Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit

[Hugo6]

This discussion is getting very frayed at the edges. I hope the judges throw out the spurious charges against Abhisit, and the Thai people see the charges for what they are: pure political posturing by Thaksin worshiping PT and the Reds - trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation. When a PM makes tough decisions, such as declaring a 'state of emergency' - he/she is not personally legally responsible for every mishap that ensues. That's a perverted interpretation of the situation.

When there's a riot at a soccer match, is the authority who called in security guards - personally responsible for every injury that ensues?

trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation.

but don't you see it - he did not do a decent job.

And the situation was in a VERY large part, of his own making.

They say that Thai women find him attractive. That may be his only redeeming quality.

[maidu]

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

Done in parliament, where all PMs are elected.

That was just the formal part, not where the real deal was done.

Are we supposed to believe that all Thai politics should be done fairly, or else it's not reliable? Do you believe in the fairy princess? Nearly all Thai politics is done behind closed doors by old men smoking ciggs and drinking whiskey. It's a giant power game fueled by lust for money. Morals, decency, truth, consistancy, vision, have nothing to do with it.

TRT, TTT, PT (They're all Thaksin's proxies) played the game tougher than the opposition for most of the past decade. The Dems played it a bit better with Abhisit, one time, a couple years ago. Why all the bellyaching?

[whybother]

This does not at all explain why he needed to change from PPP/PT. If there were no outside pressures everyone could have stayed put to retain the status quo. He and others were told they had to desert ship.

Maybe he was told that PTP won't have the numbers and this is the only chance you'll have.

Who 'told' him?

People who can count.

[Hugo6]

It is undesputed that the reds were armed with lethal weapons and using them

It is undisputed that the governmet were restrained in actions against the protestors for weeks (way beyend I would have given)

A deal was reached for early elections at which point the protest should have ended (critical fact)

The deal was rejected (turning point)

The government gave warnings about impending action to remove the thugs from central Bangkok (not all thugs)

They all knew the rules (fact) and most went home but a hard core (or easily bought thugs) decided to stay and fight it out (how stupid was that)

No government on the planet would have allowed this to continue (fact)

did innocent people die (yes I think so)

who do they really blame (families of innocent tragic deaths) - that would be an interesting interview - I suspect they would be blaming the protestors for not going home when they were offered a deal - I'm pretty sure the people living or working in the occupied areas of BKK were sick of it after a few days never mind weeks, but they should also have stayed indoors out of harms way

interesting thought (off topic I guess)

would PT win an election if it was called next month - truth be told - I doubt it

in fact I don't see them lasting much longer - anyone that honestly thinks they are doing a good job and are good for this country say aye

would PT win an election if it was called next month - truth be told - I doubt it

wow, I didnt think I could laugh that hard.

Of course they would win if an election were held tomorrow, next month, and for the foreseeable future.

[Hugo6]

Done in parliament, where all PMs are elected.

That was just the formal part, not where the real deal was done.

It really doesn't matter if anybody accepts it was a done deal legitimately or otherwise even Abhisit must have realised how underhanded it all was but grabbed the chance with both hands. Why not, he knew he there was no way he and his party were electable in a real election with real people voting, not his peers in parliament, but real people.

Anybody with the courage of his convictions would have called an election there and then, to ensure the mandate of the people, but he knew he'd lose. It explains the mentality of the man. Desperate to get power he was desperate not to lose it once he had his foot in the door. It would explain the reticence any UDD leader would have had dealing with him, just look at the conditions he proposed on even calling for the dissolution of parliament , the so called 5 point plan, any one of which he could say had been contravened and all deals off. He wouldn't name a date for an election so who was going to believe this man?

He even turned down point blank the last ditch attempt by Senators to broker talks. That arrogant action alone caused the deaths of 12 more people, including the 6 at the wat.

he was desperate not to lose it once he had his foot in the door.

explains his actions in 2009 and 2010.

his own fear confirmed in the elections in 2011

eind of story.

[Hugo6]

This does not at all explain why he needed to change from PPP/PT. If there were no outside pressures everyone could have stayed put to retain the status quo. He and others were told they had to desert ship.

Maybe he was told that PTP won't have the numbers and this is the only chance you'll have.

Who 'told' him?

People who can count.

you mean count how many snipers are needed to disperse protesters in downtown bangkok?

then we re talking about the same people

Edited December 25, 2012 by Hugo6

[whybother]

you mean count how many snipers are needed to disperse protesters in downtown bangkok?

then we re talking about the same people

[maidu]

This discussion is getting very frayed at the edges. I hope the judges throw out the spurious charges against Abhisit, and the Thai people see the charges for what they are: pure political posturing by Thaksin worshiping PT and the Reds - trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation. When a PM makes tough decisions, such as declaring a 'state of emergency' - he/she is not personally legally responsible for every mishap that ensues. That's a perverted interpretation of the situation.

When there's a riot at a soccer match, is the authority who called in security guards - personally responsible for every injury that ensues?

trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation.

but don't you see it - he did not do a decent job.

And the situation was in a VERY large part, of his own making.

They say that Thai women find him attractive. That may be his only redeeming quality.

If you believe 'he (Abhisit) did not do a decent job' as PM, then that's your opinion, and not a damning sounding one, at that.

The dire situation in Bkk in Spring '10 was only partly his (Abhisit's) making. Who rallied the Reds to come to Bangkok? Who was the main paymaster? The protest could have been planned for an open field with a stage and facilities. Instead, the protesters were allowed to come to Thailand's biggest city en masse. They erected barriers of petrol soaked tires and sharpened bamboo spikes. They cause all sorts of problems, including firing off weapons, making trash, very noisy, and threatening local residents/students/workers. Did Abhisit make those things happen? Of course not. In response, A was compelled to do what a PM is supposed to do in such dire circumstances: Protect residents and property. He tried getting to police to do their jobs. They didn't, so A was compelled to get the military involved. By that time, it was known that armed members were imbedded with the Reds and were not shy about using their weapons.

[Thait Spot]

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

A majority of MPs (representatives of the Thai people) decided they wanted him to be PM.

Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

All coalitions are made by horse trading. Enough of your false disdain already!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Thait Spot]

This discussion is getting very frayed at the edges. I hope the judges throw out the spurious charges against Abhisit, and the Thai people see the charges for what they are: pure political posturing by Thaksin worshiping PT and the Reds - trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation. When a PM makes tough decisions, such as declaring a 'state of emergency' - he/she is not personally legally responsible for every mishap that ensues. That's a perverted interpretation of the situation.

When there's a riot at a soccer match, is the authority who called in security guards - personally responsible for every injury that ensues?

trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation.

but don't you see it - he did not do a decent job.

And the situation was in a VERY large part, of his own making.

They say that Thai women find him attractive. That may be his only redeeming quality.

It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when they personalise things in the manner you do. Your opinion is clearly tainted.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[AleG]

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

I always find it funny when some champions of democracy get their panties in a twist over this and completely, utterly ignore Thaksin's party long and well documented history of electoral fraud.

Very selective ethics I think.

[Hugo6]

you mean count how many snipers are needed to disperse protesters in downtown bangkok?

then we re talking about the same people

[Hugo6]

This discussion is getting very frayed at the edges. I hope the judges throw out the spurious charges against Abhisit, and the Thai people see the charges for what they are: pure political posturing by Thaksin worshiping PT and the Reds - trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation. When a PM makes tough decisions, such as declaring a 'state of emergency' - he/she is not personally legally responsible for every mishap that ensues. That's a perverted interpretation of the situation.

When there's a riot at a soccer match, is the authority who called in security guards - personally responsible for every injury that ensues?

trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation.

but don't you see it - he did not do a decent job.

And the situation was in a VERY large part, of his own making.

They say that Thai women find him attractive. That may be his only redeeming quality.

It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when they personalise things in the manner you do. Your opinion is clearly tainted.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

of course my opinion is "tainted"

so is yours

so is everyones

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010? what is personalized about recognizing that he did not do a good job? Why is it not personalized when another poster simply claims that abhisit did do "a good job?

is it not personalized when you agree and personalized when you disagree?

(ps you dont need to take anyone on this forum seriously, god knows there are very few whom i do)

[maidu]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

[Hugo6]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

it is not a stretch at all to say that abhisit was largely responsible for his own situation - this is a fact MOST of us accept for ourselves, why should it somehow not be true for the then-PM? Of course he was VERY much responsible for the situation. HE was the guy who egged on the PAD and HE was the one who took the reins of power undemocratically, and HE was the one who did not go to the Thai electorate to confirm a mandate. He snuck into power through back-door machinations and some how he IS NOT responsible for his own situation? He creates the blue shirts out of the blue in 2009 and they attack the red shirts and HE is not somehow in part responsible for the fact that there were people among the red shirts in 2010 there to protect the protests against the government of abhisit?

Of course he was responsible in (a large) part for the situation. to deny that is to call the sky yellow and the sun blue.

Again - we all understand naturally that WE are responsible in large part for our own situation. Why the heck would we not hold our politicians to the same standard - and even more so when the events speak for themselves.

Biased is definitely the wrong term to describe my outlook - realist is MUCH more accurate.

[philw]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

[rubl]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

The fairly restrained use of grenades against non-red-shirt targets was just a purely democratic expression of civil disobidience and therefor doesn't need any further justification.

It's fairly simple really

Edited December 25, 2012 by rubl

[philw]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

The fairly restrained use of grenades against non-red-shirt targets was just a purely democratic exp<b></b>ression of civil disobidience and therefor doesn't need any further justification.

It's fairly simple really

Spin away rubl, spin away.........

It doesn't alter the facts , one iota.

Who shot the medics in a temple and who authorised it ??

Merry Christmas.

[rubl]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

The fairly restrained use of grenades against non-red-shirt targets was just a purely democratic expression of civil disobidience and therefor doesn't need any further justification.

It's fairly simple really

Spin away rubl, spin away.........

It doesn't alter the facts , one iota.

Who shot the medics in a temple and who authorised it ??

Merry Christmas.

spin away, dear phil. And a belated 'Merry Christmas' to you too. Hope you found time to relax today. Unfortunately I had to work, but still managed to get my visa renewed for another year as well. I really like the one-stop-service-center at Chamchuri Sq. in Bangkok, mostly very quick. Almost like a Christmas present

[whybother]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin was responsible for 2500 deaths.

[smedly]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

The fairly restrained use of grenades against non-red-shirt targets was just a purely democratic expression of civil disobidience and therefor doesn't need any further justification.

It's fairly simple really

Spin away rubl, spin away.........

It doesn't alter the facts , one iota.

Who shot the medics in a temple and who authorised it ??

Merry Christmas.

perhaps you'd share what you know

a common failing of many posters here is being able to distinguish between an opinion and a fact - if you want to state a fact you need to produce credible evidence to support the fact otherwise it's an opinion and as such is open for others to debate

There are some facts about the disturbances in BKK 2010

- the red protestors were armed with guns and grenades and needed to be removed by force

- people had the choice to go peacefully before it tuned into an armed conflict

- some stayed and suffered the consequence

- The authorities were restoring law and order and quite at liberty to do so

I wonder about the rantings of some people here about snipers - I still don't get the point, snipers are the most effective way to target and take out specific types of people - those with lethal weapons - they should have had more snipers killing selective targets at will - carry a gun - stick your head up - "bang" dead, how good is that - like shooting fish in a barrel - they just didn't get enough of them.

[maidu]

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

I'm glad you agree that Thaksin was responsible for 2500 deaths.

"Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure."

Oh really? And which MP was on duty when the tsunami happened?

Seriously though, that blanket statement '...responsible for, and accountable for..." is ludicrous. The Red riots of 2009 and 2010 were instigated by the Reds, and fueled by Thaksin. Abhisit responded, but he's not responsible for the instigation of those riots, anymore than mother's milk is responsible for the actions a person takes later in life.

[maidu]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

it is not a stretch at all to say that abhisit was largely responsible for his own situation - this is a fact MOST of us accept for ourselves, why should it somehow not be true for the then-PM? Of course he was VERY much responsible for the situation. HE was the guy who egged on the PAD and HE was the one who took the reins of power undemocratically, and HE was the one who did not go to the Thai electorate to confirm a mandate. He snuck into power through back-door machinations and some how he IS NOT responsible for his own situation? He creates the blue shirts out of the blue in 2009 and they attack the red shirts and HE is not somehow in part responsible for the fact that there were people among the red shirts in 2010 there to protect the protests against the government of abhisit?

Of course he was responsible in (a large) part for the situation. to deny that is to call the sky yellow and the sun blue.

Again - we all understand naturally that WE are responsible in large part for our own situation. Why the heck would we not hold our politicians to the same standard - and even more so when the events speak for themselves.

Biased is definitely the wrong term to describe my outlook - realist is MUCH more accurate.

We must be living on different planets. Abhisit allowed easy access to downtown Bkk for the Red rowdies, perhaps we can fault Abhisit for being to nice and trusting. He kept being too nice for too long, while (militants embedded with) the Reds were readying their weapons and ammo - and erecting barricades in downtown Bkk. Did Abhisit erect those barricades? Do you admit that barricades were erected? Did Abhisit pour petrol on the tires or sharpen the bamboo spikes? According to witch hunters on this thread, Abhisit did all those bad things and more.

BTW, Abhisit got the PM's chair by democratic machinations - not much different than many other Thai PM's. Your milk spilled long ago, stop crying over it.

[Thait Spot]

of course my opinion is "tainted"

so is yours

so is everyones

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010? what is personalized about recognizing that he did not do a good job? Why is it not personalized when another poster simply claims that abhisit did do "a good job?

is it not personalized when you agree and personalized when you disagree?

(ps you dont need to take anyone on this forum seriously, god knows there are very few whom i do)

You made a personal attack about Abhisit's abilities and appearance. I'm quite sure that you would have taken umbrage had a comment been made about Yingluck.

Your posting above is just flannel. Please spare the BS.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Thait Spot]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

Does your first paragraph equally apply to Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[philw]

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010?

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

Fact is the PM at the time is responsible for, and accountable for, the events that happened during his period of tenure.

The use of snipers and excessive, disproportionate military force requires an inquiry.

it's very simple.

Does your first paragraph equally apply to Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Yep.

Why do you assume it does not ????

[Hugo6]

of course my opinion is "tainted"

so is yours

so is everyones

but what is "personalized" about recognizing that Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010? what is personalized about recognizing that he did not do a good job? Why is it not personalized when another poster simply claims that abhisit did do "a good job?

is it not personalized when you agree and personalized when you disagree?

(ps you dont need to take anyone on this forum seriously, god knows there are very few whom i do)

You made a personal attack about Abhisit's abilities and appearance. I'm quite sure that you would have taken umbrage had a comment been made about Yingluck.

Your posting above is just flannel. Please spare the BS.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

I made an objective comment about his handling of the events. 90+ people dead, blues shirts, squirming his way to the pmship are all history dude.

and I've read in polls that thai women think hes attractive and commenting on THAT is definitely not a personal attack about his appearances by me.

and your bs comment could be considered flaming, gutter language, or other.

[Hugo6]

It's a long stretch to assert that "Abhisit was responsible for his own situation in 2009 and 2010." Maybe you can blame it on Smokey the Bear or Madonna, but how can you blame Abhisit for the problems caused by the Reds (with Thaksin funding and encouragement) in 2009 and 2010? Biased is too benign a word to describe your outlook on that.

Abhisit reacted. Granted, it could be argued that it's more effective to take pre-emptive and dynamic action, rather than react to dire situations. Everything is clearer in hindsight. Abhisit was/is dealing with an extremely crafty, rich and manipulative man on the other side of the fence. Each of us can ask ourselves how we would have dealt with similar scenarios - had any one of us been in his shoes.

Yet, slapping murder charges on a PM who is endeavoring to protect BKK citizens and property, is outlandish, cruel, wrong-headed and totally political posturing. "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" ....remember that? All this baiting and witch hunting by PT is orchestrated by Thaksin. Anyone who thinks differently isn't paying attention.

it is not a stretch at all to say that abhisit was largely responsible for his own situation - this is a fact MOST of us accept for ourselves, why should it somehow not be true for the then-PM? Of course he was VERY much responsible for the situation. HE was the guy who egged on the PAD and HE was the one who took the reins of power undemocratically, and HE was the one who did not go to the Thai electorate to confirm a mandate. He snuck into power through back-door machinations and some how he IS NOT responsible for his own situation? He creates the blue shirts out of the blue in 2009 and they attack the red shirts and HE is not somehow in part responsible for the fact that there were people among the red shirts in 2010 there to protect the protests against the government of abhisit?

Of course he was responsible in (a large) part for the situation. to deny that is to call the sky yellow and the sun blue.

Again - we all understand naturally that WE are responsible in large part for our own situation. Why the heck would we not hold our politicians to the same standard - and even more so when the events speak for themselves.

Biased is definitely the wrong term to describe my outlook - realist is MUCH more accurate.

We must be living on different planets. Abhisit allowed easy access to downtown Bkk for the Red rowdies, perhaps we can fault Abhisit for being to nice and trusting. He kept being too nice for too long, while (militants embedded with) the Reds were readying their weapons and ammo - and erecting barricades in downtown Bkk. Did Abhisit erect those barricades? Do you admit that barricades were erected? Did Abhisit pour petrol on the tires or sharpen the bamboo spikes? According to witch hunters on this thread, Abhisit did all those bad things and more.

BTW, Abhisit got the PM's chair by democratic machinations - not much different than many other Thai PM's. Your milk spilled long ago, stop crying over it.

BTW, Abhisit got the PM's chair by democratic machinations - not much different than many other Thai PM's. Your milk spilled long ago, stop crying over it.

youre so fact based about GW but deny the reality behind abhisit coming to power. i dont understand it at all

and its abhisits spilled milk not mine. i dont care how he came to power i just recognize what really happend and the future effects of that

[Thaddeus]

BTW, Abhisit got the PM's chair by democratic machinations - not much different than many other Thai PM's. Your milk spilled long ago, stop crying over it.

youre so fact based about GW but deny the reality behind abhisit coming to power. i dont understand it at all

and its abhisits spilled milk not mine. i dont care how he came to power i just recognize what really happend and the future effects of that

Having differing opinions about different subjects requires a modicum of thought.

[maidu]

I made an objective comment about his handling of the events. 90+ people dead......

Not even the reddest of the Reds claims that all those 90+ fatalities are Abhisit's doing. The only way you can blame a portion of those deaths on Abhisit, is to claim he was in the Red Camp, rubbing shoulders with Sae Dang and the other military trained 'black shirts' and pulling triggers and lobbing grenades (and drinking caffeinated drinks and Thai whiskey non-stop) along with them. Now, that really is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.