http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XJonMclsEw

If you are an auto blogger, you would definitely not understand someone trying to prove carburetor system is better than injection system in 2013

You're either grossly misreading this, or not hep with interviewing methods in the Western media...

I think Mark's best off moving back to the UK.

In fairness he did reject the Amnesty Bill and just stated he'd accept the death penalty if it were handed down to him by the courts.

Peacefully unarmed (with catapults).

Anyone ever seen what a catapult can do?

How was Mark supposed to take back Bangkok in 2010 against armed militants without anyone getting hurt?

CNN, BBC all English news really love Thaksin and hate Abhisit

what a complete misrepresentation of the actual interviews in which Abhisit was given full reign to make his points and clarify his objectives. The OP heading should be changed as many people will simply read the title and make a totally wrong judgement.

They're not on the side of Thaksin or Abhisit

They're on the side of democracy.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

So what if it was on the back of populist policies? Populist policies aren't illegal, are they?

What government hasn't promised the earth to win a freakin' election?

Don't ya just love Abhisit........."power to the people", knowing he would lose by a distance.

politicians want to be politicians not for the power but the abuse of power

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by farang000999

If Thaksin actually cared about the country wouldn't it be best to let the red shirt movement go on without him and his family at the helm?

I like Mark, but he can't seem to win an election. More Thai people want Thaksin.

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by Ulysses G.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

I'll ignore your invocation of Godwin's law; but will remind you:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

I'll also say that as someone who is following the crisis via the BBC that on the whole I have found their reporting to be fair and balanced.

I can only assume that you consider it otherwise because they haven't supported the same side as you.

Haven't seen any CNN coverage, so cannot comment on that.

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by 7by7

You guys know that he was a policeman turned billionaire because of his government monopoly contracts and that his second in charge Chalerm is a gangster whose son executed a guy in a nightclub right? ...

You guys know that he was a policeman turned billionaire because of his government monopoly contracts and that his second in charge Chalerm is a gangster whose son executed a guy in a nightclub right? ...

What has that to do with you accusations of bias in the English language media in general and CNN and the BBC in particular.

Or you dismissal of democracy, come to that.

Whoever the Thai people vote for, that is their decision; whatever that persons past or family connections.

Thailand isn't the only country in the region to have corrupt politicians; and those in the West are no angels either!

Ever heard of a chap called Silvio Berlusconi, for example? The similarities to Thaksin are remarkable; they could almost be the same person!

BTW, I've read this report from the BBC several times and can find no bias; maybe you could point it out to me?

Can't see any bias in either of the two interviews in your OP either; just the sort of questioning any politician should expect from the media these days.

Maybe it's different in whatever country you're from and the media there doesn't ask politicians difficult questions.

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

Dumb question considering the context.

Are the opposition here any less corrupt?

Thaksin is a Hitler. He hasn't killed millions yet because it is 2013 and a lot harder to kill millions (of course his buddy Hun Sen of the Khmer Rouge would disagree). He has shown a complete disregard for human life over and over again. Go back and look at what Thaksin created in the South, the drug killings and look at the sniper executions he ordered in the 2010 protests. he is a criminal on the run from the law running a puppet government... and apparently that is all fine with you enlightened farang because he got 48% of the vote and formed a government. Awesome! To answer your question: no the opposition is nowhere near as corrupt or amoral as old square face. The red shirts need to get rid of Squareface and all of his kin and maybe then the rest of the country can take them and their problems seriously.

I am sympathetic to the poor farmers and inequality but as long as their leader is a psychopathic criminal there will be no real reforms or meaningful long lasting changes.

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by farang000999

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

No, Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

To the OP.

You talk about LOVE / HATE.

Do you suffer from acute thainess?

Peacefully unarmed (with catapults).

Anyone ever seen what a catapult can do?

I've seen what RPGs and petrol can do.

PS He said Largely Peaceful

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by Mosha

Thaksin is a Hitler. He hasn't killed millions yet because it is 2013 and a lot harder to kill millions (of course his buddy Hun Sen of the Khmer Rouge would disagree). He has shown a complete disregard for human life over and over again. Go back and look at what Thaksin created in the South, the drug killings and look at the sniper executions he ordered in the 2010 protests. he is a criminal on the run from the law running a puppet government... and apparently that is all fine with you enlightened farang because he got 48% of the vote and formed a government. Awesome! To answer your question: no the opposition is nowhere near as corrupt or amoral as old square face. The red shirts need to get rid of Squareface and all of his kin and maybe then the rest of the country can take them and their problems seriously.

I am sympathetic to the poor farmers and inequality but as long as their leader is a psychopathic criminal there will be no real reforms or meaningful long lasting changes.

Oh my god.

It is not only some thais that have lost it.

There's more to this democracy lark than sitting on the ball & sucking your thumb each time a decision goes the wrong way. Where else in the world can someone play 'elder statesman' one minute & MC 'rent-a-crowd' the next?

What a load of rubbish

Michael Yon? Is that you?

How was Mark supposed to take back Bangkok in 2010 against armed militants without anyone getting hurt?

I recall the only option the red shirts gave was for him and his cronies to step down AND be run out of town on a rail.

Sounds familiar eh?

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by NanLaew

Your rose colored glasses disrupt your view of the international press, that simply favor the Democratic process and mostly back those that were democratically elected in the countries in question! That most guarantee their right to report on events as they witness them (the right to freedom of the Press).

One tends to have a personal bias for those news sources that only conform to their beliefs, as I believe that what the OP's does.

Cheers.

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by kikoman

Like it or not, the Thai people voted for the current shower.

Hitler was democratically elected and immensely popular. Is getting 51% of the vote really a blank slate for corruption?

I'll ignore your invocation of Godwin's law; but will remind you:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

I'll also say that as someone who is following the crisis via the BBC that on the whole I have found their reporting to be fair and balanced.

I can only assume that you consider it otherwise because they haven't supported the same side as you.

Haven't seen any CNN coverage, so cannot comment on that.

yes, democracy is the best principle, maybe it just needs to be modernized a bit.

when democracies were "invented", nobody did seriously think that leftist governments would start giving out money for free, at least not in recent proportions.

today, too many politicians offer free money in exchange for votes, letting others pay the bills.

- do you want more pension?

- do you want more healthcare?

- do you want more unemployment benefits?

- do you want more paid holidays?

- do you want more welfare?

etc.

I would like to see voting rights tied to taxation, i.e. explained in a simplistic way: people who are net contributors to the country's budget are allowed to vote.

Edited December 29, 201312 yr by manarak

Ah yes, let's go back to the 18th and 19th century when only rich landowners could vote; provided they were white, Anglo Saxon, protestant and male.

Do you also believe in sending children down mines and up chimneys?

In the UK we have a welfare state; people do abuse it but it is also there for those who genuinely need it.

We also have the NHS which is paid for from taxation and free at the point of delivery with treatment based upon need, not ability to pay.

Not even the most right wing of British political parties have suggested abolishing either or restricting the franchise.

From the way you have misspelt 'modernization' I assume you are American. I cannot fathom out why the richest country in the world lets it's citizens suffer and die if they don't have health insurance and why so many of it's citizens condemn a president who is trying to change that.