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

[Moruya]

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

It was decided by MPs. Did you miss that bit?

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

So what did the army supposedly do?

[Thai at Heart]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

They squeezed Newin through his dad to jump. What earthly political benefit did newin get from jumping?

[Ferangled]

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?

I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.

The fact remains the police did little to nothing to contain the protests. Whether they are are loyal to Thaksin or not doesn't matter. They failed in their job and therefore the Army had to come in and do their jobs for them. You talk about strangeness? Nothing is 'strange' when you're dealing with the red shirts. Nothing makes sense about these people.

If you don't actually have an answer to the question perhaps just keep quiet rather than voicing bizarre assertions... there's been far too much of that already and it makes debating any subject remotely political nigh on impossible here. Can we just stick to rational views backed up by either logical reasoning or facts rather than baseless assertion, speculation and all the mud slinging?

[Moruya]

So what did the army do? Threaten to run off with Newin's football?

You probably think he should have stayed as part of the coalition of corruption for more silver in his pocket.

[yoshiwara]

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?

I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.

The fact remains the police did little to nothing to contain the protests. Whether they are are loyal to Thaksin or not doesn't matter. They failed in their job and therefore the Army had to come in and do their jobs for them. You talk about strangeness? Nothing is 'strange' when you're dealing with the red shirts. Nothing makes sense about these people.

If you don't actually have an answer to the question perhaps just keep quiet rather than voicing bizarre assertions... there's been far too much of that already and it makes debating any subject remotely political nigh on impossible here. Can we just stick to rational views backed up by either logical reasoning or facts rather than baseless assertion, speculation and all the mud slinging?

That would presumably be the bizarre assertion that the police did a runner because they were in Thaksin's pocket?

Rational views from a red cheerleader? That would be anything supporting Thaksin's interests. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Thai at Heart]

they need to smash corruption, sort out the courts, and change the role of the army.

[Moruya]

they need to smash corruption, sort out the courts, and change the role of the army.

And sit down for a nice cup of tea

[Fozfromoz]

Could I just say, as I was in and out of Thailand at that time, to Korat, so wasn't directly affected, that I firmly believe, and I think all (most) on here would as well, that there was no way that Abhisit set out to intentionally target and kill citizens.

A mammoth decision needed to be made to put a stop to the escalation of protests/ activities/ violence/ holding the city to ransom if you will. As someone previously stated, if guilty of anything, it would be tardiness probably with the view that they thought they could get on top of it sooner. He had a critical situation on his hands, compounded by it seems lack of effective policing, and protestors unwilling to compromise or at least negotiate.

The whole who, what, when ,where has been debated to death, no pun intended, over the last couple of years. Hypothetical I know, but if we stopped to think what the outcome would have been had no action been taken, it would be quite frightening. The place would probably resemble Beirut in the 80s.

Anyway an emergency decree was approved and executed to put the lid on it. What's in that I don't know, but as I said before, there are many levels of command between approval of the SOE, and the soldier on the ground. If the Army overstepped any boundaries, panicked or whatever, and that caused deaths and injuries, the levels of command should be investigated and dealt with. It seems that's a closed shop.

Not sure what happened after but the police command should have been disciplined/ sacked or whatever.

Anybody anywhere, here in Thailand or outside, will see that this nothing but a political sham that's only going to blow up in the govt face. I certainly hope so, and they get laughed off the stage. Speaking of stage, perhaps they should be on the first one outta town.

What next, hold Abhisit responsible for any thefts, or cars stolen? How about any 7/11 owners sue because they couldn't get into the shop without tripping over sandbags.?

Goodness me.

[rixalex]

Even the Nation accepted the Army had a role in Abhisits coming to power.

I personally don't question that the army had a role in Abhisit's coming to power. What i would question is how much difference there is, or how much less democratic it is, to have an unelected member of the military playing a role in establishing a coalition government, or to have an unelected on the run criminal playing a role in establishing a coalition government.

The actual reality is, pretty much all coalition governments, are brought together with the involvement of unelected people, most commonly people from the upper echelons of business, who have their own interests and reasons for helping to steer things politically in a certain direction. In Abhisit's case, it was less to do with business people and more to do with military people. Big deal. People are either elected and democratically representative of the people with a right to get involved in government formation or they aren't. Anupong wasn't and nor was Thaksin. Oppose both of their involvements or don't oppose either.

[muttley]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...

I didn't say that. You seemed to indicate that Newin was forced to back Abhisit.

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

[gl555]

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?

I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.

The fact remains the police did little to nothing to contain the protests. Whether they are are loyal to Thaksin or not doesn't matter. They failed in their job and therefore the Army had to come in and do their jobs for them. You talk about strangeness? Nothing is 'strange' when you're dealing with the red shirts. Nothing makes sense about these people.

If you don't actually have an answer to the question perhaps just keep quiet rather than voicing bizarre assertions... there's been far too much of that already and it makes debating any subject remotely political nigh on impossible here. Can we just stick to rational views backed up by either logical reasoning or facts rather than baseless assertion, speculation and all the mud slinging?

The police were there while the 'peaceful protestors' god violent. The police did nothing even though they had the numbers and the equipment to handle the crowd. That's a fact.

The 'peaceful protestors' had firearms and grenade launchers. That's a fact.

You have 'peaceful protestors' with weapons and the police doing NOTHING, of course you send in the Army to handle these rebels.

That's as rational as you can get. There is no baseless assertion here. Tens of thousands of rebels, some armed to the teeth, with supposedly quite a few with gasoline. Do you as a government let them to as they hell please and overthrow you? Of course not, you send in your troops to knock some heads. But it's obvious you're one of those red apologists so what's there to discuss? The reds crap smell good to people like you.

[Pimay1]

We folks on this board are a real piece of work. Most of us come from another country and we know basic right from wrong. We see the corruption here and the racists attitudes of the populace and realize there is really nothing we as guest in this country can do about it and rightly so.

So we accept it as it is what it is and make our choice to stay here. Then we get into heated debates here on TVF about whatever we choose. The interesting part to me is that some of us support the corruption and criminal activity that we can see daily commited by the current government. Then we try our best to justify these wrong doings.

I really believe in my heart that the people who say they support Yingluck and the red leaders and their agenda, case in point the current discussion of this thread, are only posting what they know will keep a lively discussion going. I do not believe and never will believe they are sincere in what they post. How can they be when they know the obvious truth about TS, Yingluck, Chalerm and others who are leading this adminstration?

Just my opinion. Like noses, everyone has one.

[ballpoint]

Six pages down and the majority of posts seem to be excuses for the acts of thuggery and terror commited by the reds. Oh, it's okay that they fired grenades and murdered innocent people, they were just spontaneously protesting about a coup that happened four years previously, and calling for elections because they didn't like the end result of the previous one. Never mind that in the 2007 election the majority of the party vote was for either the Democrats or a candidate from a party whose leader publically stated he would not join a PPP led coalition. Never mind that every member of parliament in 2009 was either voted in during the 2007 elections, or in a more recent by-election, in a process just as "democratic" as the 2011 ones. Never mind that, in those by-elections, the vast majority of people voted either for the democrats, or a party that had joined them in their coalition. No, someone got some illegally acquired money taken away from him and tried increasingly bizarre stunts in order to provoke a response, before settling on the lethal when all other toys had been thrown out of the pram. It is okay for a government to protect the lives and livelihoods of the general public, it is not okay for a bunch of hired thugs to hijack a city and hold it hostage while commiting acts of terror on the populace.

[Artisi]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

I must say you know little of the demonstrations if you say they were peaceful

Or very stupid.

[whybother]

I understand that to just reply with a one sided narrative depicting the violent aspect of the Reds, while ignoring the violent response - 700 seriously injured, 800 significantly injured and 91 dead, is far easier than actually addressing the points raised. I just don't think that these disingenuous posts help anyone or further our understanding of the events of 2010.

The red shirts were violent. The red shirts were armed. What sort of response were they expecting?

[muttley]

Even the Nation accepted the Army had a role in Abhisits coming to power.

I personally don't question that the army had a role in Abhisit's coming to power. What i would question is how much difference there is, or how much less democratic it is, to have an unelected member of the military playing a role in establishing a coalition government, or to have an unelected on the run criminal playing a role in establishing a coalition government.

The actual reality is, pretty much all coalition governments, are brought together with the involvement of unelected people, most commonly people from the upper echelons of business, who have their own interests and reasons for helping to steer things politically in a certain direction. In Abhisit's case, it was less to do with business people and more to do with military people. Big deal. People are either elected and democratically representative of the people with a right to get involved in government formation or they aren't. Anupong wasn't and nor was Thaksin. Oppose both of their involvements or don't oppose either.

If you can't see the problem with a government being indebted to and led by it's own countries Armed Forces, I don't know what to say. Suffice to say that maybe, just maybe it would have some bearing on how they approached the events of 2010, both the government of the day and the army.

I would expect to have seen different results, for example, if it had been one year earlier and Gen.Anupong was not about to be replaced by the headstrong Prayuth - less casualties for one.

[DiamondKing]

Will Taksin be charged for the thousands killed in his war on drugs?

Will Yingluck be charged for all of the deaths in the south in her war against the Muslims?

YOUR DELUSIONAL the south Mulim issue has been the same for many governments

[whybother]

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?

[muttley]

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?

Isn't this when the But.....argument is supposed to be rolled out?

No, I was specifically talking about the rewards made available (not counting the alleged up front payments of course) to members of Newins Faction, i.e 5 Ministry post including the Interior Ministry in order to make it attractive to back Abhisits coaltion approach (albeit being an approach from his military friends).

They could have been attracted by Abhisits political policies of course, though being part of a political party that hadn't won an election for just under 20 years wouldn't really appeal to their political ambition I would have thought.

[whybother]

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?

Isn't this when the But.....argument is supposed to be rolled out?

No, I was specifically talking about the rewards made available (not counting the alleged up front payments of course) to members of Newins Faction, i.e 5 Ministry post including the Interior Ministry in order to make it attractive to back Abhisits coaltion approach (albeit being an approach from his military friends).

They could have been attracted by Abhisits political policies of course, though being part of a political party that hadn't won an election for just under 20 years wouldn't really appeal to their political ambition I would have thought.

Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?

Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.

[smutcakes]

Could I just say, as I was in and out of Thailand at that time, to Korat, so wasn't directly affected, that I firmly believe, and I think all (most) on here would as well, that there was no way that Abhisit set out to intentionally target and kill citizens.

A mammoth decision needed to be made to put a stop to the escalation of protests/ activities/ violence/ holding the city to ransom if you will. As someone previously stated, if guilty of anything, it would be tardiness probably with the view that they thought they could get on top of it sooner. He had a critical situation on his hands, compounded by it seems lack of effective policing, and protestors unwilling to compromise or at least negotiate.

The whole who, what, when ,where has been debated to death, no pun intended, over the last couple of years. Hypothetical I know, but if we stopped to think what the outcome would have been had no action been taken, it would be quite frightening. The place would probably resemble Beirut in the 80s.

Anyway an emergency decree was approved and executed to put the lid on it. What's in that I don't know, but as I said before, there are many levels of command between approval of the SOE, and the soldier on the ground. If the Army overstepped any boundaries, panicked or whatever, and that caused deaths and injuries, the levels of command should be investigated and dealt with. It seems that's a closed shop.

Not sure what happened after but the police command should have been disciplined/ sacked or whatever.

Anybody anywhere, here in Thailand or outside, will see that this nothing but a political sham that's only going to blow up in the govt face. I certainly hope so, and they get laughed off the stage. Speaking of stage, perhaps they should be on the first one outta town.

What next, hold Abhisit responsible for any thefts, or cars stolen? How about any 7/11 owners sue because they couldn't get into the shop without tripping over sandbags.?

Goodness me.

Good post. One thing that may be questioned though is as the leader of the country, is it a reflection on Abhisit's leadership skills that he or his party were unable to get the police to do their job?. After all, I am sure that the head honchos in the police force at the time, were receiving the benefits of being in those positions under the Democrat Government as no doubt the current police are benefiting from the PTP Government.

In my view some part of the police's unwillingness or lack of action must be put down to the indecisiveness of the administration at the time, and not having the leadership or direction to get them to do what was necessary. Speaking to Bangkok based Thai people who traditionally have supported the Democrats, some of the feelings of frustration they had was due to the indecisiveness of the Government in dealing with the mob issue, but also general umming an ahhing in many of their policy implementations.

[Ferangled]

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?

Isn't this when the But.....argument is supposed to be rolled out?

No, I was specifically talking about the rewards made available (not counting the alleged up front payments of course) to members of Newins Faction, i.e 5 Ministry post including the Interior Ministry in order to make it attractive to back Abhisits coaltion approach (albeit being an approach from his military friends).

They could have been attracted by Abhisits political policies of course, though being part of a political party that hadn't won an election for just under 20 years wouldn't really appeal to their political ambition I would have thought.

Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?

Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.

Not all then double the military budget, tipping their caps to those that handed them power...

[Ferangled]

Could I just say, as I was in and out of Thailand at that time, to Korat, so wasn't directly affected, that I firmly believe, and I think all (most) on here would as well, that there was no way that Abhisit set out to intentionally target and kill citizens.

A mammoth decision needed to be made to put a stop to the escalation of protests/ activities/ violence/ holding the city to ransom if you will. As someone previously stated, if guilty of anything, it would be tardiness probably with the view that they thought they could get on top of it sooner. He had a critical situation on his hands, compounded by it seems lack of effective policing, and protestors unwilling to compromise or at least negotiate.

The whole who, what, when ,where has been debated to death, no pun intended, over the last couple of years. Hypothetical I know, but if we stopped to think what the outcome would have been had no action been taken, it would be quite frightening. The place would probably resemble Beirut in the 80s.

Quite so. Perhaps acknowledging that your Government was a sham, a puppet to the military and stepping down would have been preferable to letting loose armed troops on his own people... Beirut? No, I think loss of life would have been avoidable and an immediate general election would have prevented the escalation of violence that led to so many deaths.

But but but, he offered General elections... yes he did, albeit at a much later date and to a crowd that would be sceptical of the sincerity of his offer due to past history of his party's shenanigans. They had a bit of a history of ensuring that no one actually voted in by the people ever retained power.

The fact that this offer was made tells us that Abhisit knew exactly what the protests were about, what they were calling for and what it would take to resolve the situation. Given the choice between stepping down immediately and losing 6 months at the trough or turning Bangkok into a war zone and letting loose the military he chose the latter. Why?

[rixalex]

If you can't see the problem with a government being indebted to and led by it's own countries Armed Forces, I don't know what to say.

I can see a problem with that, just as i can see a problem with a government being indebted to various unnamed people from the business sector... or to give another example, a government being indebted to an on the run overseas convicted criminal. Can you though?

[smutcakes]

Could I just say, as I was in and out of Thailand at that time, to Korat, so wasn't directly affected, that I firmly believe, and I think all (most) on here would as well, that there was no way that Abhisit set out to intentionally target and kill citizens.

A mammoth decision needed to be made to put a stop to the escalation of protests/ activities/ violence/ holding the city to ransom if you will. As someone previously stated, if guilty of anything, it would be tardiness probably with the view that they thought they could get on top of it sooner. He had a critical situation on his hands, compounded by it seems lack of effective policing, and protestors unwilling to compromise or at least negotiate.

The whole who, what, when ,where has been debated to death, no pun intended, over the last couple of years. Hypothetical I know, but if we stopped to think what the outcome would have been had no action been taken, it would be quite frightening. The place would probably resemble Beirut in the 80s.

Quite so. Perhaps acknowledging that your Government was a sham, a puppet to the military and stepping down would have been preferable to letting loose armed troops on his own people... Beirut? No, I think loss of life would have been avoidable and an immediate general election would have prevented the escalation of violence that led to so many deaths.

But but but, he offered General elections... yes he did, albeit at a much later date and to a crowd that would be sceptical of the sincerity of his offer due to past history of his party's shenanigans. They had a bit of a history of ensuring that no one actually voted in by the people ever retained power.

The fact that this offer was made tells us that Abhisit knew exactly what the protests were about, what they were calling for and what it would take to resolve the situation. Given the choice between stepping down immediately and losing 6 months at the trough or turning Bangkok into a war zone and letting loose the military he chose the latter. Why?

So if people aligned to the Democrat party now hold a large rally, to prevent blood shed you think an election should be called? regardless of the nuances of how they came to be in power, you cannot be beholden to mob tactics.

Although i believe a lot of the hyperbole on here regarding the red shirt protesters is over the top, there is no doubt the whole situation was engineered. They should not have been there in the first place, and the Government through proper control and leadership of the police should have handled the situation far better without the need for military intervention.

But to charge Abhisit or Suthep for the deaths of civilians is crazy. It was very unfortunate and if there are people in the military who overstepped their orders and committed criminal acts they personally should be bought to justice as would be the case in most countries.

[muttley]

Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.

Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?

Isn't this when the But.....argument is supposed to be rolled out?

No, I was specifically talking about the rewards made available (not counting the alleged up front payments of course) to members of Newins Faction, i.e 5 Ministry post including the Interior Ministry in order to make it attractive to back Abhisits coaltion approach (albeit being an approach from his military friends).

They could have been attracted by Abhisits political policies of course, though being part of a political party that hadn't won an election for just under 20 years wouldn't really appeal to their political ambition I would have thought.

Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?

Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.

Probably, but how many coalition partners have that approach made to them

"due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted."

Just give up the denial , Abhisit formed a coalition in extremely unusal circumstances. It was not done in any kind of usual way that you and the others on here try to portray. It was just one more nail in the coffin for the peoples vote.

If Abhisit had any morals whatsoever He would have called an early election to ensure he had the peoples mandate. He didn't because he knew he would lose the vote.

[whybother]

Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?

Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.

Not all then double the military budget, tipping their caps to those that handed them power...

It seems the Democrats didn't either. (21/5/2009)

Thai Military Budget Slashed By Bt19 Billion

[whybother]

Probably, but how many coalition partners have that approach made to them

"due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted."

Just give up the denial , Abhisit formed a coalition in extremely unusal circumstances. It was not done in any kind of usual way that you and the others on here try to portray. It was just one more nail in the coffin for the peoples vote.

If Abhisit had any morals whatsoever He would have called an early election to ensure he had the peoples mandate. He didn't because he knew he would lose the vote.

It was the PTP that went to parliament to elect a new Prime Minister. Complain to them about not calling elections.

[muttley]

If you can't see the problem with a government being indebted to and led by it's own countries Armed Forces, I don't know what to say.

I can see a problem with that, just as i can see a problem with a government being indebted to various unnamed people from the business sector... or to give another example, a government being indebted to an on the run overseas convicted criminal. Can you though?

Generally speaking, and I am talking about the west here, unnamed people from the business sector, don't they call them lobbyists, influence governments but they don't have access to large amounts of trained armed people who use those weapons on their own people (though I'm willing to make an exception for BAe and their ilk who prefer to sell guns for other governments to use on their own and other people).

So yes I can see a problem, but I know which version is the more dangerous and unpredictable - 18 coups since '32 and just to keep the status quo?

[OzMick]

Probably, but how many coalition partners have that approach made to them

"due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted."

Just give up the denial , Abhisit formed a coalition in extremely unusal circumstances. It was not done in any kind of usual way that you and the others on here try to portray. It was just one more nail in the coffin for the peoples vote.

If Abhisit had any morals whatsoever He would have called an early election to ensure he had the peoples mandate. He didn't because he knew he would lose the vote.

" extremely unusal circumstances" ?? in your mind perhaps. But does that equate to illegal or illegitimate?

it is a mantra of governments - We do NOT do deals with terrorists.