Bloomberg interview with Abhisit: 'It's time for reform. Why can't the govt accept that'

[Hawkman]

At last .... !!!

This interview will help the international media realize that in Abisit they have someone who can actually make a complete sentence and speak intelligently abut Thai politics.

This will be the first of many interviews.

You think ?Speaking english has nothing to do with being credible. I think he comes across pretty badly and weak with reasoning, any political editor or decent hard talk will rip him to shreds.get him on hard talk RT or Jeremy Paxman he would get chewed to bits.

Hes out giving interviews atm to try to deflect the huge criticism the Democrats are getting being tied at the hip with the PDRC and defending them wont help him. Had to laugh when he went into his why other countries blah blah and democracy bit.

Some viewers will like it no doubt politically astute ones will laugh at it.

I agree with your comments re the line of questioning, but, can you Imagine Yingluck on Paxman? Oh I'd pay to watch that. If he digs further into questions regarding the Rice Scheme, Amnesty Bill, Corruption and if Thaksin is really running the country. Would love to see how she'd handle the questions.

Would she cry crocodile tears? I bet. Then all you Red Shirts would lash out at Paxman. And then as you put it "Some viewers will like it no doubt politically astute ones will laugh at it" and see through her lies and deceit.

On a side note, Hard Talk, is great isn't it?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Hawkman

[timewilltell]

There is meat on the arguments for both sides but unfortunately it is swamped by the bullshit that is overpowering it, mostly from the supporters of Yingluck and her treasonous inept and corrupt band of thugs.

Politics is a party game and Thaksin / Yingluck undeniably control everything PTP do. Thaksin has implemented some good policies like the healthcare scheme but that was a long time ago. Since then the more recent schemes seem to be more about providing a means to steal Thailand's income for the benefit of his family and friends and less about policies designed to help the nation. The ludicrous lies and BS trotted out to defend all that is wrong with the schemes implemented by the last term in office of Yingluck and complete cover up and total lack of transparency is clear to see.

Abhisit for his part is, I believe one of the better characters but he is controlled by stronger politicians in his party. Those old hats are entrenched in their elitist goals and refuse to accept change. I don't think you can assume that Abhisit agrees with everything Suthep is doing and maybe he hopes Suthep will overreach himself and get taken out of the picture. I am sure Suthep fans a huge influence within the Democrat party and to a degree controls Which policies can be followed by the party. Unfortunately there is nothing new coming from The Democrats and what is old is elitist and unfair.

So we have the dictatorship of the PTP and in Abhisit a leader who cannot lead because of the old party faithful, old and stuck in their ways like buffalos. Neither party seems to have much in the way of policies save for continued opportunities for corruption from the PTP with the 2 trillion for a train line and reforms of no specificity by the Democrats.

Abhisit and his party are guilty for letting the PTP get such an advantage by their billboard popularist policies which are nothing more than thinly disguised schemes for rampant corruption, because the a Democrats seem to offer little in the way of policy and a lot in the way of saying what the other side is doing wrong, for which they have an arsenal of opportunity. If they got themselves organized and got their policies across, ones which included the poor and the hard working middle class, then they might prevail even against the large numbers of Thai who, uneducated, are so susceptible to believing propaganda.

Thailand has Hobson's choice - PTP and the megalomaniacal Thaksin which will likely lead to Cambodian style Hun Sen like regime which has been finally shown up in the last election over there or the Democrats who offer more of serving and protecting the rich. And then there is Suthep who is akin to the PTP's bully boy Chalerm save he did not leave the country for 10 years for his part in corruption nor have the problems of unruly children of dubious character. And what is Suthep offering? No one really knows in the style similar to Democratic Party policies.

Surely this is a huge opportunity for Thailand to break free of the corruption led politics that has colored every government and opened wide its legs to expose its full glory under the most corrupt government by far under Yingluck despite her bleatings of tackling corruption and attempts to cover up the exposure.

The terrible problem is that there is no one of authority who gives a hoot about Thailand who is in sight that can lead Thailand with a set of honorable MP's and policies designed for the good of all the country. Perhaps the problems of Thai society where everyone is so incredibly selfish and devoid of humanity, compassion or integrity is partly to blame? With no ethics or morality how can one hope for a government that will serve its nation?

Thailand is in the toilet and Thaksin and Suthep are busy flushing it down into the septic tank. Maybe the Americans will be able to help then!

Edited February 8, 2014 by timewilltell

[angsta]

"Look Prime Minister don't you know who I am??"

"The moron who keeps losing elections"

On what planet does this kn0b get a say? Win the...actually stand in the election and then your opinion counts. Brass neck.

[darren84310]

Abhisit is probably the best man to be PM. However, he made too many errors last time round, maybe thinking they had seen the last of Thaksin. He needs to be stronger if he gets another chance, win over the people in the north and don't take any shit from the elites.

Whoever gets power needs to erradicate corruption. I can't see a Thaksin backed government doing that.

The last thing Thailand needs is a well spoken spineless PM.

There must be somebody out there whether they be red white or blue, but yet to step up to the plate.

You're stating the obvious perfect scenario. However, I was passing judgement on what we have in front of us, not fantasy.

Do you think it's easy to be PM in a country where almost all of your MP's are corrupt as hell?

Difference with Abhisit from what I see and know, is that he wants it to be clean of corruption. That's a start.

[billd766]

At the moment Thailand has a spineless PM who can't link 5 words together in a coherent sentence without it being written down for her

.

She has already - in the testosterone charged world of Thai politics - become the country's first female prime minister, won two consecutive elections with record majorities, laughed off Suthep and his Big Bangkok Shutdown and prevented a coup. Not a bad list of achievements for someone with no previous experience of politics. Most professional politicians would envy a record like this.

Spineless.......well, that's what I'd call a politician who is so Absolutely Certain he will lose that he doesn't even bother to turn up. He probably learned that kind of craven submission in his first year at Eton.

She has not won any election at all. She became the countries first Prime minister because her brother told "his" PTP party that she would be, despite NIL political experience.

That was the first election as for the latest election, if she has in fact won it they why is she STILL the caretaker PM and not in full control of the country as her brother wishes.

As far as I am aware and probably the majority of Thailand the election is NOT over, ALL the votes have NOT yet been counted.

She prevented a coup? You must be joking. She appointed herself the Minister of Defence without even knowing where the building is. She has NO control over the military, the police or even her own party.

If you think that is not a bad list of achievements how about a PM who has brought Thailand to near bankruptcy, divided the country, has no idea of what is going on with the rice scheme, which she is the chairperson of, cannot pay the countries debts to its own citizens, is under investigation for corruption by the NACC ruining the reputation of the country on the way.

Do you think that is something to be proud of after 2 1/2 years of "service to the country"?

.

You always know it's....

.image.jpg

.........time when the word 'caretaker' puts in an appearance!

What is wrong with stating the truth or is that inconvenient to you?

Are you saying that the government is actually NOT a caretaker government.

Is it a full government with full powers and up and running for business, or is it as I described it quite truthfully as a CARETAKER government.

If you are correct please tell all the Thai people, the PTP, the Democrats, all the other parties, the courts, military, police farangs and the world in general that I am wrong and you are right.

Of course if I am correct and you are wrong and it IS a caretaker government then I am quite happy to accept your apology for YOUR error.

[Artisi]

There is meat on the arguments for both sides but unfortunately it is swamped by the bullshit that is overpowering it, mostly from the supporters of Yingluck and her treasonous inept and corrupt band of thugs.

Politics is a party game and Thaksin / Yingluck undeniably control everything PTP do. Thaksin has implemented some good policies like the healthcare scheme but that was a long time ago. Since then the more recent schemes seem to be more about providing a means to steal Thailand's income for the benefit of his family and friends and less about policies designed to help the nation. The ludicrous lies and BS trotted out to defend all that is wrong with the schemes implemented by the last term in office of Yingluck and complete cover up and total lack of transparency is clear to see.

Abhisit for his part is, I believe one of the better characters but he is controlled by stronger politicians in his party. Those old hats are entrenched in their elitist goals and refuse to accept change. I don't think you can assume that Abhisit agrees with everything Suthep is doing and maybe he hopes Suthep will overreach himself and get taken out of the picture. I am sure Suthep fans a huge influence within the Democrat party and to a degree controls Which policies can be followed by the party. Unfortunately there is nothing new coming from The Democrats and what is old is elitist and unfair.

So we have the dictatorship of the PTP and in Abhisit a leader who cannot lead because of the old party faithful, old and stuck in their ways like buffalos. Neither party seems to have much in the way of policies save for continued opportunities for corruption from the PTP with the 2 trillion for a train line and reforms of no specificity by the Democrats.

Abhisit and his party are guilty for letting the PTP get such an advantage by their billboard popularist policies which are nothing more than thinly disguised schemes for rampant corruption, because the a Democrats seem to offer little in the way of policy and a lot in the way of saying what the other side is doing wrong, for which they have an arsenal of opportunity. If they got themselves organized and got their policies across, ones which included the poor and the hard working middle class, then they might prevail even against the large numbers of Thai who, uneducated, are so susceptible to believing propaganda.

Thailand has Hobson's choice - PTP and the megalomaniacal Thaksin which will likely lead to Cambodian style Hun Sen like regime which has been finally shown up in the last election over there or the Democrats who offer more of serving and protecting the rich. And then there is Suthep who is akin to the PTP's bully boy Chalerm save he did not leave the country for 10 years for his part in corruption nor have the problems of unruly children of dubious character. And what is Suthep offering? No one really knows in the style similar to Democratic Party policies.

Surely this is a huge opportunity for Thailand to break free of the corruption led politics that has colored every government and opened wide its legs to expose its full glory under the most corrupt government by far under Yingluck despite her bleatings of tackling corruption and attempts to cover up the exposure.

The terrible problem is that there is no one of authority who gives a hoot about Thailand who is in sight that can lead Thailand with a set of honorable MP's and policies designed for the good of all the country. Perhaps the problems of Thai society where everyone is so incredibly selfish and devoid of humanity, compassion or integrity is partly to blame? With no ethics or morality how can one hope for a government that will serve its nation?

Thailand is in the toilet and Thaksin and Suthep are busy flushing it down into the septic tank. Maybe the Americans will be able to help then!

A reasonable article, whether you agree with it or not but completely screwed with the final sentence. Americans help, yes sure, can't even help themselves.

[Artisi]

You think ?Speaking english has nothing to do with being credible. I think he comes across pretty badly and weak with reasoning, any political editor or decent hard talk will rip him to shreds.get him on hard talk RT or Jeremy Paxman he would get chewed to bits.

Hes out giving interviews atm to try to deflect the huge criticism the Democrats are getting being tied at the hip with the PDRC and defending them wont help him. Had to laugh when he went into his why other countries blah blah and democracy bit.

Some viewers will like it no doubt politically astute ones will laugh at it.

And by the same margin, why not put Yingluck and he caddy through the same aggressive journalistic interviews? They could defend their schemes, explain why they refuse to obey laws and court rulings they don't like and maybe even answer questions on the illegally issued passport.

Could you just imagine for 1 minute where any interview with YL and her caddy would end up - it would be like interviewing Miss Piggy and Big Bird only more entertaining.

One suspects you would get more sense out of Miss Piggy and Big Bird

That's a given.

[billd766]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

[LarryBird]

He's a clown.

[heybruce]

There is meat on the arguments for both sides but unfortunately it is swamped by the bullshit that is overpowering it, mostly from the supporters of Yingluck and her treasonous inept and corrupt band of thugs.

Politics is a party game and Thaksin / Yingluck undeniably control everything PTP do. Thaksin has implemented some good policies like the healthcare scheme but that was a long time ago. Since then the more recent schemes seem to be more about providing a means to steal Thailand's income for the benefit of his family and friends and less about policies designed to help the nation. The ludicrous lies and BS trotted out to defend all that is wrong with the schemes implemented by the last term in office of Yingluck and complete cover up and total lack of transparency is clear to see.

Abhisit for his part is, I believe one of the better characters but he is controlled by stronger politicians in his party. Those old hats are entrenched in their elitist goals and refuse to accept change. I don't think you can assume that Abhisit agrees with everything Suthep is doing and maybe he hopes Suthep will overreach himself and get taken out of the picture. I am sure Suthep fans a huge influence within the Democrat party and to a degree controls Which policies can be followed by the party. Unfortunately there is nothing new coming from The Democrats and what is old is elitist and unfair.

So we have the dictatorship of the PTP and in Abhisit a leader who cannot lead because of the old party faithful, old and stuck in their ways like buffalos. Neither party seems to have much in the way of policies save for continued opportunities for corruption from the PTP with the 2 trillion for a train line and reforms of no specificity by the Democrats.

Abhisit and his party are guilty for letting the PTP get such an advantage by their billboard popularist policies which are nothing more than thinly disguised schemes for rampant corruption, because the a Democrats seem to offer little in the way of policy and a lot in the way of saying what the other side is doing wrong, for which they have an arsenal of opportunity. If they got themselves organized and got their policies across, ones which included the poor and the hard working middle class, then they might prevail even against the large numbers of Thai who, uneducated, are so susceptible to believing propaganda.

Thailand has Hobson's choice - PTP and the megalomaniacal Thaksin which will likely lead to Cambodian style Hun Sen like regime which has been finally shown up in the last election over there or the Democrats who offer more of serving and protecting the rich. And then there is Suthep who is akin to the PTP's bully boy Chalerm save he did not leave the country for 10 years for his part in corruption nor have the problems of unruly children of dubious character. And what is Suthep offering? No one really knows in the style similar to Democratic Party policies.

Surely this is a huge opportunity for Thailand to break free of the corruption led politics that has colored every government and opened wide its legs to expose its full glory under the most corrupt government by far under Yingluck despite her bleatings of tackling corruption and attempts to cover up the exposure.

The terrible problem is that there is no one of authority who gives a hoot about Thailand who is in sight that can lead Thailand with a set of honorable MP's and policies designed for the good of all the country. Perhaps the problems of Thai society where everyone is so incredibly selfish and devoid of humanity, compassion or integrity is partly to blame? With no ethics or morality how can one hope for a government that will serve its nation?

Thailand is in the toilet and Thaksin and Suthep are busy flushing it down into the septic tank. Maybe the Americans will be able to help then!

No!

The Thai people aren't asking for outside help or (currently) blaming their problems on other countries. Interference from the U.S. or other countries would give the rabble-rousers an external scapegoat they could use to gather people to their cause. Let's not make things worse.

[LarryBird]

She was pretty worked up, good for her, she knows what's going on. She didn't really ask the right questions and he never really said anything of substance..

[Emptyset]

LOL, Pavin Chachavalpongpun is a PTP supporter. He wrote that because he is a PTP supporter? You have defamed him.

Defamed him? Rubbish. Nor did I say he wrote anything because he is a PTP supported. He probably wrote it because he was paid.

I've read quite a few of his articles in the Bangkok Post as well as the one in question and he always shows bias towards the PTP or it's predecessors. Difficult concept I know - judging someone by what they say rather than their academic position.

Paid?

[Emptyset]

A load of hypocritical rubbish from a seemingly intelligent guy.

The unasked question was how can the Democrat Party, who themselves are mired in massive crony corruption and vote-buying, be trusted to do anything about corruption when their noses are in the trough once again? They have done nothing about it previously, so why suddenly now?

A load of hypocritical rubbish from a seemingly intelligent guy.

I just have to ask which one of them is involved in the rice scam the disappearance of 350 billion baht water management money. The high price for flood control products in 2011.

You make alegations now let us here who they are.

No doubt Plodprasop is corrupt but most of that money hasn't even been borrowed yet, n/m "disappeared".

[bkkgooner]

Abhisit is such a talented bullshitter, he has had opportunities in the past to reform for Thailand and as opposition leader push for reform and make it a big issue but he has NEVER done it.

He is a very intelligent person and it's just such a pity that he has no interest in changing Thailand

[bigbamboo]

We joke in England that the only good guy to ever get into Parliament was Guy Fawkes but here I seriously can't off hand think of even one who been in a position to make any difference.

And of course if by some chance one did then the vested interests (on both sides) would soon put a stop to it anyway.

[MrSlatersParrot]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

Yes but then why the use of snipers?

Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots.

It was much commented on at the time that when abhisit announced the use of "marksmen" this was viewed as a political decision rather than a military one.

It could reasonably be regarded as a terror tactic.

The thai army were brought in in the full knowledge that their only responce ultimately could be lethal.

Furthermore by this time abhisit was describing the red shirts as just terrorists or like a dog that had to be put down and put down they were.

In a recent interview abhisit in his soundbite mode to western press spoke about the use of chemicals on the PDRC supporters, implying obliquely the possible use of chemicals/ weaponry or something dastardly, just planting the thought when in fact some protestors got hysterical because water cannon was used on them that had dye ostensibly to identify those sprayed.

Either he was just speaking off the cuff or more certainly planting a story unknown at the time to the western press. Either way it was totally irresponsible.

I think the eton, Oxford veneer is beginning to wear off leaving only the thai rich boy, aloof and spoilt.

[casualbiker]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

Yes but then why the use of snipers?

Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots.

It was much commented on at the time that when abhisit announced the use of "marksmen" this was viewed as a political decision rather than a military one.

It could reasonably be regarded as a terror tactic.

The thai army were brought in in the full knowledge that their only responce ultimately could be lethal.

Furthermore by this time abhisit was describing the red shirts as just terrorists or like a dog that had to be put down and put down they were.

In a recent interview abhisit in his soundbite mode to western press spoke about the use of chemicals on the PDRC supporters, implying obliquely the possible use of chemicals/ weaponry or something dastardly, just planting the thought when in fact some protestors got hysterical because water cannon was used on them that had dye ostensibly to identify those sprayed.

Either he was just speaking off the cuff or more certainly planting a story unknown at the time to the western press. Either way it was totally irresponsible.

I think the eton, Oxford veneer is beginning to wear off leaving only the thai rich boy, aloof and spoilt.

I would like to see the reports that say.

" Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots."

Any links?

Also the water was treated with dye AND a chemical that had the same acidity slightly higher than that of vinegar. It was reported by the government side!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JAG]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited February 8, 2014 by JAG

[wolfmanjack]

0K then icommunity. Abhisit has not run away from his responsibilities and is still in Thailand. Abhisit is not a fugitive. Abhisit has not been listed by Amnesty International in 18 separate political assassination cases as has Thaksin. Abhsit was attacked by Thaksin's red shirts when the red shirts disrupted the International conference in Pattaya (remember?). Abhist did not set up a rice scheme and defrauded the farmers. Abihsit is not a convicted criminal. Abhisit has been voted in to Govern, Thaksin has never personally won an election. Abihsit never ordered any extra-judicial killings, includng those of political opponents similar to the 2500 killed by Thaksin during the drug wars. Abhisit didn't pay 90 senators 100000 baht per month inorder that he could change the laws on selling a major Thai Company to overseas buyers. Abhisit never sold a company and then avoided paying tax o the proceeds. Abhisit hasn't bought huge chunks of land outside Chiang Mai so that he can sell it back to the Government for a new Chiang Mai International Airport. Abhisit is not in bed with major corporate financiers from Wall Street who are manipulating world economic events. Abhisit did not create a force of 300 men in Black to act as his personal guerilla army. Abhisit's does not play golf with Hun Sen, the tin pot dictator of Cambodia who achieved power through a coup. Do you want me to carry on? I'm quite happy to write another 1000 words for you. Because you see there is a world of difference between the criminal sociopath of Dubai and Abhisit.

are beneficiaries of village loans (to escape from loan sharks and manage their own finances) and One Tambon One Product,

I admit there are a few success stories from the 1 million baht loan program and the OTOP program.

However the majority fit the profile that I am familiar with.

One of my employees borrowed money from the 1 million baht village program. At the end of the term he had to borrow money from the loan shark to pay back the village loan then he borrowed from the village loan again to pay back the loan shark. he did this year after year digging himself in a deeper and deeper hole until he could not borrow from neither the village fund any more. He then asked me to loan him the money to pay back the loan shark. His assets would no longer cover the costs of the loans so I refused and he lost every thing. That is the most common legacy of the 1 million baht loan program.

As for OTOp, most of the companies that have been successful were already successful before the OTOP program. All the OTOP program did was give free advertising and 1 million baht to make successful companies bigger. Most of the other companies that were given 1 million baht were not profitable. Ask anyone that has visited the OTOP section of the bangkok gift fair in the past. It was full of over priced low quality products available elsewhere for less money.

[rixalex]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

[heybruce]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

[casualbiker]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

Begun by who and never finished by who?

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[speedtripler]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

Yes but then why the use of snipers?

Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots.

It was much commented on at the time that when abhisit announced the use of "marksmen" this was viewed as a political decision rather than a military one.

It could reasonably be regarded as a terror tactic.

The thai army were brought in in the full knowledge that their only responce ultimately could be lethal.

there is no non lethal wounds from sniper rifles ,if a .50 calibre bullet hit your arm or a leg

it would take the limb off comletely and you will be dead from blood loss in a minute or two

a head shot is just good marksmanship probably at relatively close range but thats if theres

any proof that were ordered to make headshots specifically

how many were killed with a headshot ? if its over 10-15% that would be unusual because snipers

are trained to hit the central body mass

[moonao]

"It's time for reform. Why can't the government accept that?" Doesn't that sound exactly like the petulant whining of a child? "Why does nobody ever listen to me around here.........waaaaahhhh!" Maybe if the Democrats had a more intelligent leader they would have a better chance of winning an election one day. Abhist would be better off preparing his defence against the murder charges he faces.

well said.

[wolfmanjack]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

Yes but then why the use of snipers?

Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots.

It was much commented on at the time that when abhisit announced the use of "marksmen" this was viewed as a political decision rather than a military one.

It could reasonably be regarded as a terror tactic.

The thai army were brought in in the full knowledge that their only responce ultimately could be lethal.

there is no non lethal wounds from sniper rifles ,if a .50 calibre bullet hit your arm or a leg

it would take the limb off comletely and you will be dead from blood loss in a minute or two

a head shot is just good marksmanship probably at relatively close range but thats if theres

any proof that were ordered to make headshots specifically

how many were killed with a headshot ? if its over 10-15% that would be unusual because snipers

are trained to hit the central body mass

All rifles used by military and police snipers around the world are not.50 caliber and I seriously doubt anyone would use a 50 caliber in a crowd situation since they tend to go through more than one person.

For example in 2012 "Amphibious Reconnaissance and Scout Sniper Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit train combat marksmanship with Marines and Navy SEALS from the Republic of Korea and Royal Thai Marine special forces" used the m40a3 and m40a5 sniper rifles which use 308 and 7.62 Nato ammunition.

To answer the question why use snipers. Common sense would say to try and take out the black shirts running around with grenade launchers, rifles and pistols without the less trained soldiers pulling out M16's and spraying the crowd in an attempt to take out the armed black shirts. I would have also used marksman to take out armed black shirts and red shirts to save lives on both sides.

[rixalex]

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

If something is still under investigation, that means it hasn't be proven, and so it is wrong to go around pretending that it has, as JAG did.

Furthermore, if you've been here any length of time, you would know that court cases do generally go at a snail's pace, and there are a multitude of examples, in cases against persons from all sides, that demonstrate that.

The insinuation you make therefore, that the courts are protecting one particular side, is a nonsense.

[LarryBird]

Hey Mark, you're sweating.. It's pretty obvious you don't even believe your own bullship.

[timewilltell]

Hey Mark, you're sweating.. It's pretty obvious you don't even believe your own bullship.

What's a bullship - a battleship with two horns representing the political attack and the protest attack on Yingluck maybe?

[Spalpeen]

Hey Mark, you're sweating.. It's pretty obvious you don't even believe your own bullship.

.

I think you'd be sweating too if you had to go on television and explain why you party - the 'Democrat' party - would not be taking part in any more elections until you get a guarantee that you will win.

Abhisit and Suthep are like the shiny brothers. They could both use the services of a good makeup artist to make them look less slippery.

[heybruce]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

Begun by who and never finished by who?

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

By the army of course. You don't think they'd allow an independent investigation, do you?