He also looks like Dr Evil, from the movie Austin Powers the Spy who Shagged Me. Also why is no one happy in his return to happiness speech?

Yes, but a Dr Evil wannabe. Comes across more like a pale pink Mighty Mouse.

Slow down a sec guys..........

This thread is not about the violent red thugs (there are 100's of threads about that already)

This is about Mr P asking/begging/ordering the press to report his "truth".

Normally countries where that happens are called (you know what I mean).................

He just ask media to report True.

Media have pictures and videos of this night who clearly show that red shirt always denied : Violence come from red camps.......

Since most of the media are on yellow hands, why haven't those alleged pictures and videos not been published in five years??

You want pics, ok You tell me how to stop these peacefull protests.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

Since most of the media are on yellow hands, why haven't those alleged pictures and videos not been published in five years??

You want pics, ok You tell me how to stop these peacefull protests.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

Since most of the media are on yellow hands, why haven't those alleged pictures and videos not been published in five years??

You want pics, ok You tell me how to stop these peacefull protests.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. ===> time to leave.

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. ===> time to leave.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

day after day he is putting down the media ... now he asks for their help

Dillwad of the day goes to ...................

He means he wants the media to tell the "sanitized" version of events according to him. Never mind what the actual truth is.

It was a war zone.

Yeah it was... It was damn the city and its people. We'll destroy it and them to have our man back.

Maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with, that the majority of Thai voters had enough of, over and over again, seeing their votes being voided by the judiciary and/or the army.

Violence is never a solution, but at some point most people reach their breaking point !!

While to those of us that were here in Bangkok during that time your comments seem naive, admittedly, had I not been here I never would believe it could happen in Bangkok either.

The Prime Minister was pleading for help to stop the RS violence, the police did little and until the military stepped in there was no rule of law.

The international correspondents that were in Thailand were guys posted in Bangkok. They weren't war correspondents and one from a well known news agency wouldn't even get out of his hotel. News from the streets primarily came from Al-Jazeera and Michael Yon as well as some other photojournalists.

Frankly, all hell had broken loose and a lot of us are thankful the military stepped in.

It was a war zone.

Yeah it was... It was damn the city and its people. We'll destroy it and them to have our man back.

Maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with, that the majority of Thai voters had enough of, over and over again, seeing their votes being voided by the judiciary and/or the army.

Violence is never a solution, but at some point most people reach their breaking point !!

While to those of us that were here in Bangkok during that time your comments seem naive, admittedly, had I not been here I never would believe it could happen in Bangkok either.

The Prime Minister was pleading for help to stop the RS violence, the police did little and until the military stepped in there was no rule of law.

The international correspondents that were in Thailand were guys posted in Bangkok. They weren't war correspondents and one from a well known news agency wouldn't even get out of his hotel. News from the streets primarily came from Al-Jazeera and Michael Yon as well as some other photojournalists.

Frankly, all hell had broken loose and a lot of us are thankful the military stepped in.

Before the courts, army & yellows colluded to oust the legitimate government there were no red shirts.

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. ===> time to leave.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. ===> time to leave.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

A (very) minor correction if I may. Nothing really serious.

"Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government"

should be

"Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest a government they consider illegitimate"

Maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with, that the majority of Thai voters had enough of, over and over again, seeing their votes being voided by the judiciary and/or the army.

Violence is never a solution, but at some point most people reach their breaking point !!

While to those of us that were here in Bangkok during that time your comments seem naive, admittedly, had I not been here I never would believe it could happen in Bangkok either.

The Prime Minister was pleading for help to stop the RS violence, the police did little and until the military stepped in there was no rule of law.

The international correspondents that were in Thailand were guys posted in Bangkok. They weren't war correspondents and one from a well known news agency wouldn't even get out of his hotel. News from the streets primarily came from Al-Jazeera and Michael Yon as well as some other photojournalists.

Frankly, all hell had broken loose and a lot of us are thankful the military stepped in.

Before the courts, army & yellows colluded to oust the legitimate government there were no red shirts.

... and before ... ... ...

Personally I blame that bloody snake 6000 or so years ago

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

Don't forget 2008 PAD protest, when RTP use explosive device against protester.......

Don't forget RTP violence against PAD protester

Don't forget soldiers who have been injured during the 2010 "peaceful" red terrorist protest.....

You can see behind the injured soldier a injured foreign journalist

Why foreign journalist need protection from soldier if UDD protest was "peaceful" ?

""Media, help me. Don't throw away the evidence. I saw you taking many photographs," Gen. Prayuth said"

TVF member's response seems a replay we've seen close to two dozen times already here. Nothing new, not even in 130 posts. Mind you, neither had I expected

No they hadn't. In fact only 6 days earlier "Apr 4, 2010 - Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva went on TV Sunday morning, urging the red-shirt protesters to stop blocking roads and return to rally at the Phan Fa Bridge" http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/04/politics/PM-tells-protesters-to-return-to-Phan-Fa-30126343.html

There had been loads of M79 grenade attacks before this clash. The protesters had been given loads of time to leave but they chose to fight.

& how do you expect them to react to being attacked by their own army? Before the April 10 attack @ dusk their had been no violence. When they were being advanced on they responded.

Just as when the police tried to clear the PRDC they responded with shots & grenades at the police.

A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. ===> time to leave.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

On December 5, only days before the establishment of the AV administration, Anupong hosted Suthep & representatives of the soon to be coalition at his army residence. This is your understanding of legitimate? A government forged together under the orders of the military?

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

On December 5, only days before the establishment of the AV administration, Anupong hosted Suthep & representatives of the soon to be coalition at his army residence. This is your understanding of legitimate? A government forged together under the orders of the military?

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

On December 5, only days before the establishment of the AV administration, Anupong hosted Suthep & representatives of the soon to be coalition at his army residence. This is your understanding of legitimate? A government forged together under the orders of the military?

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

2001: TRT 248 Dems 128...legitimate

2005: TRT 375 Dems 96...legitimate

2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate

2011: PT 265 Dems 159..legitimate

2008: Dems 133 PPP 233...<deleted>...

Although coalition governments are common around the world & there has even been some rare examples of a party having come 2nd in an election leading a coalition government, there has never been a case (apart from 2008 Thailand) where such a dominant party has been left out of a coalition government.

According to former PM Abhisit, three military generals were involved in the forced dispersal of protesters, including then deputy army chief Gen Prayut. Abhisit said the generals acted as middlemen between those in power, including him, and officials who were carrying out the operations.

Former deputy PM Suthep as Chief of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation which controlled the protest was in charge of the army officers and he outlined how the officers should use their weapons. Troops were told to shoot below a person’s knee without intent to kill and not to fire a weapon when protesters were mingling with innocent people.

But obviously the soldiers did fire at innocent people. Obviously, the soldiers decided that all protesters deserved to be fired upon.

Why hasn’t General Prayut been charged by the Administrative Criminal Court for murder if he was possibly complicit in protesters/bystanders deaths? He was a military officer and not a government official.

It is an affront to justice that Gen. Prayut has untouchable judicial power under Article 44 and not be held accountable for carrying out Abhisit/Suthep orders to fire at both protesters and bystanders. How noble he is to call on the news media to prove his own innocence as he avoids criminal charges.

"Why hasn’t General Prayut been charged by the Administrative Criminal Court for murder if he was possibly complicit in protesters/bystanders deaths?"

​Ask yingluck…She had 3 years to charge him before accountability caught up with her, but instead "cuddled up" to him to try to pave a free pass for her accused terrorist convicted criminal brother to return home a free man.

It is an affront to justice that Gen. Prayut has untouchable judicial power under Article 44 and not be held accountable for carrying out Abhisit/Suthep orders to fire at both protesters and bystanders.

Article 44 is not protecting him..He didn't have article 44 to hide behind under the yingluck administration. yingluck commended him for his work to the nation while she was in power…That is not the sign of a woman that wants to persecute the man for wrong doing is it?

When the PTP did not hold him accountable for your make believe crimes you say nothing, but when you think the current government should you complain?

PTP logic right there folks.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

A government forged together under the orders of the military?

Where is your proof for this statement, mr. " supporter of an convicted criminal"

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

On December 5, only days before the establishment of the AV administration, Anupong hosted Suthep & representatives of the soon to be coalition at his army residence. This is your understanding of legitimate? A government forged together under the orders of the military?

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

2001: TRT 248 Dems 128...legitimate

2005: TRT 375 Dems 96...legitimate

2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate

2011: PT 265 Dems 159..legitimate

2008: Dems 133 PPP 233...<deleted>...

Although coalition governments are common around the world & there has even been some rare examples of a party having come 2nd in an election leading a coalition government, there has never been a case (apart from 2008 Thailand) where such a dominant party has been left out of a coalition government.

Minor correction if I may. There where no general elections in 2008. The election of a PM by MPs in December 2008 was based on the MPs in principle elected in December 2007

2007: 480 seats with PPP 233, Dems 165, CTP 37, PPD 24, other 21

"BANGKOK: -- Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, aged 44, has become the 27th and youngest prime minister of Thailand after receiving 235 votes from 431 MPs at the extraordinary parliamentary session on Monday.

Another candidate nominated by the Puea Thai party, Puea Pandin leader Pracha Promnok, obtained 198 votes."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/229705-abhisit-vejjajiva-elected-new-prime-minister-of-thailand/page-3#entry2406489

As for a dominant party being left out of a coalition government, well, that's democracy in action. May I suggest you have a look at how interesting the Netherlands coalitions governments are. Currently a left-right, no middle government.

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

2001: TRT 248 Dems 128...legitimate

2005: TRT 375 Dems 96...legitimate

2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate

2011: PT 265 Dems 159..legitimate

2008: Dems 133 PPP 233...<deleted>...

Although coalition governments are common around the world & there has even been some rare examples of a party having come 2nd in an election leading a coalition government, there has never been a case (apart from 2008 Thailand) where such a dominant party has been left out of a coalition government.

" 2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate"

Lies,

They were not left out of a coalition government they were disolved because of election fraude.

Get your facts right.

Over 100,000 people come to Bangkok to protest an illegitimate government, imposed on the people by the military & courts ===> time to call for immediate elections to let the people decide.

More redshirt BS. The government was legal, the one before wasn't because :

The PPP's deputy chairman, was deemed guilty by a court verdict on electoral fraud. Along with the coalition members of Thai Nation Party and Neutral Democratic Party, the People's Power Party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2008

Why did they need instant new elections? More electoral fraude?

Stop acting like a victim, when it doesn't go the reds way it always ends with violence.

A government forged together under the orders of the military?

Where is your proof for this statement, mr. " supporter of an convicted criminal"

"On Dec 6, shortly before the Democrat’s plan to form a new coalition government was announced, Mr Suthep reportedly led a group of key members of the Democrats’ prospective coalition partners to meet Gen Anupong at the residence of former army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, who is well respected by Gen Anupong. Even though the meetings were supposed to be secret events, they ended up in the open because of the unusual manner of the visits. Suddenly, Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. http://asiancorrespondent.com/

​"Convicted criminal" ...a conviction by a judiciary stacked by his political rivals is not a conviction that stands up to any international standards

Daniel Russell "“I’ll be blunt here,” Russel said. “When an elected leader is deposed, impeached by the authorities that implemented the coup, and then targeted with criminal charges while basic democratic processes and institutions are interrupted, the international community is left with the impression that these steps could be politically driven.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

2001: TRT 248 Dems 128...legitimate

2005: TRT 375 Dems 96...legitimate

2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate

2011: PT 265 Dems 159..legitimate

2008: Dems 133 PPP 233...<deleted>...

Although coalition governments are common around the world & there has even been some rare examples of a party having come 2nd in an election leading a coalition government, there has never been a case (apart from 2008 Thailand) where such a dominant party has been left out of a coalition government.

" 2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate"

Lies,

They were not left out of a coalition government they were disolved because of election fraude.

Get your facts right

Even after they were yet again disenfranchised by the yellow courts, the newly formed Peua Thai party still held far more seats than the unpopular Democrats. The 2011 election then left utterly no doubt as to who the Thai people wanted to rule their country. Unfortunately for them, that was not what the elite & military would allow.

A government forged together under the orders of the military?

Where is your proof for this statement, mr. " supporter of an convicted criminal"

"On Dec 6, shortly before the Democrat’s plan to form a new coalition government was announced, Mr Suthep reportedly led a group of key members of the Democrats’ prospective coalition partners to meet Gen Anupong at the residence of former army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, who is well respected by Gen Anupong. Even though the meetings were supposed to be secret events, they ended up in the open because of the unusual manner of the visits. Suddenly, Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. http://asiancorrespondent.com/

​"Convicted criminal" ...a conviction by a judiciary stacked by his political rivals is not a conviction that stands up to any international standards

Daniel Russell "“I’ll be blunt here,” Russel said. “When an elected leader is deposed, impeached by the authorities that implemented the coup, and then targeted with criminal charges while basic democratic processes and institutions are interrupted, the international community is left with the impression that these steps could be politically driven.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp

(the links have nothing to do with the text)

A coalition formation manager doesn't ORDER things.

Are you saying that Thaksin didn't do the things he was convicted for? What about the 2500 people murdered in the so called "war on drugs".

"legitimate"?

"The PPP exploited a loophole in the constitution - rewritten after the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin - and immediately renominated him for prime minister. But Samak was forced to withdraw on Friday after a revolt in his own party and its five coalition partners, when MPs expressed their dismay by failing to appear in sufficient numbers for the parliamentary vote.

Hours of closed-doors talks by PPP elders and telephone lobbying by Thaksin, who fled Thai corruption charges for refuge in England, eventually allowed Somchai to beat his two rivals, the justice and finance ministers."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/15/thailand

2001: TRT 248 Dems 128...legitimate

2005: TRT 375 Dems 96...legitimate

2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate

2011: PT 265 Dems 159..legitimate

2008: Dems 133 PPP 233...<deleted>...

Although coalition governments are common around the world & there has even been some rare examples of a party having come 2nd in an election leading a coalition government, there has never been a case (apart from 2008 Thailand) where such a dominant party has been left out of a coalition government.

" 2007: PPP 233 Dems 133 ..legitimate"

Lies,

They were not left out of a coalition government they were disolved because of election fraude.

Get your facts right

Even after they were yet again disenfranchised by the yellow courts, the newly formed Peua Thai party still held far more seats than the unpopular Democrats. The 2011 election then left utterly no doubt as to who the Thai people wanted to rule their country. Unfortunately for them, that was not what the elite & military would allow.

Blaming the court for convicting criminals, how sad.

Just a strange request. Sounds as though he doesn't want to go to court. But anyway what judge or lawyer will want to ask the hard questions, like a 'shoot to kill' order or 'take no prisoner' order. What a court needs to determine was the orders given to the troops caused unnecessary deaths or human rights violations. Of course this will be done to the other side' actions during the period.

At the end of the day there is section 44, but to evoke this may cause a lot more friction and mistrust with the Thai public, that is not being reported on?

"On Dec 6, shortly before the Democrat’s plan to form a new coalition government was announced, Mr Suthep reportedly led a group of key members of the Democrats’ prospective coalition partners to meet Gen Anupong at the residence of former army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, who is well respected by Gen Anupong. Even though the meetings were supposed to be secret events, they ended up in the open because of the unusual manner of the visits. Suddenly, Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. http://asiancorrespondent.com/

Where is your proof for this statement, mr. " supporter of an convicted criminal"

A government forged together under the orders of the military?

​"Convicted criminal" ...a conviction by a judiciary stacked by his political rivals is not a conviction that stands up to any international standards

Daniel Russell "“I’ll be blunt here,” Russel said. “When an elected leader is deposed, impeached by the authorities that implemented the coup, and then targeted with criminal charges while basic democratic processes and institutions are interrupted, the international community is left with the impression that these steps could be politically driven.”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp

(the links have nothing to do with the text)

A coalition formation manager doesn't ORDER things.

Are you saying that Thaksin didn't do the things he was convicted for? What about the 2500 people murdered in the so called "war on drugs".

Nice try to change the topic when you know you are losing.

No, he certainly didn't deserve to be convicted in the Ratchada case, when the NCCC had previously OKed the transaction "The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

As for the War on Drugs "An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders, a Justice Ministry source said yesterday. After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders. But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached." http://asiancorrespondent.com/

He means he wants the media to tell the "sanitized" version of events according to him. Never mind what the actual truth is.

Oh please tell me, JV, what is the actual truth?

That the reds and the blacks were shooting at the army?

That the reds were burning everything on their path?

That the reds had BKK ransomed for weeks?

I also don't agree with the army shooting back, but that had to stop somehow.

Now, as the PM wisely said, let the courts find out the truth and deliver justice to the wrongdoers.

But don't try to hide behind your little finger.....it doesn't work.

Let's agree Costas, you were not there so you don't have the vaguest idea what went on. Others, myself included, were, although I'm happy to admit I was not anywhere near the firing line but I know others who were and their stories don't match your version. Most of those killed were neither shooting back nor close to anyone who was. Your post disgusts me.

And this is not meant to justify wrong doings on either side, however there is more than enough evidence out there to support a claim against both sides. Tony Joh's battle-line videos alone give the lie to Prayuth's spiel today.

Thailand needs to stop this on both sides and the only way it can do this is if democracy is allowed to grow - and, more importantly, correct itself without self serving intervention when the army and the elite don't like the result, as it does so. Sadly that seems increasingly unlikely at the moment.

You`re bang on the money in that there were deadly wrongdoings on both sides. At the time I lived on the same Soi as Prime Minister Abhisit, worked around Silom area and saw protests virtually every day. This isn`t my country and so I`m neither red, yellow or whatever shirt. However, one thing that isn`t deniable is the vast majority of deaths were of peaceful protestors. Surely after allowing the sit down protests to drag on for 6 weeks they could have come up with a better solution than opening fire with M16 assault rifles on unarmed people.

Unarmed???

What about the attacks on BTS Sala Daeng and McDonalds? I happened to be there at the time.

Or what about being made to pay 500 Baht every evening just to be allowed to go home?

Thugs!

(the links have nothing to do with the text)

A coalition formation manager doesn't ORDER things.

Are you saying that Thaksin didn't do the things he was convicted for? What about the 2500 people murdered in the so called "war on drugs".

Nice try to change the topic when you know you are losing.

No, he certainly didn't deserve to be convicted in the Ratchada case, when the NCCC had previously OKed the transaction "The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

As for the War on Drugs "An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders, a Justice Ministry source said yesterday. After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders. But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached." http://asiancorrespondent.com/

I am losing? you have been caught with lies al the time.

What about the army ordering a new government? Still haven't seen any proof.

(the links have nothing to do with the text)

A coalition formation manager doesn't ORDER things.

Are you saying that Thaksin didn't do the things he was convicted for? What about the 2500 people murdered in the so called "war on drugs".

Nice try to change the topic when you know you are losing.

No, he certainly didn't deserve to be convicted in the Ratchada case, when the NCCC had previously OKed the transaction "The Bank of Thailand also confirmed that prior to transferring the land to Pojaman, the Bank had been in contact with the National Counter Corruption Committee (NCCC), and that the NCCC had replied that as Thaksin Shinawatra did not directly supervise the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF), who were the official seller, then there would be no problem with the NCCC Act Article 100." http://slimdogsworld.blogspot.com/

As for the War on Drugs "An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders, a Justice Ministry source said yesterday. After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders. But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached." http://asiancorrespondent.com/

I am losing? you have been caught with lies al the time.

What about the army ordering a new government? Still haven't seen any proof.

Post #143