International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[fab4]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

[fab4]

Good you can still laugh, even while getting alarmed.

As for political points, you lost me. What political points? Just telling the truth is making political points? Ms. Yingluck obfuscating and Pheu Thai MPs threatening, Ms. Yingluck warning ALL sites and Pheu Thai MPs c.s threatening one side, Ms. Yingluck ready to talk and Pheu Thai MPs insisting there's nothing to talk about because it's against what they want, Ms. Yingluck the smiling angel and her Pheu Thai henchmen.

That's a non-political observation.

Wrong, that's a non-sensical observation.

[rabas]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

How soon we ignore forget the level of arson, burning and talk of arson by Thaksin supporters then, it was their theme. If I remember there were at least 2 fuel truck incidents, one was burned and another was what, an LNG truck pushed into a neighborhood, they threatened to burn? You can google. This time, in spite of hundreds of attacks with guns and grenades on yellows, there has been no mention of arson. I think that was by design, seeing how the reds enjoyed burning.

(limage is from the Nation, something about block 13, google is your friend)

Edited June 4, 2014 by rabas

[northernjohn]

I do not recall making any statements about not having a problem with the anti-Yingluck government protesters immediately branded as terrorists only for protesting!

More lies.

I take it you missed this comment on who Yingluck called terrorists

you can't help yourself, now can you?

The quote was in full

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra described these attacks as “terrorist acts for political gain” and reiterated that her government will not condone these criminal acts. She has ordered a full investigation on the matter.

...

With the escalating violence in the Thai capital of Bangkok, Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has left the capital and established office about 150 kilometers away.

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/yingluck-shinawatra-left-bangkok-in-the-wake-of-escalating-violence/#WoqY2EQptTyXqsGb.99"

Now that's more like Ms. Yingluck speak. Frequently with one side doing the cowardly attacks Ms. Yingluck warned ALL including those who didn't do anything.

What's your point - she denounced the actions of people who killed the children as terrorist acts for political gain (in your link,). As for your Yingluck warning ALL - including those who did nothing - well, so what, the attacks weren't all one sided so why shouldn't she condemn ALL?

Really, you honestly think "they" did nothing - I presume you mean the anti government "side" when you came up with that fairy tale - you must be joking. From your link

Meanwhile, on Monday a police officer died after nearly a week in the hospital due to a fatal injury caused by a gunshot in the head. The police officer was shot during a gun battle last week with protesters in Bangkok which claimed the lives of five people, including another policeman. These violent attacks are mostly observed in the Thai capital, although several more attacks were recorded outside of the capital, particularly in the eastern province.

Just checking in to see if you were still posting. with all the positive news coming out now you have been driven in to a corner. Not many sites for your nonsense. Face it Thaksin/Yingluck Shinawatra reign of terror is over. Have a good life. The army has now made it possible.

[heybruce]

Your point being? Are you suggesting that whenever a Prime Minister, with the support of some members of his or her government, submits a bad idea that a military coup is the correct response?

A bad idea only?

A sneakily modified amnesty bill which suddenly became a blanket amnesty bill including politically influenced criminal acts AND suddenly covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration? A Ms. Yingluck urging anti-government protesters to go home? A Ms. Yingluck saying "it's up to the senate, please go home"? A Ms. Yingluck leaving in to the Senate with the Senate speaker suddenly trying to get a quorum together days before planned? A Ms. Yingluck who with her fellow Pheu Thai MPs branded the anti-government protests as undemocratic, put the police on them, called then terrorists, etc., etc.

All because of a 'bad idea' only?

The coup was a response on the seven months of political bickering and a total lack of even a will to co-operate. Now with alarm only abroad, but a slowly back to normal situation in Thailand, finally we can really start to work on reforms and reconciliation. That is, all those in Thailand.

Yes, a bad idea. Many redshirts were outraged because of the yellowshirts that would have received amnesty. Protesters shutting down an elected government is undemocratic and illegal, setting the police on them is the correct response, a Prime Minister asking them to "please go home" is a display of restraint.

An election in July would have shown a significant drop in support for the PTP, it might have put them out of office, and it would have allowed a cooling off and genuine reconciliation. As I've already explained in as much detail as I can (not much) I have no faith in the reforms. Seven months of political bickering was the pretext for the coup. If you took the time to inform yourself using uncensored news sources you'd get a much better grasp of what's going on.

It's like listening to an old scratched 78 record, Government governing illegally is better. Your explanations are not needed, as near everyone has heard the rants 1000 times. elections this elections that---PTP were slung out and rightly so even if it could be classed as not the in thing to do--it had to be--accept it move on.

Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????

Wait now for that response from the ones you class as wrongly informed.

"Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????"

From http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/680807-thai-red-shirts-rally-ahead-of-key-amnesty-debate/?hl=%2Bamnesty

"The bill has however also upset many of Thaksin's supporters, including Red Shirts, who want justice for the killing of more than 90 civilians during a military crackdown on their rallies against the previous Democrat-led government in Bangkok in 2010.

"We disagree with the blanket amnesty bill, which is also an amnesty for murderers," said prominent Red Shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong, at a separate rally earlier Sunday."

"We want the government to apologise to the people, to the Red Shirts who voted for you" for proposing the blanket amnesty, he added."

Weren't you aware of this? Do you consider yourself well informed?

Once again, if elections had been allowed without disruption the results would have shown a significant fall in support for the PTP and the Shinawatra family. It was a missed opportunity. Now when elections are eventually held the memories of the PTP's incompetence will be overshadowed by the memory of how the government ended. The influence of the Shinawatra family has been enhanced by the coup.

[Luger2]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

How soon we ignore forget the level of arson, burning and talk of arson by Thaksin supporters then, it was their theme. If I remember there were at least 2 fuel truck incidents, one was burned and another was what, an LNG truck pushed into a neighborhood, they threatened to burn? You can google. This time, in spite of hundreds of attacks with guns and grenades on yellows, there has been no mention of arson. I think that was by design, seeing how the reds enjoyed burning.

(limage is from the Nation, something about block 13, google is your friend)

Benzene and Propane.

What a nice mix the Red Shirt Arsonists are concocting.

[heybruce]

A bad idea only?

A sneakily modified amnesty bill which suddenly became a blanket amnesty bill including politically influenced criminal acts AND suddenly covering Thaksin's last two years in/out of office and the first two years of Yingluck administration? A Ms. Yingluck urging anti-government protesters to go home? A Ms. Yingluck saying "it's up to the senate, please go home"? A Ms. Yingluck leaving in to the Senate with the Senate speaker suddenly trying to get a quorum together days before planned? A Ms. Yingluck who with her fellow Pheu Thai MPs branded the anti-government protests as undemocratic, put the police on them, called then terrorists, etc., etc.

All because of a 'bad idea' only?

The coup was a response on the seven months of political bickering and a total lack of even a will to co-operate. Now with alarm only abroad, but a slowly back to normal situation in Thailand, finally we can really start to work on reforms and reconciliation. That is, all those in Thailand.

Yes, a bad idea. Many redshirts were outraged because of the yellowshirts that would have received amnesty. Protesters shutting down an elected government is undemocratic and illegal, setting the police on them is the correct response, a Prime Minister asking them to "please go home" is a display of restraint.

An election in July would have shown a significant drop in support for the PTP, it might have put them out of office, and it would have allowed a cooling off and genuine reconciliation. As I've already explained in as much detail as I can (not much) I have no faith in the reforms. Seven months of political bickering was the pretext for the coup. If you took the time to inform yourself using uncensored news sources you'd get a much better grasp of what's going on.

The 'display of restraint' was actually just a display of being devious. Had the protesters gone home to wait the Senate might have concluded 'no comments, no protests, no complaints' so why not. Of course the whole process of gradually getting a blanket amnesty bill, extended coverage period and trying to push it through is close to criminal and very undemocratic.

Now as to the topic, I can feel that the international community of Thaksin c.s. supporters here on TV is indeed getting alarmed by the diminishing interest shown by other countries and a Thai population being somewhat happy that all shenanigans of the last seven months have stopped, all violence has stopped, no more grenades being lobbed, etc., etc. Must be alarming to some.

Ok, now you're writing that you disapprove of the process used and that it was a good thing the protesters stayed to keep the Senate from doing its job. That's your opinion, no point in arguing against it.

The coup isn't front page news anymore, but it's still making the news. As far as international pressure, just because it isn't being prominently reported on daily doesn't mean it's gone away. Sanctions against Iran are still in place even though they aren't reported on daily.

The Thai people are accustomed to coups and getting on with their lives. It's too bad they aren't allowed to become accustomed to democracy. They will make their views of the coup clear whenever there is a new election. Unfortunately the most obvious way they will have to express disapproval of the coup will be to vote for whatever party the Shinawatra's endorse. An election in July would have weakened the Shinawatra's, the coup strengthened it.

[tonbridgebrit]

BANGKOK, June 4 (Reuters) - China and Vietnam have expressed support for Thailand's new military government, an army spokesman said on Wednesday, as pro-army supporters held a small gathering at the Australian Embassy in protest against downgrading of relations after last month's coup.

Several foreign governments have voiced disapproval of the coup, which saw General Prayuth Chan-ocha take power after months of political unrest that undermined the government of Yingluck Shinawatra.

"China's and Vietnam's ambassadors to Thailand met Supreme Commander General Thanasak Patimaprakorn yesterday and assured us that they still have a good relationship with Thailand and that they hope the situation will return to normal quickly," Yongyuth Mayalarp, a spokesman for the military's National Council for Peace and Order, told reporters.

(the above is from Reuters).

Read more here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0EF0SA20140604

Edited June 4, 2014 by metisdead
Edited per fair use policy and supporting link added.

[gadeloo]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

if i remember correctly this happened

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258003/Thailand-Grenade-attack-wounds-soldiers-pro-Thaksin-Shinawatra-protests.html

there were few incidents included one that were shot in to NACC during that month.

after that the military brought out the live rounds.

they were attacked with m79 grenade by an "unknown" party.

well we have been hearing the same story during this protest, no?

just that the victims were anti-gov protester this time.

and who were caught having the m79 launcher?

[ginjag]

Yes, a bad idea. Many redshirts were outraged because of the yellowshirts that would have received amnesty. Protesters shutting down an elected government is undemocratic and illegal, setting the police on them is the correct response, a Prime Minister asking them to "please go home" is a display of restraint.

An election in July would have shown a significant drop in support for the PTP, it might have put them out of office, and it would have allowed a cooling off and genuine reconciliation. As I've already explained in as much detail as I can (not much) I have no faith in the reforms. Seven months of political bickering was the pretext for the coup. If you took the time to inform yourself using uncensored news sources you'd get a much better grasp of what's going on.

It's like listening to an old scratched 78 record, Government governing illegally is better. Your explanations are not needed, as near everyone has heard the rants 1000 times. elections this elections that---PTP were slung out and rightly so even if it could be classed as not the in thing to do--it had to be--accept it move on.

Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????

Wait now for that response from the ones you class as wrongly informed.

"Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????"

From http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/680807-thai-red-shirts-rally-ahead-of-key-amnesty-debate/?hl=%2Bamnesty

"The bill has however also upset many of Thaksin's supporters, including Red Shirts, who want justice for the killing of more than 90 civilians during a military crackdown on their rallies against the previous Democrat-led government in Bangkok in 2010.

"We disagree with the blanket amnesty bill, which is also an amnesty for murderers," said prominent Red Shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong, at a separate rally earlier Sunday."

"We want the government to apologise to the people, to the Red Shirts who voted for you" for proposing the blanket amnesty, he added."

Weren't you aware of this? Do you consider yourself well informed?

Once again, if elections had been allowed without disruption the results would have shown a significant fall in support for the PTP and the Shinawatra family. It was a missed opportunity. Now when elections are eventually held the memories of the PTP's incompetence will be overshadowed by the memory of how the government ended. The influence of the Shinawatra family has been enhanced by the coup.

Your last paragraph, it was not just the disruption that was the problem---it was the thought of having them before the worms were caught, instability, uninformed public, the election was to be an excuse for Yingluck to scrape back into PTP illegal -corrupt governing.

The Shins influence has drastically been reduced by the mega publicity of the PTP actions in governing.

YOU post back where you got the info about Thaksins increased influence since the coup. Wake up your dream has been shattered accept it.

[fab4]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

How soon we ignore forget the level of arson, burning and talk of arson by Thaksin supporters then, it was their theme. If I remember there were at least 2 fuel truck incidents, one was burned and another was what, an LNG truck pushed into a neighborhood, they threatened to burn? You can google. This time, in spite of hundreds of attacks with guns and grenades on yellows, there has been no mention of arson. I think that was by design, seeing how the reds enjoyed burning.

(limage is from the Nation, something about block 13, google is your friend)

You really haven't got a clue about timelines, have you?

The only fuel truck incident that occurred in 2010 happened on the 16th May when they commandeered a fuel truck on Rama IV road. They tried to set it on fire but didn't succeed. As far as I can find the only incident involving an LPG truck was in 2009.

Nattawut's speech from the stage at Rachaprasong was a warning to the army what could happen if they launched a coup and was made on the 19th May.The much earlier speech on January 29th by Arisman was another warning speech about what could happen if there was a crackdown on the UDD supporters.

As I said, to try and claim that the use of force by the army was a result of various arson incidents that took place on the 19th and 20th May is plainly ridiculous. Most of the deaths (80 plus at that time before the army attacked the rally site - don't forget the 6 deaths of innocent civilians at the Wat happened after the UDD Leaders had called off the protests) had already occurred by then.

Google is your friend but only if you use it intelligently.

[fab4]

Just checking in to see if you were still posting. with all the positive news coming out now you have been driven in to a corner. Not many sites for your nonsense. Face it Thaksin/Yingluck Shinawatra reign of terror is over. Have a good life. The army has now made it possible.

So you just posted to flame? What other point do you have to make?

Perhaps you could apologise to the forum for calling them gullible wrt the lady arrested by the undercover policeman masquerading as a journalist? What was it again "for all we know she could have shot someone" and some BS about the policeman being a red in disguise?

I'm having a good life thankyou and it's not because of the army...................

[fab4]

if i remember correctly this happened

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258003/Thailand-Grenade-attack-wounds-soldiers-pro-Thaksin-Shinawatra-protests.html

there were few incidents included one that were shot in to NACC during that month.

after that the military brought out the live rounds.

they were attacked with m79 grenade by an "unknown" party.

well we have been hearing the same story during this protest, no?

just that the victims were anti-gov protester this time.

and who were caught having the m79 launcher?

First of all that link has been blocked by the army in Thailand so not much use to me. However I presume you are referring to the botched army "crackdown" on April 10th involving the ubiquitous "black shirts" at Phan Pah. The first casualty that day was a UDD supporter who was shot dead in the afternoon by the army. The army had already been armed with live ammunition after an order from suthep who was head of CRES at the time.

However northernjohn was asserting that the armies use of force was related to arson incidents which did not take place until after the protests had been called off - a plainly ridiculous assertion.

[heybruce]

Yes, a bad idea. Many redshirts were outraged because of the yellowshirts that would have received amnesty. Protesters shutting down an elected government is undemocratic and illegal, setting the police on them is the correct response, a Prime Minister asking them to "please go home" is a display of restraint.

An election in July would have shown a significant drop in support for the PTP, it might have put them out of office, and it would have allowed a cooling off and genuine reconciliation. As I've already explained in as much detail as I can (not much) I have no faith in the reforms. Seven months of political bickering was the pretext for the coup. If you took the time to inform yourself using uncensored news sources you'd get a much better grasp of what's going on.

It's like listening to an old scratched 78 record, Government governing illegally is better. Your explanations are not needed, as near everyone has heard the rants 1000 times. elections this elections that---PTP were slung out and rightly so even if it could be classed as not the in thing to do--it had to be--accept it move on.

Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????

Wait now for that response from the ones you class as wrongly informed.

"Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????"

From http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/680807-thai-red-shirts-rally-ahead-of-key-amnesty-debate/?hl=%2Bamnesty

"The bill has however also upset many of Thaksin's supporters, including Red Shirts, who want justice for the killing of more than 90 civilians during a military crackdown on their rallies against the previous Democrat-led government in Bangkok in 2010.

"We disagree with the blanket amnesty bill, which is also an amnesty for murderers," said prominent Red Shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong, at a separate rally earlier Sunday."

"We want the government to apologise to the people, to the Red Shirts who voted for you" for proposing the blanket amnesty, he added."

Weren't you aware of this? Do you consider yourself well informed?

Once again, if elections had been allowed without disruption the results would have shown a significant fall in support for the PTP and the Shinawatra family. It was a missed opportunity. Now when elections are eventually held the memories of the PTP's incompetence will be overshadowed by the memory of how the government ended. The influence of the Shinawatra family has been enhanced by the coup.

Your last paragraph, it was not just the disruption that was the problem---it was the thought of having them before the worms were caught, instability, uninformed public, the election was to be an excuse for Yingluck to scrape back into PTP illegal -corrupt governing.

The Shins influence has drastically been reduced by the mega publicity of the PTP actions in governing.

YOU post back where you got the info about Thaksins increased influence since the coup. Wake up your dream has been shattered accept it.

"Your last paragraph, it was not just the disruption that was the problem---it was the thought of having them before the worms were caught, instability, uninformed public, the election was to be an excuse for Yingluck to scrape back into PTP illegal -corrupt governing."

The last election was monitored and deemed fair, the next election presumably would have as well. "worms were caught" sounds very much like a political purge--current rules forbid me from explaining why I think it's a bad idea for the military to do that, instability could have been resolved without a coup, the public is better informed than any time in Thailand's past and better informed than in many democratic countries, and I seriously doubt that Yingluck would have run and been re-elected, but if it happened it would have been the Thai people's choice.

"The Shins influence has drastically been reduced by the mega publicity of the PTP actions in governing."

It was significantly reduced, but now nobody is thinking about that, they're thinking about to coup.

"back where you got the info about Thaksins increased influence since the coup."

True, nobody knows what will happen in the future, but I think it's a reasonable assumption. At the next election people will be unable to think about Yingluck's administration without thinking about the coup. If there had been an election in July the dominant thought would have been of her incompetence.

"Wake up your dream has been shattered accept it."

My "dream" of a democratic Thailand has certainly taken a setback. Is your dream of a Thailand under military rule?

BTW, did I sufficiently substantiate my earlier statement that the proposed amnesty bill was unpopular with the redshirts? I initially made the statement without references, but I assumed people who post in the Thailand News forum were aware of it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by heybruce

[rubl]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Thing are really getting out of context now.

There may have been 'a few more' dead because of the arson (e.g. body found in torched WTC?), but the main reason for the army to shoot was the militants amongst the peaceful protesters. Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children. cowardly emerging in the night to wreck havoc on all non-red-shirts.

BTW the first UDD supporters shot was only following after the first grenade attacks on non-red-shirts following the end of February 2010 court decision to confiscate 46 billion of Thaksin's ill gotten gains.

Now surely some international characters here seem to be alarmed in a growing manner.

[thaibeachlovers]

No matter how much people go on about "corruption" etc, IMO Thailand was a better and more enjoyable place before thaksin took over. Since then, crime has increased, money money money has become all they care about, and the locals have become fatter ( due to eating bad food ) and less sanuk. In short the "smile" has vanished from LOS.

Does anyone that lived in Thailand/ visited a lot during Leekpai's second term disagree?

Chuan Leekpai is still held in high regard but his government was a pathetic joke and riddled with corruption. Those were not great years for Thailand as it struggled with the Asian Economic Crisis

I was referring to the period BEFORE the economic crisis. Thailand has never got back to what it was before as regards the Sanuk factor. Corrupt or not, Thailand in the early to mid 90s was a far happier place as I experienced it, and everyone I saw really did smile back then.

Edited June 5, 2014 by thaibeachlovers

[rubl]

Yes, a bad idea. Many redshirts were outraged because of the yellowshirts that would have received amnesty. Protesters shutting down an elected government is undemocratic and illegal, setting the police on them is the correct response, a Prime Minister asking them to "please go home" is a display of restraint.

An election in July would have shown a significant drop in support for the PTP, it might have put them out of office, and it would have allowed a cooling off and genuine reconciliation. As I've already explained in as much detail as I can (not much) I have no faith in the reforms. Seven months of political bickering was the pretext for the coup. If you took the time to inform yourself using uncensored news sources you'd get a much better grasp of what's going on.

It's like listening to an old scratched 78 record, Government governing illegally is better. Your explanations are not needed, as near everyone has heard the rants 1000 times. elections this elections that---PTP were slung out and rightly so even if it could be classed as not the in thing to do--it had to be--accept it move on.

Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????

Wait now for that response from the ones you class as wrongly informed.

"Quote--" you said--" yellow shirts would have received amnesty" this was making the red shirts angry ?????"

From http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/680807-thai-red-shirts-rally-ahead-of-key-amnesty-debate/?hl=%2Bamnesty

"The bill has however also upset many of Thaksin's supporters, including Red Shirts, who want justice for the killing of more than 90 civilians during a military crackdown on their rallies against the previous Democrat-led government in Bangkok in 2010.

"We disagree with the blanket amnesty bill, which is also an amnesty for murderers," said prominent Red Shirt activist Sombat Boonngamanong, at a separate rally earlier Sunday."

"We want the government to apologise to the people, to the Red Shirts who voted for you" for proposing the blanket amnesty, he added."

Weren't you aware of this? Do you consider yourself well informed?

Once again, if elections had been allowed without disruption the results would have shown a significant fall in support for the PTP and the Shinawatra family. It was a missed opportunity. Now when elections are eventually held the memories of the PTP's incompetence will be overshadowed by the memory of how the government ended. The influence of the Shinawatra family has been enhanced by the coup.

The UDD leaders and other UDD members being opted-in into the Pheu Thai party and even the party list of candidates to become Pheu Thai party list MPs and even one getting appointed as Dept. Minister of Commerce. Most voted for the blanket amnesty bill (like Korkaew), only Dr. weng, Nattawut and Seh Daeng's daughter abstained, none voted against.

Now that's something all managed to forget when the UDD leadership started their campaign on 'protecting their democracy' and Isan darling Yingluck.

Sombat B. seems the only one who is really for democracy and grassroot red-shirts, but than he's not UDD.

[thaibeachlovers]

No matter how much people go on about "corruption" etc, IMO Thailand was a better and more enjoyable place before thaksin took over. Since then, crime has increased, money money money has become all they care about, and the locals have become fatter ( due to eating bad food ) and less sanuk. In short the "smile" has vanished from LOS.

Does anyone that lived in Thailand/ visited a lot during Leekpai's second term disagree?

I agree in the 90s it was more fun, cheaper & more innocent here, then again it was a long time ago. Heres a question for you can you honestly tell me somewhere it hasnt become all about the money ? I mean west, east. Europe the US, Thailand, China, Vietnam where ever you care to look.

Back in the 90s it was the top 1% owning 50% of the worlds wealth, now its the top 0.1% owning that 50% the other 0.9% own 20% and the remaining 30% is spread around about 3 billion people.... it is the same wherever you go. The world is on fast forward and the wealth is consolidating in fewer hands every year. Sure Taksin was no better than a Gordon Geko but really hes one of many players that given the chance are just as interested in only themselves, the difference was some crumbs were scattered about for the poorer class to pick on. It wasnt like that under Leekpai for them.

You cant turn back time and we are always looking back and remembering the good old days, to go there again tho i suggest you ask the average Thai and ask them how they were getting along then. Inconvenient as it may be Thailands rural class is compared to the 90s in a far far better position than then, far better.

Or look at the rising middle class here, you see them about so much in the 90s ? I sure didnt. Face it, over the 14 years since he landed on the scene ( ok before that but not as the man) a lot has changed here and in the whole most Thai peoples lives have improved dramatically as has their earnings and their children's prospects.

The good old days are a distant memory and i realised quite a while ago it is because our earning potential and advantage allowed an easy life here on the cheap at the expense of normal underpaid overworked Thais here trying to make a living.... difference now is they are doing it to themselves. With better earnings comes that old devil debt and more debt the more you earn you can borrow... and how people just love to borrow. There wasnt credit of this magnitude back then either.

Youd be hard pushed to find people happier now than 20 years ago fulfilment wise, they have too many self made worries and mostly in the pursuit of money, because thats the new God of the 21st century... money. It is likely to burn itself out in a generation or two when it all implodes and people get tired of all the problems it brings ( i hope ) , but for now thats it.

The smile was never real in the first place but only a means to an end, your money. Clearly they are tired of smiling and just skip that bit and go right for the money. Crime btw was worse back then in bkk, not maybe for the protected species of the farang but certainly for normal Thai. It dipped in the early 2000s part cycle and part due to the 0 tolerance drug war back then and is now on the rise again,

So yea it was better back then but not for the reasoning you attribute it to the way i see it... the world has changed, i cant see how youd expect Thailand not to along with it and that is part of the problem here, its a dream that isnt possible... best left as a fond memory and move with the times.

People expect more and I see Thailand has caught up with the west 20 years ago, soon they will be looking for an answer life and fulfilment out of the rat race, exactly why i and many others came here to begin with...Ironic isnt it ?

happiest people i have ever met are those with little that know they will always have little... they make do and being sour about it wont change anything... they know it so just get on with life and find fun where they can... with expectation comes disappointment and thats what I see here and everywhere else ...expectation that for most cannot and will not ever be realised...

I agree 100 % that the world has become all about money etc. My comment was because everyone goes on about "corruption" now, and I was just pointing out that people can be happy in a corrupt system, as many were back then.

IMO the world is in the poo now because people refuse to limit their breeding and there are about 3 billion more people in the world than can find real work. Also, the more people, the more a few people can get rich at the expence of the many. A million people paying a cent is a lot more than a thousand paying a cent, obviously.

[Emptyset]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Thing are really getting out of context now.

There may have been 'a few more' dead because of the arson (e.g. body found in torched WTC?), but the main reason for the army to shoot was the militants amongst the peaceful protesters. Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children. cowardly emerging in the night to wreck havoc on all non-red-shirts.

BTW the first UDD supporters shot was only following after the first grenade attacks on non-red-shirts following the end of February 2010 court decision to confiscate 46 billion of Thaksin's ill gotten gains.

Now surely some international characters here seem to be alarmed in a growing manner.

"Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children." - would you make the same criticism of the PDRC, then? Because as I see they were also largely peaceful but also had a heavily armed group of militants who emerged during violent clashes with police & at Lak Si against the red shirts. If the MiB were justification for the army in 2010 to crackdown, why weren't the PDRC's armed militia justification for a forceful crackdown earlier this year? Of course scores would've died... just like in 2010. Difference in 2010 was Abhisit wasn't willing to dissolve house whereas Yingluck had already done that.

[Humberstone]

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

[thaibeachlovers]

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.

Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

[Humberstone]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.
Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

They were all corrupt before and after Thaksin. Predicting that a politician of any stripe will be found corrupt here hardly makes you a seer.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Humberstone

[rubl]

Actually, You have taken it out of context! rubl is not talking about people being murdered, the collateral damage was the burning of bangkok was it not. Your problem is that you can not accept that Abhisit and Suthep are innocent of the charges of ordering the killing of Protestors. They acted in accordance with the law. It was the armed malitia of the redshirt factions that caused the deaths. If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets. It was Thaksin hoping they would behave like he did and flee the country. An own goal by the reds nothing less.

How have I taken his sentence, "PS 92 or 93 dead in 2010, thanks to armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters causing collateral damage." out of context? The clue is at the beginning of the sentence "92 or 93 dead".

You are stretching your credibility to the utmost if you think that he meant that the 92 or 93 dead was due to armed militants causing damage to buildings. Pull the other one.

In addition your timeline is completely off

"If they had not started burning Bangkok the troop might not have had to use force to clear them off the streets."

The first UDD supporters were shot dead on the 10th April. The "burning of Bangkok" started in the late afternoon on the 19th May after the army had shut down the rally site and the UDD leaders had called of the protest - by this stage 80 plus civilians had been shot dead so whilst not excusing the arson, I can definitely imagine the feelings of those being rounded up by the army.

Whatever, the use of force by the army had nothing to do with arson. That excuse does not fly.

Thing are really getting out of context now.

There may have been 'a few more' dead because of the arson (e.g. body found in torched WTC?), but the main reason for the army to shoot was the militants amongst the peaceful protesters. Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children. cowardly emerging in the night to wreck havoc on all non-red-shirts.

BTW the first UDD supporters shot was only following after the first grenade attacks on non-red-shirts following the end of February 2010 court decision to confiscate 46 billion of Thaksin's ill gotten gains.

Now surely some international characters here seem to be alarmed in a growing manner.

"Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children." - would you make the same criticism of the PDRC, then? Because as I see they were also largely peaceful but also had a heavily armed group of militants who emerged during violent clashes with police & at Lak Si against the red shirts. If the MiB were justification for the army in 2010 to crackdown, why weren't the PDRC's armed militia justification for a forceful crackdown earlier this year? Of course scores would've died... just like in 2010. Difference in 2010 was Abhisit wasn't willing to dissolve house whereas Yingluck had already done that.

Why would I or even should I?

My dear empty, you waive a story full of holes, you suggest links which are not there.

1. The UDD sponsored violence started way before a crackdown and only really surprised all when the army was seen retreating under fire from 'unarmed peaceful protesters' on the 10th of April, 2010. That was moments after a colonel and staff got a few grenades lobbed on them.

2. The anti-(Yingluck-)government protesters were harassed from day one, shot at, got grenades lobbed on them. This may not completely justify those violent guards, but can be justified up to a point because of being targeted without the police being able (or willing) to offer protection.

3. The LakSI violence started with red-shirts looking for problems, starting to shoot and a few militants arriving to help protect the anti-government protesters.

4. The 2010 justification for the Army crackdown was the clear reluctance of the police to do something about the protesters. With the recent protests the police was more than willing to support the government, and seemingly also prepared to turn a blind eye on violence to anti-government protesters while really at it on violence by the protesters.

5. The dissolution of the House by Yingluck and the strong push by Pheu Thai for new elections was only meant to try to get another 'mandate' to break laws, push blanket amnesty bills and the like.

Obfuscation seems your game, but no set, no match.

Edited June 5, 2014 by rubl

[thaibeachlovers]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.

Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

They were all corrupt before and after Thaksin. Predicting that a politician of any stripe will be found corrupt here hardly makes you a seer.

You obviously missed the "unbelievably" before corrupt. Thaksin was far more corrupt than any that came before, or since.

[rubl]

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.

Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

They were all corrupt before and after Thaksin. Predicting that a politician of any stripe will be found corrupt here hardly makes you a seer.

Another one with 'but they are all corrupt' as if that explains or justifies Thaksin.

Thaksin the honest mistake, tearful eyed Amply Rich person who said "I'm rich enough not to need to be corrupt". He was right, he didn't need but somehow it seems he couldn't help himself.

International alarm growing that Thaksin's case and chances may be permanently damaged. IMHO.

Edited June 5, 2014 by rubl

[Humberstone]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.

Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

They were all corrupt before and after Thaksin. Predicting that a politician of any stripe will be found corrupt here hardly makes you a seer.

Another one with 'but they are all corrupt' as if that explains or justifies Thaksin.

Thaksin the honest mistake, tearful eyed Amply Rich person who said "I'm rich enough not to need to be corrupt". He was right, he didn't need but somehow it seems he couldn't help himself.

International alarm growing that Thaksin's case and chances may be permanently damaged. IMHO.

Of course it doesn't justify it and don't try to twist what I said.

[ginjag]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The worst time to be here in Thailand was definitely during the period of the Asian Financial Crisis during 97-99. So many people losing their jobs, businesses, homes etc. It was a thoroughly depressing time for so many Thais.

Sure, Thaksin was bad but he was widley lauded at the time of the first TRT win and if memory serves his hagiography was the No.1 best seller in Thailand for ages.

It wasn't a bad time for any farang with overseas income. Value doubled, or more, and prices stayed the same for many years.

Also, Bkk was really easy to get around in, as so many cars were taken off the roads.

Even I could see that Thaksin was unbelievably corrupt ( as later became common knowledge ), but the wilfully ignorant even to this day worship at his feet.

They were all corrupt before and after Thaksin. Predicting that a politician of any stripe will be found corrupt here hardly makes you a seer.

Typical blame all the others in the world to cover up K.Thaksins ego trip--gains, Newbie on here ??? and already dug in supporting the corrupt legend. Were you beamed up today ??

[gadeloo]

if i remember correctly this happened

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258003/Thailand-Grenade-attack-wounds-soldiers-pro-Thaksin-Shinawatra-protests.html

there were few incidents included one that were shot in to NACC during that month.

after that the military brought out the live rounds.

they were attacked with m79 grenade by an "unknown" party.

well we have been hearing the same story during this protest, no?

just that the victims were anti-gov protester this time.

and who were caught having the m79 launcher?

First of all that link has been blocked by the army in Thailand so not much use to me. However I presume you are referring to the botched army "crackdown" on April 10th involving the ubiquitous "black shirts" at Phan Pah. The first casualty that day was a UDD supporter who was shot dead in the afternoon by the army. The army had already been armed with live ammunition after an order from suthep who was head of CRES at the time.

However northernjohn was asserting that the armies use of force was related to arson incidents which did not take place until after the protests had been called off - a plainly ridiculous assertion.

no m8. i was referring to the event before that. the link i provided is an article from 15mars 2010 when 2army soldiers got injured by an m79 grenade attack. which let to soldiers being given live ammo to response to unknown armed militants.

appearently that wasnt the first incident. before that the nacc were attacked with the m79 too.

edited: try using vpn that have base in europe country m8 might be able to bypass the blockage.

Edited June 5, 2014 by gadeloo

[i claudius]

Most papers and readers have forgoten the Thai coup already ,yesterdays news

[fab4]

"Cowardly hiding behind older women and even children." - would you make the same criticism of the PDRC, then? Because as I see they were also largely peaceful but also had a heavily armed group of militants who emerged during violent clashes with police & at Lak Si against the red shirts. If the MiB were justification for the army in 2010 to crackdown, why weren't the PDRC's armed militia justification for a forceful crackdown earlier this year? Of course scores would've died... just like in 2010. Difference in 2010 was Abhisit wasn't willing to dissolve house whereas Yingluck had already done that.

Why would I or even should I?

My dear empty, you waive a story full of holes, you suggest links which are not there.

1. The UDD sponsored violence started way before a crackdown and only really surprised all when the army was seen retreating under fire from 'unarmed peaceful protesters' on the 10th of April, 2010. That was moments after a colonel and staff got a few grenades lobbed on them.

2. The anti-(Yingluck-)government protesters were harassed from day one, shot at, got grenades lobbed on them. This may not completely justify those violent guards, but can be justified up to a point because of being targeted without the police being able (or willing) to offer protection.

3. The LakSI violence started with red-shirts looking for problems, starting to shoot and a few militants arriving to help protect the anti-government protesters.

4. The 2010 justification for the Army crackdown was the clear reluctance of the police to do something about the protesters. With the recent protests the police was more than willing to support the government, and seemingly also prepared to turn a blind eye on violence to anti-government protesters while really at it on violence by the protesters.

5. The dissolution of the House by Yingluck and the strong push by Pheu Thai for new elections was only meant to try to get another 'mandate' to break laws, push blanket amnesty bills and the like.

Obfuscation seems your game, but no set, no match.

BS. Your version of events at Laksi is just too fanciful for words. I'm not going to bother rebutting each and every one of the rest of your "facts" as it's been done so many times and yet you still come out with this rubbish.

Beyond parody.

Edited June 5, 2014 by fab4