Let's hope this is the death knell for this family of blood-sucking vampires and their lackeys, stooges, puppets and hangers-on.

She will have to pay for,what was her brothers great idea,

not his first idea that ended up costing the country dearly,

it was easy for him to run his business that was an monopoly,

but in the real world he did not look so good.

Her defense could be "I was only following orders "

regards Worgeordie

Will you comment similarly to a direct subsidy to rubber farmers costing the country 13 B Baht ? The cabinet approval was fast too as most just follow orders.

Your a laugh a minute. Be careful, 24 hours a day at the keyboard you'll bring on a heart attack.

Chuckle at your meaning of reconciliation as though you seriously think that coup is legal. Yes, the coup was politically motivated as in previous 19 coups. Only a fool will think it was a spontaneous and filled with good intention by Prayuth and only a fool will think he did this by himself. Now I am have said what I want to say.

This isn't about the coup. Agreed it is a big issue, but let's focus on the topic. With due respect.

wouldn't it be wonderful to see no more mention of Thaksin by the Nation ...........

oh we can only dream !!!

Here is an oxymoron: Thaksin & Democracy.

He was never a democrat and in his early years never used this word at all. He has no idea what it is or what it means.

Indeed, I believe that the idea of "fighting for democracy" was first suggested to him by his advisers, including Robert Amsterdam, because until then the reds had no central ideology apart from a 'love' of Thaksin. 'Democracy' gave them a hook on which to hang a campaign and a smokescreen behind which the autocrat Thaksin could hide.

Don't call me anti-Thaksin because that's an over-simplification. I am anti- liars and cheats and people who treat poor people in a nasty and manipulative way so that can use them for their own ends and personal wealth.

Agree.

'...the reds had no central ideology...' Excellent point, and they still have no manifesto.

The Reds didn't need a central ideology or a manifesto... they had Thaksin to do their political thinking for them.

She will have to pay for,what was her brothers great idea,

not his first idea that ended up costing the country dearly,

it was easy for him to run his business that was an monopoly,

but in the real world he did not look so good.

Her defense could be "I was only following orders "

regards Worgeordie

That didn't work at Nuremberg but this is Thailand.

"Battle of the Century" The Shinawatra family fighting for its life. They have so much and now could loose everything. The pressure is on and Prayut is on the war path.

Hate to place a wager on the outcome. But believe that in the end, Prayut and Thai democracy will succeed.

The outcome of this will only be known once elections happen.

Outside of Bangkok I wonder how much support the current PM has?

Outside of Issan I wonder how much support the Shinawatra's have?

Certainly nowhere near as much as before.

Eric Loh hammered people on here about 'reconciliation' asking for an explanation - so I gave him a decent definition and he has been very quiet since then!

Get rid of Thaksin regime in full swing and as scripted. As for reconciliation, it has never been in the script from the beginning.

Reconciliation you say. I've posted dozens of messages asking folks like you to give more information on what you believe 'reconciliation' really means, what would be the specific objective of reconciliation, what it would look like, what would the process be, who would be involved, what would we see specifically as successful reconciliation? etc.

So far never one response. Please share your thoughts on this.

Does it matter what my reconciliation means or even you? What matters is the big guy defination and what he has done to support and drive that mission. He said "it is about cooling political passion and get the people back to common trust and respect". Have you seen that happening? People are more divided by his words and action today.

Ok, maybe he is to busy with other important nation matters. More than a year ago, he hand picked his trusted Lt. General Kampanart to form the Reconciliation Center for Reform (RCR) and he promised detail plans in few weeks time. To- date, have anyone heard of RCR or their plans? It's over a year, what are the tangible achievements. I can tell you that there is none. This is just another smoke that he blew just after the coup and really not in his agenda. Sounds good though.

Try reading the OP again. All those people "more divided" couldn't even bother putting on a shirt of the right colour to support their martyred heroine. And its not a matter of love or hate, just indifference.

Get rid of Thaksin regime in full swing and as scripted. As for reconciliation, it has never been in the script from the beginning.

Reconciliation you say. I've posted dozens of messages asking folks like you to give more information on what you believe 'reconciliation' really means, what would be the specific objective of reconciliation, what it would look like, what would the process be, who would be involved, what would we see specifically as successful reconciliation? etc.

So far never one response. Please share your thoughts on this.

Does it matter what my reconciliation means or even you? What matters is the big guy defination and what he has done to support and drive that mission. He said "it is about cooling political passion and get the people back to common trust and respect". Have you seen that happening? People are more divided by his words and action today.

Ok, maybe he is to busy with other important nation matters. More than a year ago, he hand picked his trusted Lt. General Kampanart to form the Reconciliation Center for Reform (RCR) and he promised detail plans in few weeks time. To- date, have anyone heard of RCR or their plans? It's over a year, what are the tangible achievements. I can tell you that there is none. This is just another smoke that he blew just after the coup and really not in his agenda. Sounds good though.

Try reading the OP again. All those people "more divided" couldn't even bother putting on a shirt of the right colour to support their martyred heroine. And its not a matter of love or hate, just indifference.

Indifference or perhaps just obeying the instructions from Yingluck and other red-shirt leaders against it for fear the military government will use the campaign as an excuse to stay in power longer and postpone the general election.

wouldn't it be wonderful to see no more mention of Thaksin by the Nation ...........

oh we can only dream !!!

That won't happen as he's the whole raison d'etre for the junta. They would have to invent a new bogeyman to justify suspending democracy and clinging to power.

Edited November 4, 201510 yr by MZurf

Thaksin's idea of democracy is warped. As is his perception of justice. Hard to believe some actually still listen to him.

I think most fairminded people accept Thaksin's idea of democracy was warped.Nevertheless he - a legitimately elected leader - was often blocked in a way that this undemocratic government is not.

Your comment on his perception of justice is less well founded.Sadly Thai courts have never had a reputation for independence.Thaksin certainly "leant" on the justice system but there can be no serious argument that thereafter politicised courts were not mobilised against democratically elected governments.Nobody can with a straight face deny that justice is other than "warped" under the current disposition.

You in my opinion jump the shark when you express surprise people still listen to him.You perhaps need to be reminded that the Thai people consistently in democratic elections vote in governments associated with Thaksin.If a free and fair election was held today parties associated with him would prevail.The military rulers realise this very well and it partly explains their paranoia and determination to rig the constitution.

To ask why this should be so it requires some sense of intellectual curiosity and willingness to reject glib and lazy cliches.To do so certainly does not imply one is a Thaksin supporter.One can of course resort to the tired and discredited arguments of vote buying, intimidation, regional bosses influence etc to explain this awkward fact of Thaksin's huge support.

Unless one has contempt for the Thai people ( and from your record on this forum that clearly excludes you) there are some some rather searching questions that need to be posed about popular resentment of illegitimate and unelected elites in Thailand.

Thailand's future generations will note Thaksin's contribution not because he was a great democrat (he clearly isn't) but because of his catalytic effect.To ignore or minimise this seems to me to be avoiding the key issues.

Edited November 4, 201510 yr by jayboy

Eric Loh hammered people on here about 'reconciliation' asking for an explanation - so I gave him a decent definition and he has been very quiet since then!

Your definition of reconciliation was with respect somewhat fatuous.

It needs to be stated often and emphatically that reconciliation will involve all parties to the conflict agreeing to a settlement that will involve some painful compromise on all sides.

Up to now all sides have been looking for a zero sum game victory.It can't happen that way - so some hard thinking lies ahead.It may appear that one side is in total control now.The wheel of history turns and few would be confident in a few years this could completely change.

The frustrating aspect that the negotiated settlement is so clearly achievable (with less barriers than in say South Africa or Northern Ireland).

Eric Loh hammered people on here about 'reconciliation' asking for an explanation - so I gave him a decent definition and he has been very quiet since then!

Your definition of reconciliation was with respect somewhat fatuous.

It needs to be stated often and emphatically that reconciliation will involve all parties to the conflict agreeing to a settlement that will involve some painful compromise on all sides.

Up to now all sides have been looking for a zero sum game victory.It can't happen that way - so some hard thinking lies ahead.It may appear that one side is in total control now.The wheel of history turns and few would be confident in a few years this could completely change.

The frustrating aspect that the negotiated settlement is so clearly achievable (with less barriers than in say South Africa or Northern Ireland).

Not fatuous at all. Not even thinuous.

Get rid of Thaksin regime in full swing and as scripted. As for reconciliation, it has never been in the script from the beginning.

Reconciliation you say. I've posted dozens of messages asking folks like you to give more information on what you believe 'reconciliation' really means, what would be the specific objective of reconciliation, what it would look like, what would the process be, who would be involved, what would we see specifically as successful reconciliation? etc.

So far never one response. Please share your thoughts on this.

Does it matter what my reconciliation means or even you? What matters is the big guy defination and what he has done to support and drive that mission. He said "it is about cooling political passion and get the people back to common trust and respect". Have you seen that happening? People are more divided by his words and action today.

Ok, maybe he is to busy with other important nation matters. More than a year ago, he hand picked his trusted Lt. General Kampanart to form the Reconciliation Center for Reform (RCR) and he promised detail plans in few weeks time. To- date, have anyone heard of RCR or their plans? It's over a year, what are the tangible achievements. I can tell you that there is none. This is just another smoke that he blew just after the coup and really not in his agenda. Sounds good though.

Try reading the OP again. All those people "more divided" couldn't even bother putting on a shirt of the right colour to support their martyred heroine. And its not a matter of love or hate, just indifference.

Indifference or perhaps just obeying the instructions from Yingluck and other red-shirt leaders against it for fear the military government will use the campaign as an excuse to stay in power longer and postpone the general election.

A little simplistic don't you think?

can really imagine chalerm on the stand, it wasnt yl it was a person with a name starting with "t", what a total moron he is, yl is even worse, we can only hope the law catches up with them and they go away fro a long time as well as losing all their ill gotten gains