Here we go again, Thailand

[fab4]

So...what he IS makes what he SAYS less true?!

On this forum it does, very obviously so.

[fab4]

Aren't the Reds angry about the amnesty bill as it will mean the people responsible for the deaths during the 2010 disturbances will be let off?

Whatever Thaksin's faults, his government was overthrown by a military coup which started the current unrest.

According to what I have read on TVF, Mr Thaksin didn't have a government when the coup occurred.

Apparently he'd resigned as P.M.?

Which just goes to show you. Don't make TVF your only source. There's a whole world of information out there, not that some would notice.

[fab4]

Aren't the Reds angry about the amnesty bill as it will mean the people responsible for the deaths during the 2010 disturbances will be let off?

Whatever Thaksin's faults, his government was overthrown by a military coup which started the current unrest.

I suggest that you look at "cause and effect" rather than writing whatever tickles your fancy. People were alarmed at the manic corruption, total abuse of power with complete disregard and allusions of grandeur way above his station by Khun T, which to others had become unacceptable. That was the cause of the coupe, which to those who perpetuated it, was their solution to the problem. I suspect they felt there was no way they could defeat this man through the ballot box, so had to take drastic action. I do not condone coupes, but through whatever means, he had managed to amass such a huge following, who had been encouraged to hero worship him, there was no way he was going to be ousted by normal(?) political means. There is no doubt that the man is exceptionally charismatic and has outstanding leadership qualities, but that does not mean that what he was doing was right. I am sure others can think of other outstanding leaders in history, who if they had followed more righteous ways, would have been written about far more kindly rather than following the route of despots and being condemned for the rest of time. And if the press is to be believed, it would look like we are about to go round the same round about again, despite him not residing in the Country.

It was a coup not a coupe.

If every country overthrew elected governments because they felt they couldn't defeat them democratically or because they thought them to be corrupt or abusing power, the world would be in as sorry a state as Thailand.

Exactly

How ever it was not an elected government.

Is it that hard for you to understand the difference between people voting you in and just grabbing the seat.

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

Edited October 29, 2013 by fab4

[ginjag]

I suggest that you look at "cause and effect" rather than writing whatever tickles your fancy. People were alarmed at the manic corruption, total abuse of power with complete disregard and allusions of grandeur way above his station by Khun T, which to others had become unacceptable. That was the cause of the coupe, which to those who perpetuated it, was their solution to the problem. I suspect they felt there was no way they could defeat this man through the ballot box, so had to take drastic action. I do not condone coupes, but through whatever means, he had managed to amass such a huge following, who had been encouraged to hero worship him, there was no way he was going to be ousted by normal(?) political means. There is no doubt that the man is exceptionally charismatic and has outstanding leadership qualities, but that does not mean that what he was doing was right. I am sure others can think of other outstanding leaders in history, who if they had followed more righteous ways, would have been written about far more kindly rather than following the route of despots and being condemned for the rest of time. And if the press is to be believed, it would look like we are about to go round the same round about again, despite him not residing in the Country.

It was a coup not a coupe.

If every country overthrew elected governments because they felt they couldn't defeat them democratically or because they thought them to be corrupt or abusing power, the world would be in as sorry a state as Thailand.

Exactly

How ever it was not an elected government.

Is it that hard for you to understand the difference between people voting you in and just grabbing the seat.

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

How anyone that can stand by and let the red thugs take over the capitol. You and a few others ?? what would you have done if you were in charge, condone it--like never mind ??? get real something had to be done , and the police were where??? Protect the Kingdom-that's why the army were called in.

[khunken]

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

So you would condemn the attempted coup in 2010 by the red shirts financed by Thaksin?

[fab4]

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

So you would condemn the attempted coup in 2010 by the red shirts financed by Thaksin?

Did they remove the rights of the Thai people to have an election? I don't think they did. Not really the same situation is it?

It was not a coup, or even an attempted coup, so nothing to defend or otherwise.

[rubl]

Totally agree, the anti-government protesters in 2010 only refused an early election. Mind you they removed the right of Thai people to pass through parts of Thailand without a car or even body search. They had armed friends and lots of grenades.

Or in your words 'nothing to defend or otherwise'

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

So you would condemn the attempted coup in 2010 by the red shirts financed by Thaksin?

Did they remove the rights of the Thai people to have an election? I don't think they did. Not really the same situation is it?

It was not a coup, or even an attempted coup, so nothing to defend or otherwise.

[khunken]

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

So you would condemn the attempted coup in 2010 by the red shirts financed by Thaksin?

Did they remove the rights of the Thai people to have an election? I don't think they did. Not really the same situation is it?

It was not a coup, or even an attempted coup, so nothing to defend or otherwise.

I thought so - hypocrisy in a nutshell.

[fab4]

Whether it was an elected government or whether it was not it makes no difference (I've already made my stance on this known elsewhere).

The RTA staged a coup and took away the peoples right to voting in a government by election. That Election had been royally endorsed and was scheduled to be held on October 15th.

How anybody can defend a coup is beyond me.

So you would condemn the attempted coup in 2010 by the red shirts financed by Thaksin?

Did they remove the rights of the Thai people to have an election? I don't think they did. Not really the same situation is it?

It was not a coup, or even an attempted coup, so nothing to defend or otherwise.

I thought so - hypocrisy in a nutshell.

You have a strange concept of hypocrisy

2006: Caretaker Government. Election Royally endorsed to be held on Oct.15th. Coup. Result: No Election.

2010: Government in place due to "judicial coups" and military interference in coalition making . Demonstrations. Result: Election

See the difference?

[brewsterbudgen]

Blind anti-Thaksin beliefs tend to make these types of arguments pointless. A bit like the way the hard-right rail against Obama in the US.

[Artisi]

Aren't the Reds angry about the amnesty bill as it will mean the people responsible for the deaths during the 2010 disturbances will be let off?

Whatever Thaksin's faults, his government was overthrown by a military coup which started the current unrest.

You need to get your facts sorted out, Thaksin's government wasn't overthrown by a military coup, at the time of the timely military intervention there was only a caretaker government. The current unrest is all the doing of a criminal fugitive who will use any means and anybody for his own personal gain and the more of his supporter's that end up dead all the better for his cause (that's entirely in his mind) - and of course he hasn't the balls to front up himself - just likes to play emperor from a great distance.

[centrala]

Blind anti-Thaksin beliefs tend to make these types of arguments pointless. A bit like the way the hard-right rail against Obama in the US.

Blind pro-Thaksin beliefs tend to make these discussions repetitively pointless. A bit like the way pro-Marcos fans still rail on about the good old days in the Philippines.

[brewsterbudgen]

Aren't the Reds angry about the amnesty bill as it will mean the people responsible for the deaths during the 2010 disturbances will be let off?

Whatever Thaksin's faults, his government was overthrown by a military coup which started the current unrest.

You need to get your facts sorted out, Thaksin's government wasn't overthrown by a military coup, at the time of the timely military intervention there was only a caretaker government. The current unrest is all the doing of a criminal fugitive who will use any means and anybody for his own personal gain and the more of his supporter's that end up dead all the better for his cause (that's entirely in his mind) - and of course he hasn't the balls to front up himself - just likes to play emperor from a great distance.

A democratically elected government was overthrown by a military coup. Those are the only facts needed.

[hellodolly]

"all because he didn't stand in the way of his ex wife doing a legal bid for a piece of land"

She wasn't his ex-wife when she bought the land, that's the whole point of why it was illegal.

Exactly unfortunately you are talking to people who for some reason or another don't want to know the truth.

On a side note I dont know what Thaksin is worried about. He always says he wants to come home. Well then why doesn't he just come back, get arrested and serve his sentence so people don't need to listen to his crying anymore regarding to how homesick he is. People are sick of him already anyway.

If he comes back there are about 15 other charges that he will have to face. That is why the PTP are so anxious to whitewash him. If found guilty of them he would have to plead guilty to all of them and get his sentence cut in half other wise he would die in jail.

How can you have a coup if there is no Prime Minister. If the roles were reversed and it was Thaksin stepping in to fill the vacuum would you call it a coup? I think not.

The army has to protect the king and leaving the office open to a would be dictator would be failing in their duties..

Try to justify it all you like, but it was still a military takeover of an elected government.

I am not trying to justify it.

I simply point out a fact you were unaware of.

No thanks necessary .

[brewsterbudgen]

I am not trying to justify it.

I simply point out a fact you were unaware of.

No thanks necessary:wai2: .

Thanks for pointing out that Thaksin was caretaker prime minister when the military overthrew his government. And thanks for not trying to justify a mlitary overthrow of an elected government.

[build6]

It was fully justified and the mistake they made was handing power back too early. Thaksin was taking Thailand down a road toward a form of dictatorship - quite possibly along the Lee Kwan Yu lines.

it's possible Thailand run under Lee Kwan Yu a la Singaporean lines would be an improvement

a form of dictatorship with almost no corruption? I think a lot of Thais would vote for it.

[MikeOboe57]

Let me make this clear all of you who are going to go out and protest, you are being fooled to think you are doing it for the benefit of Thailand, or even the Royal Family.

There are more important things in your lives. The latest whitening creams, 2 ton gas-guzzling SUVs to show your status, your smartphone and tablet computer, your facebook accounts with hundreds of selfies, 10.000 friends and 150.000 likes, and those famous Thai soap operas, that entertainment charity where the worst actors and actresses of this country are being given a platform to show why they should have taken up a different job.

Don't stick your heads into politics, let us do it for you. And contend yourself with silently voicing your opinion in the voting booth every 4 years, this is enough democracy for you. And we might even be willing to honour your "correct" opinion with 500 THB. Do we have a deal?

[LemonSqueeza]

"seven years after the coupe"

time to upgrade to a saloon or suv id say

[Thaddeus]

2006: Caretaker Government. Election Royally endorsed to be held on Oct.15th. Coup. Result: No Election.

That would be a good argument if it was a caretaker Government, it wasn't.

It was nothing more than a megalomaniac playing Game of Thrones.

And he lost.

He is still losing every round, and it is really pissing him off.

I wonder if his luxury residence in Dubai has any carpets left un-chewed, or doors that do not have an imprint of his size nines, he must be tired of sticking them in his own mouth by now.

Actually, he is that self-obsessed he probably hasn't even noticed, because everyone loves him.

[papa al]

Life is destined to repeat if certain people are to dumb to wake up and smell the roses.

Two cliches in one sentence!

[Jib Teenuc]

From the OP:

"Has all this hatred for one man been worth it for Thailand."

From me:

Yes, if you "hate" him (what does that even mean?).

Otherwise, no.

Was Abhisit better (for Thailand as a whole) = No (but who is it than can be all things to all men?).

Maybe he is/was, for some, but certainly not for the majority (unless the least enfranchised of society are not to be considered worthy of a vote, at all).

TS is, almost undoubtedly, corrupt suspect. Abhisit is, almost undoubtedly, corrupt suspect.

Given that and equally given that Thailand currently excercises a "on-man-one-vote" system (quite right, too), should the minority voters not acquiese to the wishes of the majority voters (you can call that "democracy", if you will) prior to organising a coup and sending in the troops, just because they don't agree with them?

Give them a chance, at least. You can always vote them out again (call it "democracy", if you will), at the next election..

Until then, I've not really seen any significant (or even superficial, for that matter) changes in LOS since the change of Government.

Please feel free to list yours.

Enlighten us as to how ANY change in the Thai government affects you or yours (or even me).

I truly am intrigued to know.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Jib Teenuc

[Artisi]

Please explain how a caretaker government becomes a democratically elected government?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[brewsterbudgen]

Please explain how a caretaker government becomes a democratically elected government?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

An election is held and people vote.

[Artisi]

Except they don't vote for a caretaker government, hence the difference and the reason that the coup didn't displace an elected government.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited October 30, 2013 by Artisi

[brewsterbudgen]

Except they don't vote for a caretaker government, hence the difference and the reason that the coup didn't displace an elected government.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I take your point. But in a democracy only the voters should have the power to change a government. One party won the election (in a landslide) in 2005 and then another election in April 2006. The fact that many parties boycotted it is irrelevant. Even though the election was subsequently invalidated, that did not give the right for a military junta to seize power.

I hold no truck for Thaksin, but nor do I support military coups.

[Artisi]

Except they don't vote for a caretaker government, hence the difference and the reason that the coup didn't displace an elected government.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I take your point. But in a democracy only the voters should have the power to change a government. One party won the election (in a landslide) in 2005 and then another election in April 2006. The fact that many parties boycotted it is irrelevant. Even though the election was subsequently invalidated, that did not give the right for a military junta to seize power.

I hold no truck for Thaksin, but nor do I support military coups.

I also don't think anything of Thaksin, and as for military coups, well sometimes stern measures are needed and I think you can't get much sterner than a coup - for better or worse which in this case may have been for the better however, only history will tell.

[Bkungbank]

Once upon a time there are two families, one lived a rich family on the hill top and other on foot hill very poor wooden house but the poor family live happily with laughing everyday this annoying the rich family which not happy at all even they have everything they wanted.

To stop the laughing sound one day the rich have an idea by giving a huge amount of cash to the poor family since then they were no more laughing sound could be heard again the only sound is fighting about the share of money that they should get .

This story tell us we have to practice our King sufficient economy, it not how much we gain but how much we can give to others..

If this country still fighting to gain power and money it will disaster.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Bkungbank