Whoever was behind it had no real love for democracy or their motherland. Trying to force a controversial leader out of office through unorthodox political means is one thing. Attempting to kill him is another, let alone doing so in complete disregard of other innocent lives.

But do I believe it? Well, how about you? Thaksin has engineered one strange political phenomenon after another and the latest one borders on the absurd. A national leader has allegedly been targeted by a Middle East-style terrorist scheme that could have caused massive casualties. And yet a large portion of the populace thinks it's a hoax. Thaksin continues to divide Thailand, even as he narrowly escapes from the jaws of brutal death.

I'm reserving my judgement until the police complete their investigation. But as of now, it's terrifying to be told that a carload of powerful explosives, capable of destroying everything within a one-kilometre radius, seems to have been following our prime minister around Bangkok for quite some time. Since there's nothing we can do at the moment, let's recap all the possibilities (Like I told you, five years of Thaksin has brought out the conspiracy buff in all of us):

Theory A: It's real. They planned to kill him, albeit in a sloppy way. The possible evidence includes the sight of his pale face and accounts from those close to him who say Thaksin was visibly shaken. But how he managed to play golf three days after almost being blown to pieces is beyond me.

Theory B: It's real. But having failed because of a mix of Thaksin's good luck and a clumsy stake-out on their part, the masterminds have promoted the hoax theory and it has worked.

Theory C: They just wanted to scare him away from politics or create an impression that Thaksin was inspiring unprecedented political violence in Thailand. Government officials, sensing a good political opportunity, spun it into a serious assassination attempt, but their lousy efforts backfired and made the whole thing look like a state-created joke.

Theory D: They might want to make the public think he "did" it. This is different from Theory B. They wanted him to be a laughing stock. Before you laugh at this one, did you laugh at him?

Theory E: He actually did it. Advocates of this one, who were possibly inspired by the movie "Interpreter" starring Nicole Kidman, think Thai Rak Thai has everything to gain from such an incident. Public sympathy is the best political weapon. (Please note that the rationale for this theory also ironically provided motives for Theory D.)

Theory F: People close to him did it for him without his knowledge. Advocates of this one believe the pale face was genuine, but the rest of the episode was too funny to be true.

Theory G: It's real. They planned to put him away. But, sadly for Thaksin, his reign has been plagued by so many big lies that even when it comes to real matters of life and death, only his corpse would have convinced everyone that the plot was real. Painful as it is, this must have given him a good lesson. If this is real, why didn't the majority of Bangkokians surveyed believe it?

This serves both us and him some real food for thought: If 16 million people think it's a hoax, does that change the fact that it was a real assassination plot?

Writer's note: I planned to flee to the countryside for a few days after finishing my last "Stoppage Time" article, but my colleagues dragged me to work and rubbed my nose in the consequences of what I wrote. ("Thaksin's watchdogs tiring after five years of barking", Opinion, August 23.) "People love to read between the lines," one said. "But you gave them so many lines to read between."

As prepared as I was for stinging or bewildered feedback, the results were beyond my expectations. Anti-Thaksin readers thought I wrote it under great duress or was really giving up. "I hope he was just having an off day," said Paisid Aramphongphan. Either sweet encouragement like his or blasts from the likes of "General Commander", who boomed: "It's hard for me to believe this self-babbling piece got past your editors' eyes into print. I hate Thaksin and yet you lend a quitter's attitude, [which] can't be good for any progressive movement."

This is what happens when you get too far ahead of yourself in an attempt at sarcasm. I knew something went terribly wrong when quite a few pro-Thaksin posters on our website sounded as if they would like to invite me for dinner. Thank you all for the feedback, though. I read and enjoyed every message. Some posts did make me want to scream, just like you must have felt when reading my article, but, hey, that's what democracy is all about, isn't it?

 Tulsathit Taptim