jayboy

In any case, Thaksin or anyone else, wikileaks is not damning evidence. It is a leaked cable of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened. It might confirm in some peoples minds, but it is irrelevant in a court of law.

OK that's it.If you can't grasp my point I don't see a simpler way of putting it (and I'm getting bored with repeating it!)

How many times must I say I agree with you about court of law evidence.However that's not the true significance of Wikileaks whether in Thailand or elsewhere.

On a point of detail, you are completely incorrect to suggest that Wikileaks are "leaked cables of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened".In most cases they are an Ambassador's reports of conversations he had directly with the people involved.

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Whether we believe they said it is irrelevant. Whatever "it" is.

It's whether it can be proven in court that is the point. And, it's hearsay. The guys will deny that they said it. The ambassador won't confirm or deny it.

It's hard going sometimes but the point is a fairly simple one to grasp.

The position regarding LM evidence in a Thai court is clear enough.

But because of Wikileaks the world at large knows the score now.The details are widely discussed among Thais etc etc etc .... this has nothing to do with any court or what it is prepared to accept as evidence.It's a sideshow along with the ridiculous Redshirt charges.You can pretend Wikileaks is just hearsay but the truth is what it is.Even the pretence that Wikileaks has nothing to do with the real world is clearly wrong: for the example the American Ambassador to Mexico has had to resign precisely because of the public airing of what he reported.

If Wikileaks had damning evidence against Thaksin I suspect the gauleiters would be singing a different tune.Actually it may yet:there is much more to come from Wikileaks on Thailand

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

The truth, or otherwise, of the cable isn't really the point. The point is the likely hood of it being accepted as true by a court.

And we all seem to agree that it wouldn't be.

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Congrats for going straight back to the ad hominems! You seem to do this every time someone contradicts you (holds any view contrary to yours).

Common Sense:

unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.

When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#familiarity

The appeal to "common sense" particularly in politics -- yet another fallacious argument

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

I wasn't privy (pun intended) to the discussion. I can't make the argument for or against it being true and neither can anyone else that wasn't there, and using a fallacious argument to try to get around that fact just doesn't work. You conceded my understanding of the US's official stance of wikileaks, but continue to use the argument? I don't get it.

Good on you for deleting a single ad hominem attack! (btw -- in case people don't know it, an ad hominem attack is yet another form of fallacious argument. If you can't debate the point raised, just attack the poster to deflect!)

BTW -- another fallacious argument is "because it is plausible it must be true."

I deleted the university remark because it seemed excessive and a bit rude.I remain a bit puzzled about your thought processes.Perhaps it's just a question of an untrained mind as the stuffier Cambridge dons used to say.

On the key issue you continue to flap around.Nobody with an ounce of intelligence or common sense is fooled.

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Which university did you say you went to? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

"Which university did you say you went to?" LOL I absolutely love it when you take offense to being contradicted and go "personal" yet again

Fair enough -- I shouldn't have used quotation marks even though it didn't change the meaning of this .....

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

Which by very nature is a fallacious argument (strawman, wishful thinking, whatever )

I deleted the university comment.

Question remains do you believe the Thailand wikileaks reflect the truth or not.Up to now you are just flapping around.

Laughable.

That was exactly my point that you made.

I made no remark regarding the truthfulness of wikileak, only the legality of it as evidence in a court case versus first hand videotape evidence in the case against Jatuporn.

Thanks for reiterating my point but no thanks for the, as said, completely unnecessary personal slight in your previous post and dragging out unnecessarily into a bickering session.... again.

.

So ignoring your usual personal abuse,, it seems we agree.That's a good thing isn't it?

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

But your argument as to the truth of wikileaks is built upon a strawman argument. "They don't even bother to deny them so they must be true", basically you have been caught out in a fallacious argument and are trying to doctor your replies now to attempt to match your statements (to jing?) earlier, imho.

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

The phrase you quote is yours not mine.What are you trying to deny here?

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

What might or might not have been said face to face with someone in private,

and then relayed and then exposed illegally as being said, is not necessarily a ilegal statement.

This is a huge stretch to say Prem did LM because what he said in private is allegedly repeated by others.

He did not say anything in public, and he is the 1st advisor to the monarchy as head of the privy council.

It is als a huge stretch to acuse him of LM.... the reds just hate his guts so they throw out the accusation.

That Jatuporn and his other two musketeers have JUST said things in public,

and ALREADY they are being charged speaks volumes about how over the top they MUST have gone at this rally for such a fast incrimination..

I agree most of this (though your last sentence is just conjecture on your part)

It would be absurd to charge Prem with LM, though absurd charges have been made against others in the past (eg Jonathan Head)

The law has become abused by charletans.That's why Abhisit wants to reform it.

Once again you completely unnecessarily attack the poster .

My only point is that in one case the evidence is second-hand and in the other case it is first-hand.

It was a very weak point for reasons I have already explained.

For Whybother, no and yes to your respective questions

jdinasia, you are right but not sure how this adds to the discussion.

Summary:lots of points to be made here and nobody has the monopoly of wisdom, but it would be very hard to demonstrate (actually impossible) that the Wikileaks aren't genuine uncensored despatches to the State Department.One can argue whether they are accurate or not but given the source one must give the benefit of doubt to the Ambassadors concerned.

Not just a Thailand issue of course.

Interesting additional information on Jatuporn and Vichien and Suporn lese majeste charges in the other paper today.

Also, regarding Jatuporn's threats to charge Prem, it's worthy to note this seems based on second-hand hearsay evidence in the form of wikileaks whereas the charges against Jatuporn are first hand video and audio evidence of his public speech.

You have made a study of the first hand video and audio evidence? Pray enlighten us

As for the second sentence you are talking nonsense.It is in the nature of the Wikileaks that they are as reliable sources of evidence as any available.Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.You can call the American Ambassador a liar or a fool but most people would say that seems unlikely.

Once again awkward facts don't compute for you. so you rubbish the source (in this instance highly reliable).

It also avoids that rather than "seeking background from all sides", the PIC website utilizes Thaksin's Offspring Voice TV almost exclusively.

His earlier point was simply a rush to smear posters witout even bothering to assess the overwhelming reliance of the PIC to push Voice TV's agenda. And of course we've seen that time and time again from jayboy's own intellectual laziness.

Actually I was making a general point.

Sure doesn't read that way as it seems quite individualized.

So, rather than smear posters, why not address the points yourself?

Well you will have to take my word for it.

As for the second sentence, this is the advice I have been giving you for weeks.

It seems that just like in politics a single fact can be interpreted in many ways, the ranking of Universities is similar:

http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings

All seem to agree on at least one thing: Cambridge scores better than Oxford

Well it's a superior sort of place (coughs modestly)

But seriously you should check out the methodology used in these surveys.The one used by Animatic (4icu world University Ranking) is a complete joke, based on web hits!!

I believe the FT survey is pretty reliable.

And of course we've seen that time and time again from jayboy's own intellectual laziness.

Actually I was making a general point.As usual you ignore the content and smear the messenger.

For those more interested in intelligent analysis see Shawn Crispin's latest piece on the forthcoming from the Asia Times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MD13Ae01.html

Yes Abhisit went to the best and got his bachelors (converted to Masters) and that is impressive as well

I wonder whether you are aware of what converting to a Masters means in an Oxford context? Precisely nothing - wait a few years and pay a small fee.

Red posters like to highlight the academic achievements of the people they support, but is it really that impressive getting a Masters and MBA from a lowly ranked university? I thought it would be fairly common.

I imagine Kentucky State is a crap university and I would expect Kentucky University to be pretty shoddy as well.The best US universities (say the top 100) are among the best in the world.The rest are a mixed bunch, some downright dreadful.

Who cares what forum red posters (that unrepresentative body of blue collar foreigners) think about academic achievement any more than what forum foreign defenders - mostly blue collar as well - of the elite think (mostly ex warrant officers with submarine experience it seems).99% have come no nearer to an elite university than the truck drivers on the Oxford ring road, or a pizza delivery boy dropping off an Italian Spicy in Harvard Yard.

As a working class movement in a country which has yet to develop a meaningful university education system for most of its citizens, it's not surprising that the Red leadership on the whole lacks formal tertiary educational qualifications.The same was true of the British Labour Party before the working classes had reasonable access to university education.The ruling party here mainly the Democrats represent the middle and upper class, and not surprisingly are better educated - some like Abhisit and Korn with world class universities behind them.I'm a bit surprised there aren't more from top tier institutions.Perhaps there are:I don't really know.What I do know is that most Thai M.P's though graduates are of a fairly low calibre, mostly low grade US schools - though Kentucky State is probably towards the bottom of that rather unimpressive pile.

Usual tactics.Smear the messenger in an attempt to bury the message.

When the messenger appears to get a lot of it's information from a Thaksin related entity, isn't it leaving itself open to smearing?

You would be saying the same thing if an "independent" report came from a group with apparent links to the current government or the army.

I would above all look at the content and the integrity/intelligence with which externally received information had been processed and presented.I don't see how independent reports can be developed anyway without seeking background from all sides.My point earlier was simply that some rush in to smear without even bothering to assess the underlying information.We have seen that time and time again.

Of course if the "independent" agencies can be shown to have falsified evidence or distorted facts, always allowing for a reasonable degree of subjectivity, that is another matter and can be the subject of useful discussion.But for some the assessment of awkward facts does not compute, and the smears come in first.It's actually a kind of intellectual laziness.

"International Crisis Group", eh?

All you need to know about these guys here - http://207.5.19.33/2...news-13069.html

That's two groups in the last week with links to Thaksin that have released "independent" reports.

The other one is here.

and as for the PIC links to Thaksin? I'm still waiting for someone to show/prove direct links as opposed to the supposition of Bucholz.

It doesn't matter how many times you and others try to get this kind of "information" out on the web it doesn't make it a fact, but don't let me get in your way, just carry on posting. The more discerning of us will make up our own minds.

"prove direct links"... this isn't an Attorney-General prosecutorial legal case proving beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What we do have is this PIC group choses to utilizes most of its information from Voice TV and Voice TV is founded by the Thaksin Brat Pack.

If they wish to gain credibility, they can disassociate from such obvious linking to the Shinawatra Empire and remove any doubts regarding their independence.

Until such time, they are undoubtedly tainted by their choice to use as their source of information.

Simple.

Usual tactics.Smear the messenger in an attempt to bury the message.

I don't disagree.Thaksin was as embroiled in the army's stranglehold as any other politician.

Didn't notice the spin on that...yeah, poor guy. 'Embroiled in the stranglehold'. Not like he was 100% willing to go along with it as long as it suited his interests or anything like that...

I like this more:

The only objection Thaksin has to the army is that it is not under his control and working for his interests. Everything else is prattle. If he was able to return and seize state power you would hear no more about the nasty army. Once his plaything all would be sweetness and light.

Sorry I probably didn't express myself well enough.I wasn't trying to suggest Thaksin was a victim!

I like your amended version and I think it's accurate as well

The only objection Thaksin has to the army is that it is not under his control and working for his interests. Everything else is prattle. If he was able to return and seize state power you would hear no more about the nasty army. Once his plaything all would be sweetness and light.

I don't disagree.Thaksin was as embroiled in the army's stranglehold as any other politician.

However you are left with the problem of how to deal with the army, more particularly the top brass - embroiled in reactionary politics, contemptuous of and disobedient to civilian leadership wholesale human rights abuses in the South and elsewhere focusing on business and media interests corrupt, incompetent, over generalled, linked with the drugs and sex industries, a thorough disgrace to Thailand.

^ and ^^ = two very good and accurate posts.

In your slightly idiosyncratic and now well understood opinion.In the opinion of many others they appear slightly crazed.

I have had personal experience with Thaksin. He is a malevolent evil far and above any other figure in Thailand today. The problems with political instability are almost completely his doing. The rest of the concerns are hardly more than rabble rousing by a loathsome, heinous cretin who rivals Hitler in his depravity.

The consistent danger of the last 7 decades pale in comparison to the proven evil of that villainous, wicked barbarian now in exile. Your time would be better spent by opening your eyes and learning more about the lout you are trying to promote, rather than chastising those of us who are not morally bankrupt and actually care about the long term stability of this great country.

Interesting that you have had personal experience of this demon.Care to elaborate? My guess is that you may be fantasising.

The extreme language you use is actually reminiscent of Stalinist, fascist and Maoist style in describing their political enemies.Orwell would have had your number.Your comment that those who take a different view are morally bankrupt is particularly revealing.

Putting aside the slightly crazed invective, what you seem to be saying is that Thaksin has no social or political relevance.The trouble with this position is that not only is it demonstrably untrue but you may be wrong footed in the future because the Thai modus opperandi is to find areas of compromise.Personally I don't see this involving a return to power - he is too divisive for that.

As for the Jap. (with that '.' an abbreviation for Japanese) cameraman I said 'he put himself in harm's way' which doesn't give any indication whether or not he was brave, foolish, dedicated, or otherwise.

I know what I write, I know what I mean.

We know what you meant despite your obfuscation.

So what is your point? I have seen so many posts on here "discussing" the number of red shirts at a particular rally in a manner to suggest that numbers /support were dwindling. You gave some "reasons" - are they facts? What do you think the english text on some of the displays were going to say - "red shirt brains blown out because he/she was shot by one of his/her own side just to blame the government" and I mean this in jest just in case you think that I am in tune with the rest of you. As far as the gruesome displays go, a) do you want everybody to forget about it? b)How else do you explain the results of head and stomach shots, they fell badly? As for ignoring some aspects did I not say both sides of the conflict were killed.

What support??

You have the always same 3.000-5.000 communists+strong supporters of Thaksin and than the others which get paid and transportation organized, to make the quantity.

Always the same since how many years?

In a way reassuring to see the hardline and braindead PAD view still has some support, namely that the redshirt opposition consists of a few thousand commies and a ballast of paid peasants.

I suppose the Russian feudalists had fairly similar fatuous thoughts in 1917.