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

[AleG]

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?

Because, for one thing, free and fair elections would had been impossible with a Red Shirt mob doing as they pleased throughout the country.

[muttley]

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.

Well to refer to the earlier discussion - in the normal scheme of things that would not have been a problem - if there had only been politicians involved. I think you'll find that people would have accepted that and would have resulted in a different outcome.

That is why people like you will never understand why people are upset about their governments being stolen, you believe there is nothing wrong with what happened - you can't see that anything wrong happened and you keep on telling yourselves that almost daily on this forum.

[Crushdepth]

It seems that DSI have sold their souls...to the criminal fugitive in Dubai.

No justice in Thailand.

[whybother]

Well to refer to the earlier discussion - in the normal scheme of things that would not have been a problem - if there had only been politicians involved. I think you'll find that people would have accepted that and would have resulted in a different outcome.

That is why people like you will never understand why people are upset about their governments being stolen, you believe there is nothing wrong with what happened - you can't see that anything wrong happened and you keep on telling yourselves that almost daily on this forum.

In the normal scheme of things, it's not an ideal situation to have army generals, police captains, and convicted fugitives involved in the country's politics. But TIT.

[muttley]

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.

You think Army Generals getting involved in politics is anything other than " extremely unusal circumstances"? Perhaps that explains how Australia ended up with their current PM.

[Crushdepth]

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.

You think Army Generals getting involved in politics is anything other than " extremely unusal circumstances"? Perhaps that explains how Australia ended up with their current PM.

We would be happy to donate her to Thailand, along with the leader of the opposition, if it will help.

[rixalex]

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?

The issue we were talking about was not coups or weaponry or army killing people or any of that stuff - those issues can have an affect on any Thai government, be it a coalition government or be it not - the issue was on the specific matter of the formation of coalition governments, and how it is argued by some that Abhisit's was less democratic because it involved the military instead of the business sector, or instead of an on the run overseas criminal, and how this involvement of the military in some way justifies the armed siege of Bangkok.

As i say, unelected bodies interfering in the formation of governments are unelected bodies. Arguing that one unelected body is better than the other, exposes the true agenda here, and it has nothing at all to do with democracy.

Edited December 19, 2012 by rixalex

[jackspratt]

You think Army Generals getting involved in politics is anything other than " extremely unusal circumstances"? Perhaps that explains how Australia ended up with their current PM.

Perhaps you could explain how you think it explains how Australia has its current PM - because on the face of it, your point is nonsensical.

[Ferangled]

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.

I asked some fairly simple questions and raised some points pointing out the inconsistencies of some of our more zealous counterparts on here. I'm sorry that reason escapes you and rather than actually respond to these points you feel the necessity to call me names and speculate as to my motivation.

It would be refreshing to know one can actually take part in discussion here without being branded a "red apologist" but unfortunately if anyone questions anything on here regarding Abhisit or the Dems it's brought out as a way to discredit what they are saying. It's playground politics and reflects more on those that use such terms than it does those that are labelled with such childish dialogue.

What is abundantly clear is that this childish behaviour is the recourse of a certain group of people here that fail to assert their points with facts, prefer wild speculation and mud slinging to reasoned discussion. Try putting away your "loyalties" and actually discussing the issue and points raised without personal critique. The deliberate use of language like "thugs", "rebels", "armed uprising" makes a mockery of your stance. To debate in a reasoned fashion one must try some semblance of impartiality; wild generalisations add no merit.

Your post again, has done nothing to answer or even discuss the points I raised, well done.

[Rich teacher]

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?

The issue we were talking about was not coups or weaponry or army killing people or any of that stuff - those issues can have an affect on any Thai government, be it a coalition government or be it not - the issue was on the specific matter of the formation of coalition governments, and how it is argued by some that Abhisit's was less democratic because it involved the military instead of the business sector, or instead of an on the run overseas criminal, and this involvement of the military in some way justifies the armed siege of Bangkok.

As i say, unelected bodies interfering in the formation of governments are unelected bodies. Arguing that one unelected body is better than the other, exposes the true agenda here, and it has nothing at all to do with democracy.

PTP had no qualms about their election policy, why did we not see "Anupong thinks, Democrats do"?

Because they denied, lied, covered up... the truth behind their route to power.

PTP have no shame in holding up the most successful Thai PM in history as the leader of their party.

[Ferangled]

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

http://www.thaivisa....y-bt19-billion/

You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...

"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."

http://inside.org.au/thailands-bad-men-and-the-challenges-for-abhisit-vejjajiva/

"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.^[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"

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

"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."

http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/05/13/6638682-will-thailands-military-allow-free-elections?lite

Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.

[rixalex]

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?

The issue we were talking about was not coups or weaponry or army killing people or any of that stuff - those issues can have an affect on any Thai government, be it a coalition government or be it not - the issue was on the specific matter of the formation of coalition governments, and how it is argued by some that Abhisit's was less democratic because it involved the military instead of the business sector, or instead of an on the run overseas criminal, and this involvement of the military in some way justifies the armed siege of Bangkok.

As i say, unelected bodies interfering in the formation of governments are unelected bodies. Arguing that one unelected body is better than the other, exposes the true agenda here, and it has nothing at all to do with democracy.

PTP had no qualms about their election policy, why did we not see "Anupong thinks, Democrats do"?

Because they denied, lied, covered up... the truth behind their route to power.

PTP have no shame in holding up the most successful Thai PM in history as the leader of their party.

I see. So the fact that PTP didn't/doesn't cover up the fact that their party is being led and run by someone who wasn't elected, who doesn't live in this country, who is a convicted criminal, who is on the run and who is supposed to be banned from politics, makes it somehow ok, somehow democratic.

Whatever next?! If PTP don't cover up their corruption and are open about it, will that make it ok, make it lawful?

[Moruya]

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

The elite team for cap tipping would be your Thaksinista brothers; fainting and fawning beneath his treasonous feet.

Plodprasop and Pracha are positively Olympian in this event

[Rich teacher]

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?

The issue we were talking about was not coups or weaponry or army killing people or any of that stuff - those issues can have an affect on any Thai government, be it a coalition government or be it not - the issue was on the specific matter of the formation of coalition governments, and how it is argued by some that Abhisit's was less democratic because it involved the military instead of the business sector, or instead of an on the run overseas criminal, and this involvement of the military in some way justifies the armed siege of Bangkok.

As i say, unelected bodies interfering in the formation of governments are unelected bodies. Arguing that one unelected body is better than the other, exposes the true agenda here, and it has nothing at all to do with democracy.

PTP had no qualms about their election policy, why did we not see "Anupong thinks, Democrats do"?

Because they denied, lied, covered up... the truth behind their route to power.

PTP have no shame in holding up the most successful Thai PM in history as the leader of their party.

I see. So the fact that PTP didn't/doesn't cover up the fact that their party is being led and run by someone who wasn't elected, who doesn't live in this country, who is a convicted criminal, who is on the run and who is supposed to be banned from politics, makes it somehow ok, somehow democratic.

Whatever next?! If PTP don't cover up their corruption and are open about it, will that make it ok, make it lawful?

PTP (along with all of its supporters) have made it very clear from the start that they don't acknowledge convictions brought about from the junta installed AEC. Therefore they do not consider him a "convicted criminal".

[whybother]

You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...

"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.^[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"

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

"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."

http://worldblog.nbc...-elections?lite

Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.

Context: In the first budget after taking power, Abhisit slashed the military budget.

Did you even read your links? Between 2006 and 2010, the military budget doubled. Last I checked, Abhisit wasn't in power until the end of 2008.

[valerian]

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

-- R.Kipling

[rixalex]

PTP (along with all of its supporters) have made it very clear from the start that they don't acknowledge convictions brought about from the junta installed AEC. Therefore they do not consider him a "convicted criminal".

Yes it's funny that isn't it? They don't consider him found guilty of abusing his position to help his wife buy land, but they do consider him found innocent of hiding his assets. How awfully convenient.

[Rich teacher]

PTP (along with all of its supporters) have made it very clear from the start that they don't acknowledge convictions brought about from the junta installed AEC. Therefore they do not consider him a "convicted criminal".

Yes it's funny that isn't it? They don't consider him found guilty of abusing his position to help his wife buy land, but they do consider him found innocent of hiding his assets. How awfully convenient.

The NACC also didn't consider him guilty 'of abusing his position to help his wife buy land'

[chatette]

Gross misuse of state resources and tying up courts with political retribution instead of legitimate legal cases.

[Rich teacher]

Gross misuse of state resources and tying up courts with political retribution instead of legitimate legal cases.

Good to see people coming out against the CNS & Democrat agendas

[Ferangled]

You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...

"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.^[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"

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

"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."

http://worldblog.nbc...-elections?lite

Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.

Context: In the first budget after taking power, Abhisit slashed the military budget.

Did you even read your links? Between 2006 and 2010, the military budget doubled. Last I checked, Abhisit wasn't in power until the end of 2008.

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

[Ferangled]

Well to refer to the earlier discussion - in the normal scheme of things that would not have been a problem - if there had only been politicians involved. I think you'll find that people would have accepted that and would have resulted in a different outcome.

That is why people like you will never understand why people are upset about their governments being stolen, you believe there is nothing wrong with what happened - you can't see that anything wrong happened and you keep on telling yourselves that almost daily on this forum.

In the normal scheme of things, it's not an ideal situation to have army generals, police captains, and convicted fugitives involved in the country's politics. But TIT.

Far too often, when reason and logic fail, comes the sigh, raised eyebrow, palms to the sky, "but TIT". I guess democracy works differently here just... well just because eh? Just because This is Thailand, it's acceptable to have the military acting as a check on the Government and not the people themselves?

Has anyone on this thread been following the threads concerning gun regulations in the US? This ideal that the right to bear arms is an integral part of the constitution by empowering the people of the US to keep check on their own Government, rising up if they start to act dictatorially and stray from their democratic ideals?

Personally it's an idea that I reject as I do the rights of all to own and use military grade weapons but the parallels between why this is used as a justifiable reason for keeping arms seems to contrast starkly with the response to the red shirt protests of 2010. Just because there was an armed element the entirety of the protesters have been branded thugs, armed mercenaries and the actual motivation is pushed aside as an irrelevance.

We are told that Thaksin is the man behind it, the motivation pure greed and revenge for his financial losses, while the democratic hiccups that have resulted in yet another military installed Government are irrelevant... of course one must not dare to question this or suggest that the actual situation is slightly more involved for fear of being branded a red short apologist or Thaksin lover, how convenient!

The Red shirts have been vilified for having armed elements within their ranks and I don't see many people debating the rights and wrongs of the Red portion of the aggression in 2010. It's widely decreed as wrong, the protests have been branded violent rebellion and some even justify the military response as appropriate... I just wonder how many are spouting utter hypocrisy on this issue and how similar events in the US would be met by these very same posters...

[whybother]

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

It is also disingenuous to blame Abhisit for doubling the military budget when, clearly, he didn't.

[Ferangled]

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

It is also disingenuous to blame Abhisit for doubling the military budget when, clearly, he didn't.

Yes, let's blame Thaksin instead, he was clearly pulling the strings from afar, it had nothing to do with Abhisit or his party...

[whybother]

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

It is also disingenuous to blame Abhisit for doubling the military budget when, clearly, he didn't.

Yes, let's blame Thaksin instead, he was clearly pulling the strings from afar, it had nothing to do with Abhisit or his party...

You can blame Thaksin for doubling the military budget if you want, or you can continue to blame Abhisit.

Or maybe you could just stick to facts.

[Ferangled]

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

It is also disingenuous to blame Abhisit for doubling the military budget when, clearly, he didn't.

Yes, let's blame Thaksin instead, he was clearly pulling the strings from afar, it had nothing to do with Abhisit or his party...

You can blame Thaksin for doubling the military budget if you want, or you can continue to blame Abhisit.

Or maybe you could just stick to facts.

I'd love to but difficult when you choose to ignore them. Are you maintaining that the military budget didn't double from the 2006 coup to the end of Abhisit's turn at the trough?

[rubl]

It really warm the cockles on my heart to see posters engaged in a renewed effort to re-hash the 2010 events once more and are not even afraid of tackling years before that. Not that there's anything new, but don't let that spoil the fun.

May I ponder on the role of the snake? I always though Eve was maligned, and even up to a point the snake. I mean who let the snake in?

[whybother]

I'd love to but difficult when you choose to ignore them. Are you maintaining that the military budget didn't double from the 2006 coup to the end of Abhisit's turn at the trough?

Did I ever deny that the military budget doubled from 2006 to 2010?

Are you maintaining that Abhisit doubled the military budget?

[khunken]

It all started in 2000/1 when Thaksin lied about his assets & his wife & Sanoh made sure that the 'right' judges let him off. Thai politics went downhill after that. Fast forward through the family enrichment years and the army stepped in because corruption had got out of hand - just like in some of the previous coups.

They then withdrew & an election was called - won by TRT with Thaksin pulling the strings. Thaksin found guilty by a court that he tried to bribe, refused to appeal & ran away. Let's ignore the Somchai disaster of using the police to fire tear gas 'missiles' at protestors. Newin's party crossed the floor to back the Dems - allegations of interference but no real proof (not of course needed by Thaksin/red-shirt apologists).

Court takes back a portion of Thaksin's ill-gotten gains. Very soon after he calls & pays for a demonstration in Bangkok as well as other regional cities. The red shirt leaders, ensconced in a Shin 5 star hotel, make all sorts of demands that Abhisit should step down & call an immediate election. Among the rhetoric & incitement there is the excuse that the government is 'illegal', making it look like a call for democracy. This was just a smoke-screen to hide the real intent - return of Thaksin's money. It's amazing that so-called intelligent people can't see this or even accept it.

For the red-shirt leaders to call for democracy, they would have to have a smidgen of understanding of what it means. All subsequent actions by them (red-shirt villages, schools, intimidation again & again) give the lie to their supposed democratic claims.

Now we have a total farce of trying to silence the opposition leader because he doesn't accept 'reconciliation' PTP-style & won't take Thaksin's money & run. I think this will rebound because it will strengthen the various opposition groups & the Dems may well go for a more forceful leader if Abhisit is tied down.

[Thait Spot]

You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...

"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.^[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"

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

"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."

http://worldblog.nbc...-elections?lite

Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.

Context: In the first budget after taking power, Abhisit slashed the military budget.

Did you even read your links? Between 2006 and 2010, the military budget doubled. Last I checked, Abhisit wasn't in power until the end of 2008.

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

How extremely Freudian

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App