29 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are they convicted criminals? No

Are there court cases going on against them? Not as far as I know.

 

If your "murder of unarmed civilians" refers to 2010 that is laughable. Look up the definition of murder and it is obvious it can't be murder. These people would not have died if they wouldn't have illegally occupied the city and if they would have left it after they were asked many times to go home. The busses were waiting for them. Murder? Pathetic!

Oh, I see. Your opinion of criminality depends on whether the courts secure a conviction. So unconvicted criminals are okay?

And what do you think is the international opinion of jurists of the impartiality of the Thai courts?

In many jurisdictions treason means a long spell in prison or even the firing squad.

As to Abhisit, an honorable man would have resigned after the murder by the army of unarmed civilians. I will ignore your ignorant and prejudiced remarks implying that the civilian demonstrators deserved all that came to them.

Frankly, Thaksin's offenses look pretty trivial in comparison.

3 hours ago, Donutz said:

Prayut, Thaksin,  Abhisit,  Suthep and many more all have blood on their hands. Responsible for atleast hundreds of deaths and there for all criminal on my opinion, though for that to become established there would be need for a court up to international standards in which all these men can explain themselves. 

 

The true pro democracy forces such as FFP will stay well clear from this scum. Though FFP would not be as to rule without others so the lesser evil Phue Thai is sort of an ally. If only PT could cut all ties with Thaksin... but why are we dragging mr. T into this time and time again? That's beating the junta drum which tries to put all anti-junta powers in the same bag. 

 

As for the democrats,  the news clearly shows internal struggles. The young democrats seem to be pro democracy but the dinosaur members seem too close to the army and in favour of a Phalang Pracharat coalition. That's hardly pro democracy. 

'The true pro democarcy forces such as FFP will stay well clear from this scum' according to 'Donutz'... Sigh... Everyone has the right to have an (hopefully own) opinion, but it makes me so tired to read such statements. 'Donutz', how can you, or anyone at this stage, pretend that FFP is 'true pro democracy, for Pete's sake, at best wishfull thinking it may be; and as 'staying well clear from this scum', considering you named Thaksin as part of it, facts have already contradicted you. For sure I won't waste my time writing to you again, but I feel sorry for you. 

Edited May 1, 20197 yr by bangrak

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Absolutely disgusting and I should say hypocritical that you never talk about the blatant junta corruption and that they have been dividing the country since 1932. How else can they remained dominant without creating division and killing off those who opposed them. 

In 1932 a small group, many civilians, and certainly not pro-army brought about an attempt to have a democratic monarchy.

By 1939 and the design of the Bangkok Democracy Monument this had been twisted and the monument was designed to thank the four branches of the Thai armed forces—army, navy, air force and police.  It was never clear who they had fought against to give democracy to a grateful nation.  Democracy had already been stolen.

12 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Oh, I see. Your opinion of criminality depends on whether the courts secure a conviction. So unconvicted criminals are okay?

And what do you think is the international opinion of jurists of the impartiality of the Thai courts?

In many jurisdictions treason means a long spell in prison or even the firing squad.

As to Abhisit, an honorable man would have resigned after the murder by the army of unarmed civilians. I will ignore your ignorant and prejudiced remarks implying that the civilian demonstrators deserved all that came to them.

Frankly, Thaksin's offenses look pretty trivial in comparison.

'jayboy': 'Oh, I see. Your opinion of criminality depends on whether the courts secure a conviction, So unconvicted criminals are okay?'. And what does that make, of all the 'opinions', you too, have been posting here to defend 'unconvicted criminals' among the redshirts (the outproceeded ones I mean, not the convicted criminals and terrorists still appealing their sentence in front of the Supreme Court...)? Could some of them have been guilty too, though not having been convicted...? 

33 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Oh, I see. Your opinion of criminality depends on whether the courts secure a conviction. So unconvicted criminals are okay?

And what do you think is the international opinion of jurists of the impartiality of the Thai courts?

In many jurisdictions treason means a long spell in prison or even the firing squad.

As to Abhisit, an honorable man would have resigned after the murder by the army of unarmed civilians. I will ignore your ignorant and prejudiced remarks implying that the civilian demonstrators deserved all that came to them.

Frankly, Thaksin's offenses look pretty trivial in comparison.

'Frankly, Thaksin's offenses look pretty trivial in comparison', is it 'jayboy'? 'pretty trivial' the thousands of innocents murdered in his(!) (so-called) 'war against drugs', perpetrated by death squadrons many members of 'seem to have been' officers of his(!) police? The hundred of muslim children, women, and other innocents, he cautioned the murder of by the military (then led by befriended generals)? This is not simply about bias, your bias 'jayboy', it is about choosing to ignore, to negate mass-murders. And that is not trivial, It is despicable, and should be considered a crime in itself! What a person are you!? 

37 minutes ago, greeneking said:

In 1932 a small group, many civilians, and certainly not pro-army brought about an attempt to have a democratic monarchy.

By 1939 and the design of the Bangkok Democracy Monument this had been twisted and the monument was designed to thank the four branches of the Thai armed forces—army, navy, air force and police.  It was never clear who they had fought against to give democracy to a grateful nation.  Democracy had already been stolen.

'greeneking', allow me to add some nuance, IMO (a very personal bit here): 'democracy' can only have 'already been stolen' there and then when you would consider H.M. King Rama 7 was in fact aspiring for democracy for his people, he had very advanced social(ist?) ideas for, which didn't at all please the profiteering old elite (many of living abroad in wealth) and the fascistoïd military (Phibun was already standing behind the door), young(er) 'hot-heads' in were found to make a putsh, forcing H.M. the KIng to abdicate, what was later wrongly called 'the Thai revolution', and also, became an, undeserved, monument...

Edited May 1, 20197 yr by bangrak

'Frankly, Thaksin's offenses look pretty trivial in comparison', is it 'jayboy'? 'pretty trivial' the thousands of innocents murdered in his(!) (so-called) 'war against drugs', perpetrated by death squadrons many members of 'seem to have been' officers of his(!) police? The hundred of muslim children, women, and other innocents, he cautioned the murder of by the military (then led by befriended generals)? This is not simply about bias, your bias 'jayboy', it is about choosing to ignore, to negate mass-murders. And that is not trivial, It is despicable, and should be considered a crime in itself! What a person are you!? 

Why are you talking about offenses where there have been no convictions? Is it because those offenses were endorsed and supported by the “good people”?

And why do you think there have been no convictions?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

 

Why are you talking about offenses where there have been no convictions? Is it because those offenses were endorsed and supported by the “good people”?

And why do you think there have been no convictions?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

YOU were the one who had been writing about 'offenses' first, 'jayboy'! Does this reaction of you then mean that, for you, 'unconvicted criminals are okay'...? 

17 minutes ago, bangrak said:

YOU were the one who had been writing about 'offenses' first, 'jayboy'! Does this reaction of you then mean that, for you, 'unconvicted criminals are okay'...? 

No, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

2 hours ago, bangrak said:

'The true pro democarcy forces such as FFP will stay well clear from this scum' according to 'Donutz'... Sigh... Everyone has the right to have an (hopefully own) opinion, but it makes me so tired to read such statements. 'Donutz', how can you, or anyone at this stage, pretend that FFP is 'true pro democracy, for Pete's sake, at best wishfull thinking it may be; and as 'staying well clear from this scum', considering you named Thaksin as part of it, facts have already contradicted you. For sure I won't waste my time writing to you again, but I feel sorry for you. 

As you wish, but to me it looks like you are avoiding a debate, having brought up no arguments on how FFP isn't actually aiming for a democratic Thailand. The FFP website seems quite clear, and I have seen zero credible media to contradict that (Bangkok Post,  Nation, Thai PBS, Khaosod, Prachatai, ...). 

Pretty Boy is nothing but a Taksin clone and will be quickly put in his place. The Thai people who thought he was a good new face on the scene were quickly brought to their senses when this tos..ser threw his lot in with the Thaksin backed Pheu Thai party. He's going down soon.

Sent from my CMR-AL19 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Inflammatory post reported and removed along with reply.

 

9 hours ago, jayboy said:

Oh, I see. Your opinion of criminality depends on whether the courts secure a conviction. So unconvicted criminals are okay?

That's the whole point. If there is enough evidence they normally get convicted.

And if there is no evidence then not.

And then there are of course the cases with lots of evidence where the accused run away from the law and the cases could legally not proceed. Good that that is fixed now.

 

Just look at the media coverage of all Thaksin did in the last decades. There is more than enough information for everybody to see that he is a criminal. But obviously people who close their eyes don't see it. And then there are the people who think it's ok to have a criminal leader as long as he does also some good things like giving a couple of crumbs to the poor.

33 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That's the whole point. If there is enough evidence they normally get convicted.

And if there is no evidence then not.

And then there are of course the cases with lots of evidence where the accused run away from the law and the cases could legally not proceed. Good that that is fixed now.

 

Just look at the media coverage of all Thaksin did in the last decades. There is more than enough information for everybody to see that he is a criminal. But obviously people who close their eyes don't see it. And then there are the people who think it's ok to have a criminal leader as long as he does also some good things like giving a couple of crumbs to the poor.

You overlook the little matter of the partiality of the Thai courts and how they are "directed" when required. Don't even begin to suggest there's evenhandedness of justice in Thailand because that's not even up for discussion.

 

As to Thaksin, I don't disagree that along with many other Sino Thai tycoons he is corrupt. His line was to change the rules to serve his own business interests. I don't see how he was more "criminal" than several other leaders and in THailand as I jave explained the distinction between criminals who are convicted and not convicted is a little meaningless.

 

'GIving a couple of crumbs to the poor" in your phrase is an odd and frankly absurd way to describe someone who changed the face of Thai politics by focusing on the Thai majority as opposed to the corrupt old elites and their myopic urban middle-class followers. His policies were game-changing and were copied wholesale by the Democrats and the Junta.

 

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Anybody who is pro Thaksin is pro crime and pro corruption. And you call that democracy? That would be laughable if it wouldn't be so sad.

Who divided the Thai people more, Thaksin or the military? Imagine Thaksin would have gone to jail for his so called honest mistakes 20 years ago. And imagine a honest leader would have been elected who cares about all Thais and Thailand. Democracy, freedom, no coups, it could have been wonderful. But stupid people vote for the criminal again and again because he did also something good for them. Disgusting!

You are trying to combine crime and politics.  Elections are all about the will of the

people.   Very few jurisdictions outside of Thailand will recognize Thai rulings in the case of Thaksin.  That is why he is still free.  The junta has no more credibility than he has.  Your disgust is noted, but many Thais voted PTP and FFP.  That is what elections are about. 

Edited May 2, 20197 yr by yellowboat

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are they convicted criminals? No

Are there court cases going on against them? Not as far as I know.

The SC has decided that only the NACC could investigate them and the NACC stated they found no ground for starting an investigation.

 

Now please, explain us that the NACC is neutral and not biased in favour of the yellow/green side. 

This thread has taken off to a different trajectory because of one man obsession with Thaksin and refusal to come to term with current political reality. The danger that this individual refused to acknowledge is that the establishment and the military are changing all the rules and eradicating oppositions like Thanathorn to continue their authoritarian rule and corruption and disregarding the separation of power and independence of agencies. Fortunately we now have a push back by a coalition of political parties and activists who are pro democracy and voters have made their voices heard with resounding popular votes for the pro democracy coalition. As for the thread, Khun Taptim is in his usual divisive style and trying to cause friction when they are none. Thanathorn knows all the dangers of being in politics and have spoke out against the coup and the military and even the constitution. He is putting himself in the front-line of attacks and persecutions and there is no question that he is the real deal. To even suggest that he is a political opportunist is inscrutable. 

 

  

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

You are trying to combine crime and politics.  Elections are all about the will of the

people.   Very few jurisdictions outside of Thailand will recognize Thai rulings in the case of Thaksin.  That is why he is still free.  The junta has no more credibility than he has.  Your disgust is noted, but many Thais voted PTP and FFP.  That is what elections are about. 

Agreed

 

Here's a good summary back in  2013 from the Thai scholar Kevin Hewison giving background to the politicization of the Thai Courts.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/12/09/thailands-conservative-courts-political-allies-of-royal-interests/