination with that mob there,

[Noistar]

Alternatively maybe

- indeed PM Yingluck avoids

- PM Yingluck has police to protect her rather than the protesters

- protesters need to be a wee bit more careful protesting againt PM Yingluck

- Dr. weng is successful in promoting his form of democracy

- We have a mandate, so shout up

It's a sad state of affairs when the democratic process - voiced loudly as a mandate by the people for the PTP (by certain posters) - becomes a licence for the ruling party to condone (via inaction), assaults on their opposition.

If this is an example of the democratic process under PTP, God help Thailand in the future.

Freedom of exp<b></b>ression..you don't condone it? I just can't understand what the man has done to attract this kind of treatment....yes the government should take responsibility and look into this right away

Don't think I expressed an opinion on 'freedom of expression'

Are we back to the irrelevance of what may or may not have happened in the past?

If so, is this a justification for the Thai democratic process to fail to support the leader of THEIR Opposition?

Seems to be we have 2 scenarios

1-Abhisit deserves to be hounded

2-the leader of the Opposition should be able to perform his duties unhounded.

Unfortunately, the 2 cancel out each other

Ah, but in 2010 the troops and innocent civilians.............blah, blah

[Noistar]

Abhist is entitled to feel as secure as any other citizen in Thailand, with this comes the responsibility for his own welfare, he made the correct decision to avoid the meeting if his safety as in question. Should he have the support of the ruling party? only if he is the leader I would expect, but yes he should expect to have freedom to carry out his duties.

I'm a little bit lost as to how any of the posters here would deny the use of historical evidence and example in a debate, but there you go it appears to be the new, no answer, answer, to any attempt to draw comparrison into a topic!

I seem to be inadvertently muddying the waters.

Historical evidence is of no relevance (IMHO) to this topic. It seems that posters are anti-Abhisit.

It is not for anyone in Government to determine if 'he is the leader I would expect'.

Abhisit IS the ELECTED leader of the Opposition. His status is therefore assured as of July/Aug 2011. The ruling party are obliged to treat him with the respect his POSITION deserves.

In his role you might as well call him "John Smith".

I don't understand how the past relates to the topic. I would concede that the reasons for the protest are based on issues from the past. However the resolution of those issues is not for the protesters to determine. Until the law holds Abhisit to account, it is only reasonable for Abhisit to continue to perform his duties, which he seems (IMHO) to be doing flawlessly. Unlike his opposite number.

(he says as he ducks!)

Um.....he is not being prevented from performing his duties.

A small demo is not the thuggery you, and others on here, seek to portray.

It's pathetically amusing how this is talked up and exaggerated.

Historical evidence is relevant

Was Abhisit able to perform the reason for his visit?

If not, why not?

It depends on one's perspective as to whether the topic of this thread is unacceptable or 'talked up'

I remain to be convinced how 'historical evidence' relates to whether a senior politician is able to perform his present duties unhindered.

[Ricardo]

Just for fun,but in the interests of honest debate, what is the real objection to someone like Thaksin as " Emperor "

What if Thai politics takes a course that you don't approve ?

We live in Asia.

Anything and everything can and does happen.

"real objection" ?, how does it serve the best interests of the country and people ?

"Emperor" ? Erm, there's no empire, the emperor has no clothes !

"don't approve" ? We continue to make comments, based on our own experiences/observations of emperors or dictators.

"We live live in Asia" Indeed, and in 'Miracle Thailand', have a good day !

Edited August 27, 2012 by Ricardo

[tlansford]

Abhist is entitled to feel as secure as any other citizen in Thailand, with this comes the responsibility for his own welfare, he made the correct decision to avoid the meeting if his safety as in question. Should he have the support of the ruling party? only if he is the leader I would expect, but yes he should expect to have freedom to carry out his duties.

I'm a little bit lost as to how any of the posters here would deny the use of historical evidence and example in a debate, but there you go it appears to be the new, no answer, answer, to any attempt to draw comparrison into a topic!

I seem to be inadvertently muddying the waters.

Historical evidence is of no relevance (IMHO) to this topic. It seems that posters are anti-Abhisit.

It is not for anyone in Government to determine if 'he is the leader I would expect'.

Abhisit IS the ELECTED leader of the Opposition. His status is therefore assured as of July/Aug 2011. The ruling party are obliged to treat him with the respect his POSITION deserves.

In his role you might as well call him "John Smith".

I don't understand how the past relates to the topic. I would concede that the reasons for the protest are based on issues from the past. However the resolution of those issues is not for the protesters to determine. Until the law holds Abhisit to account, it is only reasonable for Abhisit to continue to perform his duties, which he seems (IMHO) to be doing flawlessly. Unlike his opposite number.

(he says as he ducks!)

Um.....he is not being prevented from performing his duties.

A small demo is not the thuggery you, and others on here, seek to portray.

It's pathetically amusing how this is talked up and exaggerated.

Historical evidence is relevant

Was Abhisit able to perform the reason for his visit?

If not, why not?

It depends on one's perspective as to whether the topic of this thread is unacceptable or 'talked up'

I remain to be convinced how 'historical evidence' relates to whether a senior politician is able to perform his present duties unhindered.

consider why the people protest when abhisit appears in public and you will discover why an historical reference is relevant to this discussion.

[Reasonableman]

They are "some people", not "the people". You seem to be suffering from a severe case of overextension, old boy. Holiday not long enough, perhaps?

[tlansford]

Just for fun,but in the interests of honest debate, what is the real objection to someone like Thaksin as " Emperor "

What if Thai politics takes a course that you don't approve ?

We live in Asia.

Anything and everything can and does happen.

Singapore, anyone?

[Nickymaster]

So, is it or is it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech? By my book, in a democracy it is not. But we all know that reds are anything but democracy lovers, as they even don't know what this word means anyway

"it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech" Same same to Thaksin just last week (the other way round). What's your excuse?

He was NOT blocked and was NOT threatened. Get your facts right and then you can comment

yeah sure that's why Chalerm told the Reds to stop.

[saltandpepper]

So, is it or is it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech? By my book, in a democracy it is not. But we all know that reds are anything but democracy lovers, as they even don't know what this word means anyway

"it not OK to block and threaten someone who wants to make a speech" Same same to Thaksin just last week (the other way round). What's your excuse?

He was NOT blocked and was NOT threatened. Get your facts right and then you can comment

yeah sure that's why Chalerm told the Reds to stop.

What are you talking about? Thaksin was not blocked and was not threatened.......

[Mosha]

They are "some people", not "the people". You seem to be suffering from a severe case of overextension, old boy. Holiday not long enough, perhaps?

I was stood 5 feet away from Abhisit this morning. He was in serious danger of being mobbed by the people. The 20 police accompanying were helpless as the locals showered him with adoration. I conclude from my observations the people love him

[Noistar]

Was Abhisit able to perform the reason for his visit?

If not, why not?

It depends on one's perspective as to whether the topic of this thread is unacceptable or 'talked up'

I remain to be convinced how 'historical evidence' relates to whether a senior politician is able to perform his present duties unhindered.

consider why the people protest when abhisit appears in public and you will discover why an historical reference is relevant to this discussion.

Well as you've only felt able to comment on 1 of my observations and have totally ignored my question, I will have to limit my reply.

As I've said before, 'historical relevance' may be the reason for the protest but it does not justify the leader of the Opposition being obstructed in his attempts to perform his duties. An example his opposite number has refused to do.

'historical evidence' seems to be the excuse for the immature ruling party ignoring their obligations as a democratically elected government.

Government is more than following a shopping list of election promises. It is about maintaining the core of Democracy. I'm sure supporters of PTP will excuse them. Other people will probably have a wider view.

Use 'historical evidence' in another thread. It doesn't fit here unless it's being used as the usual troops/Bangkok/2010 side-track.

[rubl]

But, sorry to correct you, there has been no assault on the opposition.

This thread is full of outrage, but somehow for the rest of Thailand, a minor event is already forgotten.

Tell me more about how the democratic process under AV and the RTA is better..........

Please don't tell how much better is was under the previous government. Let's just stick to the Pheu Thai / UDD government we have currently and which seems to switch from political party to pressure group mode at will. Red-shirt block, next according to historical relevance and justice yellow-shirt may block again. Progress as some here want it, it seems.

And the point is ?

The point is, there is no point, at least not in either asking or even answering how much better the previous government was. Totally irrelevant to this topic. What one may consider relevant, even historically so, is the use of doctored tapes and shoutcast 24*7 to impress and indoctrinate the red-shirt listeners that k. Abhisit is bad, bad, really bad, up to a point where one no longer needs to think, but automatically agrees 'yes, all know he's bad!'

Still , no need to worry. For generations to come all will agree Ms. Yingluck smiles nicely

[tlansford]

Was Abhisit able to perform the reason for his visit?

If not, why not?

It depends on one's perspective as to whether the topic of this thread is unacceptable or 'talked up'

I remain to be convinced how 'historical evidence' relates to whether a senior politician is able to perform his present duties unhindered.

consider why the people protest when abhisit appears in public and you will discover why an historical reference is relevant to this discussion.

Well as you've only felt able to comment on 1 of my observations and have totally ignored my question, I will have to limit my reply.

As I've said before, 'historical relevance' may be the reason for the protest but it does not justify the leader of the Opposition being obstructed in his attempts to perform his duties. An example his opposite number has refused to do.

'historical evidence' seems to be the excuse for the immature ruling party ignoring their obligations as a democratically elected government.

Government is more than following a shopping list of election promises. It is about maintaining the core of Democracy. I'm sure supporters of PTP will excuse them. Other people will probably have a wider view.

Use 'historical evidence' in another thread. It doesn't fit here unless it's being used as the usual troops/Bangkok/2010 side-track.

OK, historical evidence doesn't fit.

The people are protesting against abhisit for no reason whatsoever.

The situation in Thailand today came to being this morning and there is no context for the political strife.

At least not in this thread...

[Noistar]

consider why the people protest when abhisit appears in public and you will discover why an historical reference is relevant to this discussion.

Well as you've only felt able to comment on 1 of my observations and have totally ignored my question, I will have to limit my reply.

As I've said before, 'historical relevance' may be the reason for the protest but it does not justify the leader of the Opposition being obstructed in his attempts to perform his duties. An example his opposite number has refused to do.

'historical evidence' seems to be the excuse for the immature ruling party ignoring their obligations as a democratically elected government.

Government is more than following a shopping list of election promises. It is about maintaining the core of Democracy. I'm sure supporters of PTP will excuse them. Other people will probably have a wider view.

Use 'historical evidence' in another thread. It doesn't fit here unless it's being used as the usual troops/Bangkok/2010 side-track.

OK, historical evidence doesn't fit. 

The people are protesting against abhisit for no reason whatsoever.

The situation in Thailand today came to being this morning and there is no context for the political strife.

At least not in this thread...

Hi again

I seem to have failed in my intention re my last post.

I agree..

The people are feeling it necessary to protest against Abhisit for their own valid reasons

I'm not sure about the point you make about 'the political strife'. The democratically elected ruling party are in a position to 'calm the waters' of any political strife.

My point remains that the past does not excuse the present. If the Leader of the Opposition is unable to perform his planned duties because it is deemed the protests went too far, then he is in the right and the protesters are in the wrong.

Freedom to protest, but not freedom to intimidate. 

Edited August 29, 2012 by Noistar