Army chief says reconciliation talks could be accepted for consideration

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

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

But the man holds so much influence its a case of having to if they want serious reconciliation. If you do not include him in the talks then there will be no reconciliation . You either reconcile or you don't. Not cherry pick who can and who can't

reconcile or rule of law?

it would depend on what Thai people want. punishment or peace

You think any criminal should be allowed to go free if he threatens violence, murder and mayhem?

And you'd trust Thaksin to keep his word? A proven liar and criminal?

Sure he would as long as he could manipulate elections, assume full power, put friends and relations in all key positions, make the judiciary subservient to his will and disband any NGO that didn't toe the line.

Most dictators fooled the appeasers until it was too late.

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

Thaksin was running Thailand till the latest coup.

He was paying all PTP politicians an allowance and they all had to do his bidding.

He was similarly also paying the red shirt leaders.

His dumb sister was merely a puppet.

Rule of law was suspended for anyone on Thaksins side. Basically 'screw the law, we won the vote'.

That included the police turning a blind eye to murder of anti govt protestors.

In addition the civil service leaders were all being replaced by Thaksins buddies and so were major cabinet positions.

In effect, Thaksin overthrew democracy himself. Quite a coup.

So yeah, bring him back, drop all charges. What could possibly go wrong????

Spot on.

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

No, I agree with Pedro. Thaksin should not be brought in on ANY level. The ONLY thing Thaksin deserves is a jail cell, or a bullet.

You Thaier-than-thou farangs are so amusing.

You can't vote in Thai elections, yet you seem to hold such strong opinions with regards to Thai politics.

Here's a hint - it's their country, it's up to them to decide what takes place.

Nobody cares what you think; and, quite frankly, you aren't entitled to an opinion (nope, you don't have 'free speech' rights in Thailand, either; you have zero rights in Thailand, as you aren't Thai).

So, I really wish both the 'pro-Yellow' and the 'pro-Red' Thaier-than-thous on thaivisa.com would give it a rest, because what you think doesn't matter and you have zero influence in Thai politics.

Based on your posting here you must be somewhat of a genius - to read comments on a thread you have zero interest in and no opinions on.

No one forces you to read the comments, or make anal comments regarding what others can and cannot post.

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Not all of the 90 murdered were protesters, or killed by security forces as you elude to.

But of course the black shirts who lobbed grenades, killed soldiers and innocent bystanders didn't exist - the alcoholic Chalerm told us so.

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

In the same way the last C in C did not want any part of the 2010 crackdown...he was due to retire and did not want a bullseye on his back for his twilight years, Prayuth will one day be on gardening leave and he needs to protect his own back. Love hate despise or worship, there is no reconcilliation taking place without the big cheese at the table. Thaksin was, is and will be the 'go to man' for all western governments. Thaksin has strong support from the west and its those same governments that are criticizing the Junta.

Reluctance to smoke the peace pipe with Thaksin will only confirm the recent political witch hunt. Greater men, with differences of opinion, than those in question , have come together around the table. But like all leaders, Prayuth takes his orders from the money men.

What nonsense. The West cottoned on to the crooked Thaksin long time ago. Can you link us to all those Western governments' comments calling for his return, his amnesty and supporting him?

And, why did he have to sell the football club you support?

Baerboxer · February 16, 2015

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

Pedro, how would you view having to sit down and talk with insurgents who have killed 5000 people down in the South?

That's exactly what HAS to happen for any progress to be made, sometimes you have to break bread with the devil.

Thaksin also has to want this reconciliation and he MUST face the consequences, whether you or the other kook aid drinkers like it or not, Thaksin is still part of the key to the future, and it's once again up to the Thai people, not the bitter and twisted farangs, who have the final say in progress or regress!!

Exactly , look at Northern Ireland , McGuinness and Adams , dealing with Paisley and Trimble. Even let both sides "Terrorist" prisoners out of jail to bring peace, They have to wipe their mouth and get on with it or they will never have peace of democracy

The IRA leaders were fighting for a united Ireland. The Loyalist leaders wanted to remain part of the UK. Slightly different than the head of one very rich family vying for control of a country's coffers from other rich families don't you think?

brucec64 · February 16, 2015

But the man holds so much influence its a case of having to if they want serious reconciliation. If you do not include him in the talks then there will be no reconciliation . You either reconcile or you don't. Not cherry pick who can and who can't

reconcile or rule of law?

The biased prosecutions going on now go against the principles of rule of law, and are pushing away from reconciliation. So it is not even a question of "or", now thailand has neither.

"biased prosecutions" - against members of a political party that regularly refused to obey the law and warned judges they would not accept any rulings they didn't like.

No bias - all Shins and clan members innocent of everything and anything regardless of any evidence.

Rule of law extends well beyond crime and punishment. My comment does not imply that the Shins are innocent or guilty, only that the law is not being applied fairly. The open bias we are seeing in the vigorous prosecution of one party versus the "less than vigorous" prosecution of others, is what is against the rule of law.

Biased prosecutions are a corruption of the legal system - are you saying that corruption is justified, as long as it serves your purpose? All corruption be rationalized that way, but it does not make it right. I thought the whole point of this exercise was to eliminate corruption and that the junta were the "good" guys. So far, I just see one form of corruption replaced by another.

ExPratt · February 16, 2015

But the man holds so much influence its a case of having to if they want serious reconciliation. If you do not include him in the talks then there will be no reconciliation . You either reconcile or you don't. Not cherry pick who can and who can't

So your in favor of a blanked amnesty - for Thaksin, his conviction, his non served sentence, his 15 outstanding criminal court cases, and any cases not yet brought such as the human rights violations the UN ICJ might get interested in again?

Why not simply say the Shins and Elites are all above the law? They and only they are the ones at loggerheads over who dominated 99% of the population and screws out all the wealth.

He's influential while his network of paid thugs and bribed lackeys holds tight.

Not a blanket amnesty for anybody no , but Talks and negotiations ,need to take place between the two factions.

Alwyn · February 16, 2015

So Prayuth says 'no reconciliation' talks and the Junta are saying there might be? Who the flip is running who here? Is Prayuth going to get some of his own medicine from the Junta? This could get interesting

ExPratt · February 16, 2015

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Not all of the 90 murdered were protesters, or killed by security forces as you elude to.

But of course the black shirts who lobbed grenades, killed soldiers and innocent bystanders didn't exist - the alcoholic Chalerm told us so.

In their case they were protecting themselves from an Army who they new were aligned with the Government they were opposing and would eventually attack them , which they did.The Yellow shirts do need to worry about such matters because the army will not even prevent them from physically disrupting peoples right to vote .

What about the violence of overthrowing democratic government voted for by the vast majority of Thai Citizens that's excusable is it ? but defending yourself against it isnt ? One mans Terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

eliotness · February 16, 2015

Has Thaksin made noises about wanting reconciliation?

Has time not proven that he is a man who cannot be trusted?

Going backwards is not a route to progress.

As far as I understand it Thaksin is facing jail time in Thailand- so he should be open to returning and facing the music if he wants to prove he has changed his spots.

This is kall just distraction from a forward thinking and progressive movement forward.

Sorry but I must have missed something,exactly what do you mean by a forward thinking and progressive movement ? Surely you do not mean the authors of the coup !

Fat Haggis · February 16, 2015

By bombing civilian targets in mainland UK and overseas Baerboxer ?

The IRA were nothing but scum terrorists with a leadership as members of the same outfit!!

Not any difference to the UDA scumbag killers too

Not any different to the Thai UDD scumbag killers in their rank and file too.

Not any different to factions within the PDRC who resorted to beatings and killings.

But you still don't get it do you ?

In all cases to end the violence talks had to take place, I seen scumbag killers from both republican and loyalists walk free for the greater good of lasting peace.

And as much as it galled me having lost friends in NI troubles, the Good Friday agreement had been pretty steady with peace in the province.

Sure there's still an element who wish it to return, but for that to happen, you still have to sit down with the bad guys!!

Do you think it was any different in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

The coalition had to sit down and enter dialogue with Sunni insurgents and the Taliban.

Nobody cares what farangs think should happen, but it's not your place, and to be blunt, you don't even have a dog in this fight either.

At some point differences are going to have to be set aside, better to do it now BEFORE the event, for reconciliation in the true form takes place.

I just wonder what these junta loving farangs would do If the army suddenly turned up and started arresting their wives and family members and found themselves escorted to the airport?

Would never happen right ? History is full of such incidents, would you fight to defend your family if the army started opening fire on your village for whatever reason they chose to? Or would you do a runner and leave them to it, as it's nothing to do with you? It's not your fight ?

If the Thais want to talk with each other doesn't matter what we Farang think, it's up to them, some of you guys need to get pissed and laid and start chilling out, it's none of your concern unless you have residency and a vote guys which most here don't have !! ?

eliotness · February 16, 2015

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

Pedro, how would you view having to sit down and talk with insurgents who have killed 5000 people down in the South?

That's exactly what HAS to happen for any progress to be made, sometimes you have to break bread with the devil.

Thaksin also has to want this reconciliation and he MUST face the consequences, whether you or the other kook aid drinkers like it or not, Thaksin is still part of the key to the future, and it's once again up to the Thai people,

not the bitter and twisted farangs, who have the final say in progress or regress!!

Exactly , look at Northern Ireland , McGuinness and Adams , dealing with Paisley and Trimble. Even let both sides "Terrorist" prisoners out of jail to bring peace, They have to wipe their mouth and get on with it or they will never have peace of demoycracy

The IRA leaders were fighting for a united Ireland. The Loyalist leaders wanted to remain part of the UK. Slightly different than the head of one very rich family vying for control of a country's coffers from other rich families don't you think?

How on earth can you compare Ireland to Thailand. The Irish problem dates back many hundreds of years, with many bloody incidents, some so infamous that just mentioning the name causes violent reactions on both sides. Thailand doesn't even compare with South Africa and their peace and reconciliation process. The bottom line is we are just talking about the old established rich elite opposing a new up and coming nevaux riche (please excuse if my french spelling is incorrect). Bottom line "it's all about the money", the politics on both sides is just smoke and mirrors.

wowfactor10 · February 16, 2015

I have to agree with the person asking the question..

ExPratt · February 16, 2015

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

Pedro, how would you view having to sit down and talk with insurgents who have killed 5000 people down in the South?

That's exactly what HAS to happen for any progress to be made, sometimes you have to break bread with the devil.

Thaksin also has to want this reconciliation and he MUST face the consequences, whether you or the other kook aid drinkers like it or not, Thaksin is still part of the key to the future, and it's once again up to the Thai people,

not the bitter and twisted farangs, who have the final say in progress or regress!!

Exactly , look at Northern Ireland , McGuinness and Adams , dealing with Paisley and Trimble. Even let both sides "Terrorist" prisoners out of jail to bring peace, They have to wipe their mouth and get on with it or they will never have peace of demoycracy

The IRA leaders were fighting for a united Ireland. The Loyalist leaders wanted to remain part of the UK. Slightly different than the head of one very rich family vying for control of a country's coffers from other rich families don't you think?

How on earth can you compare Ireland to Thailand. The Irish problem dates back many hundreds of years, with many bloody incidents, some so infamous that just mentioning the name causes violent reactions on both sides. Thailand doesn't even compare with South Africa and their peace and reconciliation process. The bottom line is we are just talking about the old established rich elite opposing a new up and coming nevaux riche (please excuse if my french spelling is incorrect). Bottom line "it's all about the money", the politics on both sides is just smoke and mirrors.

Show me where I compared anything to anything ? I gave an example of negotiations between two bitterly opposed antagonists that ended in Peacet

Edited February 16, 2015 by ExPratt

Robby nz · February 16, 2015

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Yes indeed the one who instigated and funded the 2010 riots desperately needs to be brought to justice for he is the one who is to blame for all the deaths, injuries and destruction.

Had it not been for his lust for power and disregard for the country and the people there would have been no riots and no deaths.

It would be better if you checked out just who was killed and by who in those riots before making any more statements concerning them.

You might also like to ask why the widow of the army officer killed when the first grenade was fired was ignored by Tarit and the PT Govt when she asked for, pleaded for and finally demanded that an investigation be carried out into her husbands killing.

You could also ask why the red leaders at first accepted Abhisit's offer of early elections which they had been demanding in exchange for packing up and going home, then the next day reversed that decision (on who's orders).

Had they gone home at that point tell us how many deaths it would have prevented, then extrapolate that to how many the reversal cost, then tell us who is responsible for all the deaths after that reversal.

When you look at the truth its not so one sided is it ?

Robby nz · February 16, 2015

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to (1)fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating (2)one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be (3)no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

1. Obligations to a military run judiciary. Under a Military government

2. 12, 000,000 voters right to democracy

3. Who have they wronged and where is your proof

p1ss and wind post ...nowt new there then

You new to this country obviously.

Thaksin committed the crime he was convicted of long before the general came along, his obligation is to serve the time the court handed down, that is his obligation to the country and its people.

Try not to forget the other cases waiting to be heard him should he ever return all of which were committed long before the present Govt came along, all answerable to the country and the people.

The 2010 riots, Thaksins lust for power, no other reason.

Lording it over 3 separate proxy parties Thaksins lust for power

The amnesty bill Thaksins lust for power.

Lordy lordy you are new here, who have Thaksin the reds and his govts wronged ?

Well lets start with recently, how about the poor rice farmers who never got paid only lied to.

Oh and while I am on the farmers here's a classic for you to check out;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/thailand-thaksin-regime-turns-on-its-own-supporters/5366749?print=1

Thailand Color Politics: Thaksin Regime Turns on its Own Supporters.

Then there are the protesters who were shot at and had grenades thrown at them on a nightly basis.

Hay and how about Nuttawat from the red stage ; each bring a bottle I have a million gallons of gasoline we will turn the country into a sea of flame.

Don't forget the next bit; I will take responsibility.

Bout time he kept his word and took responsibility for the fires his speech inspired.

Do I really have to post links for these and fill a page with others, be a waste of time for an entrenched attitude like yours is unlikely to ever be changed by the truth.

elgordo38 · February 16, 2015

But the man holds so much influence its a case of having to if they want serious reconciliation. If you do not include him in the talks then there will be no reconciliation . You either reconcile or you don't. Not cherry pick who can and who can't

First thing I have read in a long time that makes sense. No you cannot cherry pick lets get all parties at the table and hammer something out. Bread and water only in a locked room till they come to a consensus. Also give them an empty bucket. You just cannot continue as warring parties it will fragment the country much like Humpty Dumpty who fell off the wall. After a deal is reached stick to it and have a big bonfire and throw in all the red shirts and yellow shirts and other assorted colors. Then one and all don one color as a united group. Then move forward and tackle issue number 2 corruption. Then get your ducks in a row and mow em down.

Robby nz · February 16, 2015

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

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Not all of the 90 murdered were protesters, or killed by security forces as you elude to.

But of course the black shirts who lobbed grenades, killed soldiers and innocent bystanders didn't exist - the alcoholic Chalerm told us so.

In their case they were protecting themselves from an Army who they new were aligned with the Government they were opposing and would eventually attack them , which they did.The Yellow shirts do need to worry about such matters because the army will not even prevent them from physically disrupting peoples right to vote .

What about the violence of overthrowing democratic government voted for by the vast majority of Thai Citizens that's excusable is it ? but defending yourself against it isnt ? One mans Terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

I think you really are going to have to study on this a bit and not the red version either.

The army were attacked with weapons of war before they ever used live ammunition which was only brought out in retaliation to attacks against their ranks.

What do you mean "Aligned with the Govt" he only reason the army were involved was because the police refused to do their job of crowd control which meant the Govt had no choice but to call on the army.

They at no time 'attacked ' the reds, they were forced to contain them while being attacked from behind barricades, I was around at the time and saw this, they were then forced to move them out, the red leaders gave the Govt of the day no choice.

The continual color coding everyone who does not agree with your stance is just childish, try to get over it.

When was there a violent overthrow of an elected Govt ? Let alone one elected by a vast majority.

If you mean the recent coup then I didn't see any violence nor was there an elected Govt in place at the time.

The PT Govt had been dissolved and all that was left were 26 caretaker cabinet ministers who had been appointed by Thaksin.

Pretty much goes for the previous coup, no violence and no govt in place at the time, yes I was here then also.

You might like to give me your version of what the 2010 riots were all about and what freedoms the leaders were fighting for.

Robby nz · February 16, 2015

But the man holds so much influence its a case of having to if they want serious reconciliation. If you do not include him in the talks then there will be no reconciliation . You either reconcile or you don't. Not cherry pick who can and who can't

First thing I have read in a long time that makes sense. No you cannot cherry pick lets get all parties at the table and hammer something out. Bread and water only in a locked room till they come to a consensus. Also give them an empty bucket. You just cannot continue as warring parties it will fragment the country much like Humpty Dumpty who fell off the wall. After a deal is reached stick to it and have a big bonfire and throw in all the red shirts and yellow shirts and other assorted colors. Then one and all don one color as a united group. Then move forward and tackle issue number 2 corruption. Then get your ducks in a row and mow em down.

Would be very nice if you could trust them.

But would you trust Thaksin to keep his word ?

metisdead · February 16, 2015

A troll post has been removed.

Gonsalviz · February 16, 2015

In fact he is the country leader.... The Army is in Charge as there is still martial law, and the PM did quit the army.

What is your point? The PM is civilian now. He is in control of the country and the Army. If the PM says there is martial then there is. It does not mean the the Army is in charge. It means the PM is.

Jeffreyake · February 16, 2015

for my opinion, the one and only subject for talk with a convicted criminal at run should be terms of his surrender

ikke · February 16, 2015

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

What evidence ?

ExPratt · February 16, 2015

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Yes indeed the one who instigated and funded the 2010 riots desperately needs to be brought to justice for he is the one who is to blame for all the deaths, injuries and destruction.

Had it not been for his lust for power and disregard for the country and the people there would have been no riots and no deaths.

It would be better if you checked out just who was killed and by who in those riots before making any more statements concerning them.

You might also like to ask why the widow of the army officer killed when the first grenade was fired was ignored by Tarit and the PT Govt when she asked for, pleaded for and finally demanded that an investigation be carried out into her husbands killing.

You could also ask why the red leaders at first accepted Abhisit's offer of early elections which they had been demanding in exchange for packing up and going home, then the next day reversed that decision (on who's orders).

Had they gone home at that point tell us how many deaths it would have prevented, then extrapolate that to how many the reversal cost, then tell us who is responsible for all the deaths after that reversal.

When you look at the truth its not so one sided is it ?

Again though Rob , the Protests in 2010 were due to an elected Government being overthrown in 2006 . We cannot expect people just to shrug their shoulders when they believe they have been victim to a huge injustice

Yes the Army stepped in because the Police didn't if they are not aligned to any side why didn't they do that last year when the PDRC were causing havoc and more importantly disrupting an election and physically stopping people from voting

I have no idea about the General killed or who stopped the election agreement with Abhisit

Had they gone home , how many deaths would have occurred ? If there hadn't been a Military takeover in the first place there wouldn't have been any protests

I'm not a Massive supporter of any Political Party in Thailand , I'm working class and therefore a bit left of centre not an establishment Man. I believe Military Takeover's are wrong anywhere

Robby nz · February 16, 2015

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

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

Seems reasonable provided Thaksin comes back to fulfill his obligations to the courts, country and the people then talks can be held, with him on the other side of a stout set of bars.

Reconciliation is not about accommodating one mans lust for power, particularly a man who has never admitted any wrongdoing regardless of the evidence.

Until he and his minions come to the table in contrition there can be no reconciliation for those they have wronged.

So its about Justice is it , So the leaders of the army and Government at the time of the murder of 90 civilian protester will also be brought to trial , Justice

Yes indeed the one who instigated and funded the 2010 riots desperately needs to be brought to justice for he is the one who is to blame for all the deaths, injuries and destruction.

Had it not been for his lust for power and disregard for the country and the people there would have been no riots and no deaths.

It would be better if you checked out just who was killed and by who in those riots before making any more statements concerning them.

You might also like to ask why the widow of the army officer killed when the first grenade was fired was ignored by Tarit and the PT Govt when she asked for, pleaded for and finally demanded that an investigation be carried out into her husbands killing.

You could also ask why the red leaders at first accepted Abhisit's offer of early elections which they had been demanding in exchange for packing up and going home, then the next day reversed that decision (on who's orders).

Had they gone home at that point tell us how many deaths it would have prevented, then extrapolate that to how many the reversal cost, then tell us who is responsible for all the deaths after that reversal.

When you look at the truth its not so one sided is it ?

Again though Rob , the Protests in 2010 were due to an elected Government being overthrown in 2006 . We cannot expect people just to shrug their shoulders when they believe they have been victim to a huge injustice

Yes the Army stepped in because the Police didn't if they are not aligned to any side why didn't they do that last year when the PDRC were causing havoc and more importantly disrupting an election and physically stopping people from voting

I have no idea about the General killed or who stopped the election agreement with Abhisit

Had they gone home , how many deaths would have occurred ? If there hadn't been a Military takeover in the first place there wouldn't have been any protests

I'm not a Massive supporter of any Political Party in Thailand , I'm working class and therefore a bit left of centre not an establishment Man. I believe Military Takeover's are wrong anywhere

If what you write is true then can you explain why it took from 2006 to 2010, 2 Thaksin proxy Governments and 2 years of a legal Abhisit Government for the riots to start.

No you cant blame the riots on the 2006 coup and yes they were riots not protests, for when you have armed elements deliberately shooting at and killing army and civilians it ceases to be a protest.

Oh the ordinary people there who had been duped or paid to believe thought they were protesting but leaders who all emerged with millions of baht knew what they were doing.

Have a look back and you will find that in 2006 there was no elected Govt and no PM.

Thaksin had dissolved the Govt and an election had failed, he had been installed as interim PM but the term had expired and he still clung on as an illegal PM without royal endorsement.

When the coup took place it was welcomed by the people (I saw flowers being handed out to soldiers) for the country was in complete limbo and going nowhere.

The leader of that coup made multiple mistakes and even ended us as an MP along with the Yingluck Govt, This turned what at first had seemed a hopeful situation into a farce.

The present PM looks to have learnt from these mistakes and although he is making some of his own is doing much better, but time will tell.

I agree with you, you have no idea on many of these things, I recognize your field of expertise and respect your knowledge in it but before you post again on this and related topics do some research and find out facts.

If you are not a supporter of PT, Thaksin and the reds then please in future do not, as you have done in the past, post their lies that are designed to promote hate.

Personally I don't support anyone or anything but the truth which is in short supply on these pages.

ExPratt · February 17, 2015

<script ty