Thaksin Sues Pitak Siam Leader Boonlert, M P For Defamation

[rixalex]

Quite clearly I am trolling speculative replies to my own initial post! Shred of reasoning? No it seems not. To reply directly to someone without actually directing your comments to the actual content of their post, indeed only at a speculative viewpoint you have created out of thin air is, IMHO, nonsense.

If I ventured my opinion on world peace and you wrote in response I enjoy bungee jumping and eating croissants, it would be similarly irrelevant to the actual topic.

What on earth are you going on about? A person named ferangled - that's you isn't it? - wrote the comments below. I responded to those comments.

I didn't even touch on the fact that most of the international community seem to welcome the man and as a fugitive he seems to be enjoying relatively free international travel with no threat of extradition. There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?

Perhaps in future you should add some footnote to certain comments that you make, like the ones above, that you deem responding to as forbidden...

Edited December 14, 2012 by rixalex

[Tatsujin]

@rixalex - just ignore him, he loves to argue and pick fights here under the guise of reasoned discussion. You'll see the same thing on all the threads he posts in.

[Ferangled]

@rixalex - just ignore him, he loves to argue and pick fights here under the guise of reasoned discussion. You'll see the same thing on all the threads he posts in.

I guess this was your own contribution to a reasonable discussion eh Tatsujin?!

Methinks perhaps that ferangled is actually Mr T himself . . . the inability to let go of things, an incessant need to always be right, quick to criticise others faults when their own are blatantly obvious . . . the list goes on

This is in response to me voicing an opinion that was neither supportive of Thakisn nor critical of anyone. Just pointing out that anyone, irrespective of their legal status should be permitted to defend themselves.

Reasonable? What suggesting that another poster is actually Thaksin? Right-o.

Reasonable? To cite faults in another without basis or example, based purely on the fact that they have voiced an opinion you don't agree with?!

Please don't make any pretence that you guys are even trying to have a discussion. Your comments make truly pathetic reading.

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

[rixalex]

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

[Ferangled]

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

You took that from my first post? Wow, I thought that was made in response to your irrational reply and was posed as a question to which you responded with yet another rant about Thaksin and applied a bunch of speculative assertions about what I want and believe based purely on your own imagination.

[Tatsujin]

@ferangled - I'm not having a discussion, I'm just having fun

Edit: once it gets past page 1 on a thread it's all already been said and just becomes an argument

Edited December 14, 2012 by Tatsujin

[Ferangled]

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

[rixalex]

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

You took that from my first post? Wow, I thought that was made in response to your irrational reply and was posed as a question to which you responded with yet another rant about Thaksin and applied a bunch of speculative assertions about what I want and believe based purely on your own imagination.

What difference does it make whether the comment was made in your first post or your last? You made it: "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial", i responded. I didn't rant. I didn't accuse you of anything, of being irrational, of inventing anything.

So because it wasn't made in your first post, it is off bounds to be responded to? Please help me. I am trying to understand and follow your peculiar rules of debate, but you'll have to explain them first.

[rixalex]

How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

It's irrelevant to your post and the subject at hand, and yet you were the one who first posted about it!

So you can mention it, but the moment someone else does, in response to you bringing it up, you gloss over it and dismiss it as irrelevant?! Deary me...

[Ferangled]

Rixalex again, respond to my actual posts not some hidden meaning that you have invented from them...

Can you please explain what hidden meaning i invented from "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial". I took that to mean you were suggesting he have his sentence suspended and come back for a retrial. Obviously not. Excuse my stupidity and humour me with an explanation of what you did mean.

You took that from my first post? Wow, I thought that was made in response to your irrational reply and was posed as a question to which you responded with yet another rant about Thaksin and applied a bunch of speculative assertions about what I want and believe based purely on your own imagination.

What difference does it make whether the comment was made in your first post or your last? You made it: "why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair retrial", i responded. I didn't rant. I didn't accuse you of anything, of being irrational, of inventing anything.

So because it wasn't made in your first post, it is off bounds to be responded to? Please help me. I am trying to understand and follow your peculiar rules of debate, but you'll have to explain them first.

It's quite simple really. I say something then you respond to what I actually said. Go back and read my first post, then read your response.

Actually what I said (in a subsequent post made after your first irrelevant reply) was "There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?"

You then carefully snipped this into a statement and used it as an excuse to launch on another speculative and totally irrelevant rant. The rules are quite simple really; if you want to engage me in discussion, discuss the points I have made don't twist them or imply they actually mean what they do not. Will you be offering your services to Pitak Siam? Your tactics certainly seem to match those that they are allegedly employing...

[rixalex]

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

[rixalex]

It's quite simple really. I say something then you respond to what I actually said. Go back and read my first post, then read your response.

Actually what I said (in a subsequent post made after your first irrelevant reply) was "There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?"

You then carefully snipped this into a statement and used it as an excuse to launch on another speculative and totally irrelevant rant. The rules are quite simple really; if you want to engage me in discussion, discuss the points I have made don't twist them or imply they actually mean what they do not. Will you be offering your services to Pitak Siam? Your tactics certainly seem to match those that they are allegedly employing...

I was discussing a point you made. I didn't twist anything.

[Ferangled]

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

[Ferangled]

It's quite simple really. I say something then you respond to what I actually said. Go back and read my first post, then read your response.

Actually what I said (in a subsequent post made after your first irrelevant reply) was "There is certainly a political nature to his convictions although similarly it seems certain the man must be guilty of something and if the charges really hold any water why not suspend his sentence and welcome him back for a fair re-trial in an openly scrutinised fashion so that no one can cry foul if the convictions are upheld?"

You then carefully snipped this into a statement and used it as an excuse to launch on another speculative and totally irrelevant rant. The rules are quite simple really; if you want to engage me in discussion, discuss the points I have made don't twist them or imply they actually mean what they do not. Will you be offering your services to Pitak Siam? Your tactics certainly seem to match those that they are allegedly employing...

I was discussing a point you made. I didn't twist anything.

A question not a statement... there was a clue... ?

[Ferangled]

How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

It's irrelevant to your post and the subject at hand, and yet you were the one who first posted about it!

So you can mention it, but the moment someone else does, in response to you bringing it up, you gloss over it and dismiss it as irrelevant?! Deary me...

Yes it was totally irrelevant to the point of my post and totally irrelevant to the subject but you managed to focus on that one piece of irrelevance and respond with a absolute rant, all the while missing the actual points raised entirely. Well done.

[rixalex]

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

I am not for one moment advocating that Thaksin be denied the right to defend himself. I am advocating that the process of lodging a complaint against someone else, should require that person to present themselves to authorities with their grievance, unless there are mitigating circumstances like being bed ridden with illness.

In my view, running from a conviction is not a mitigating circumstance. He should be compelled to present himself. If he doesn't want to, don't twist that into him having his rights denied... it isn't.. it is him being a two faced hypocritical coward.

[rixalex]

How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

It's irrelevant to your post and the subject at hand, and yet you were the one who first posted about it!

So you can mention it, but the moment someone else does, in response to you bringing it up, you gloss over it and dismiss it as irrelevant?! Deary me...

Yes it was totally irrelevant to the point of my post and totally irrelevant to the subject but you managed to focus on that one piece of irrelevance and respond with a absolute rant, all the while missing the actual points raised entirely. Well done.

My advice then is to stop posting total irrelevance if you are only going to get the hump when your self proclaimed total irrelevance is responded to.

[Ferangled]

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

I am not for one moment advocating that Thaksin be denied the right to defend himself. I am advocating that the process of lodging a complaint against someone else, should require that person to present themselves to authorities with their grievance, unless there are mitigating circumstances like being bed ridden with illness.

In my view, running from a conviction is not a mitigating circumstance. He should be compelled to present himself. If he doesn't want to, don't twist that into him having his rights denied... it isn't.. it is him being a two faced hypocritical coward.

Again don't let reality prevent you from adding your own imaginative embellishment of the facts...

He isn't compelled to present himself, neither is he having his rights denied nor is he complaining about it. I haven't either, you it seems are... your point is what exactly? That you don't think he should be able to defend himself as a fugitive or simply because he's Thaksin, the bogeyman?

[rixalex]

Again don't let reality prevent you from adding your own imaginative embellishment of the facts...

He isn't compelled to present himself, neither is he having his rights denied nor is he complaining about it. I haven't either, you it seems are... your point is what exactly? That you don't think he should be able to defend himself as a fugitive or simply because he's Thaksin, the bogeyman?

My point is that on the run criminals should not be allowed to "post in" their legal grievances. If they want to complain, they should be required to present themselves to the police. It doesn't seem to be asking much, does it? Nobody's rights are being denied. That is my opinion of how the law should work. If it doesn't work this way, then well that's great news for on the run criminals.

Edited December 14, 2012 by rixalex

[Ferangled]

Again don't let reality prevent you from adding your own imaginative embellishment of the facts...

He isn't compelled to present himself, neither is he having his rights denied nor is he complaining about it. I haven't either, you it seems are... your point is what exactly? That you don't think he should be able to defend himself as a fugitive or simply because he's Thaksin, the bogeyman?

My point is that on the run criminals should not be allowed to "post in" their legal grievances. If they want to complain, they should be required to present themselves to the police. It doesn't seem to be asking much, does it? Nobody's rights are being denied. That is my opinion of how the law should work. If it doesn't work this way, then well that's great news for on the run criminals.

Yeah, well that's just like your opinion man... seriously couldn't you have just stated that to start with rather than latching onto my posts and applying your Thaksin raged rants to them?!

Mine, as I tried to state originally, is that anyone should be able to take legal recourse to defend themselves against criminal acts. No matter if they're a convicted criminal, a nut job or whether they or someone else perceives them to be a fugitive from justice, a fugitive from political persecution, racial oppression, whatever.

Point being that in writing laws that try to protect the rights of everyone you can't tailor them to act how you'd like them to for one specific individual. The crimes and actions of one man shouldn't be used as a reason to ignore the crimes of others.

[maidu]

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

Ferangled, I'm going to enter this discussion. What is it you're trying to say? State it clearly.

Do you know the timeline and story-line of the Thaksin saga, from before he was ousted until present day? If you do, then you've probably got one of two opinions about the man. You can either see him as politically persecuted, or you can see him as a disruptive scoundrel. There are many more descriptive adjectives which could be applied to his conduct. Yet, that's basically why he's such a divisive force for Thais. Add to that, he's mega-selfish, worships money and power, and always wants to be on the front pages of Thai newspapers. If he wasn't super rich, he wouldn't be any more important than the guy who runs the fishing pond at the end of the dirt lane. The sooner he fades away, the sooner Thailand can dust itself off and get on the path to putting its affairs together.

As for divisiveness. Actually, Thai people of all stripes get along quite well with each other (with some exception with Muslims in the far south). It's the politicians, particularly Thaksin-controlled PT members, who keep causing rifts. It's to their advantage to polarize the populace, that's why they're witch hunting against Abhisit and Boonlert, and others in the opposition.

Edited December 14, 2012 by maidu

[connda]

Thaksin sues Boonlert, MP for defamation

Wouldn't that mean that Khun Thaksin would have to come back to LOS to testify?

OK. Sounds good to me.

[Mosha]

K. Thaksin styles himself as in 'self-exile' and 'not being able to go back home'. That doesn't sound like he accepts to be a 'fugitive'. From a July, 2012 interview:

""I can go everywhere in the world, except my homeland. Why? I should be able to go to my homeland, my motherland. But now every country welcomes me, except my motherland," he said."

http://www.channelne...1214265/1/.html

Welcomes might be stretching it a bit

[Skywalker69]

Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

Recourse to defend yourself should be granted the moment you step within the law, the moment you start following the law yourself. All the time you are acting outside it, which Thaksin does every single day by remaining on the run, he has no right to send other people to the police to submit complaints on his behalf. If he wants to complain about something, nothing is stopping him from coming to Thailand and walking in to the police station with his grievance. He chooses not to. Fine, but then he has to accept he loses certain rights. Nobody is stopping him from having those rights back again. Wouldn't take more than a few hours to get on a plane and come back, and then, hey presto, he can sue everyone he wishes to. What is so difficult about that?

That my friend is your opinion, try venturing it as such. It is certainly not a legal or IMHO moral fact.

In my own opinion guilt (or indeed conviction) of one crime should not and thankfully does not preclude any individual from using the very same legal constraints that tried and sentenced them against those that seek to commit crimes against them, regardless of whether or not they accept the sentence passed on them or the motivation behind it or what country they currently reside in.

Of course your stand on this legal and moral debate is not in anyway clouded by the individual this actual thread is about, at least that's abundantly clear from your posts! No bias here whatsoever... if you have been found guilty of any crime or are a fugitive for any reason you should legally and morally be open to any and all criminal attack with absolutely no recourse to defend yourself... does that sum up your position or do you feel the laws should be doctored specifically with Thaksin in mind?

I am not for one moment advocating that Thaksin be denied the right to defend himself. I am advocating that the process of lodging a complaint against someone else, should require that person to present themselves to authorities with their grievance, unless there are mitigating circumstances like being bed ridden with illness.

In my view, running from a conviction is not a mitigating circumstance. He should be compelled to present himself. If he doesn't want to, don't twist that into him having his rights denied... it isn't.. it is him being a two faced hypocritical coward.

Thaksin said he has done nothing wrong, so he thinks he has nothing to defend.

[maidu]

Thaksin sues Boonlert, MP for defamation

Wouldn't that mean that Khun Thaksin would have to come back to LOS to testify?

OK. Sounds good to me.

He's a coward with a capital C. He won't return to testify. He's only slapping that defamation suit in order to keep himself on the front pages of newspapers. And it's in direct contradiction to advice H.M. gave to him a few years ago, during a thinly diguised speech in which he mentioned his disdain for defamation suits by Thaksin. He didn't mention Thaksin by name, but there was no mistaking who that speech was aimed at. At the time, Thaksin was firing defamation suits right and left, at anyone with the temerity to question his absolute control, and how he's always right about everything he does. He has never admitted making a mistake about anything, ever. There is probably a psychiatric term for that, but I'll let someone else describe that condition.

[Skywalker69]

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

Ferangled, I'm going to enter this discussion. What is it you're trying to say? State it clearly.

Do you know the timeline and story-line of the Thaksin saga, from before he was ousted until present day? If you do, then you've probably got one of two opinions about the man. You can either see him as politically persecuted, or you can see him as a disruptive scoundrel. There are many more descriptive adjectives which could be applied to his conduct. Yet, that's basically why he's such a divisive force for Thais. Add to that, he's mega-selfish, worships money and power, and always wants to be on the front pages of Thai newspapers. If he wasn't super rich, he wouldn't be any more important than the guy who runs the fishing pond at the end of the dirt lane. The sooner he fades away, the sooner Thailand can dust itself off and get on the path to putting its affairs together.

As for divisiveness. Actually, Thai people of all stripes get along quite well with each other (with some exception with Muslims in the far south). It's the politicians, particularly Thaksin-controlled PT members, who keep causing rifts. It's to their advantage to polarize the populace, that's why they're witch hunting against Abhisit and Boonlert, and others in the opposition.

I have run out of "like this" Good points. Thanks Edited December 14, 2012 by Skywalker69

[siampolee]

He has never admitted making a mistake about anything, ever. There is probably a psychiatric term for that, but I'll let someone else describe that condition.

Seems as if the condition is known as , ''Richardheaditis.''

[Skywalker69]

At least that is what you seem to imply.

I must admit to glossing over your post as a bunch of speculative nonsense written with a very one sided agenda and, yet again, totally irrelevant to my actual post. Replying to something you have assumed is there but in actual fact is not is a sure sign of a zealot.

Please feel free to bring out your soap box but please don't rant off about Thaksin when he is, as my very first post quite clearly stated in English, IRRELEVANT to my actual comment! Whether or not a fugitive or convict should be free to defend themselves legally against criminal acts is debatable. I have made my position quite clear that I believe all should have the recourse of defending themselves.

written with a very one sided agenda.

How abouy your agenda is it two-sided?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Skywalker69

[Ferangled]

I think about time we clear up this obvious confusion over what the term fugitive actually implies...

A fugitive (or runaway) is a person who is fleeing from custody, whether it be from private slavery, a government arrest, government or non-government questioning, vigilante violence, or outraged private individuals. A fugitive from justice, also known as a wanted person can either be a person convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive

Thaksin is by his own admission a fugitive. No one has suggested on this thread that he isn't. Does the term imply any actual guilt moral or legal? No, actually it doesn't. It merely implies that you are on the run.

Clearly Thaksin believes he is a fugitive from political persecution and clearly others believe he is a fugitive from justice, a convicted felon on the run. Either bloody way it's perfectly clear to all and sundry that the man is a fugitive!!! How and why he is treated by other countries, or indeed how you perceive this is totally irrelevant both to my post and the subject at hand.

Is that plain enough English for you?! Do I have to spell it out in any other languages? Parles vous Francais? Espanol? Double Dutch perhaps?!

Ferangled, I'm going to enter this discussion. What is it you're trying to say? State it clearly.

Do you know the timeline and story-line of the Thaksin saga, from before he was ousted until present day? If you do, then you've probably got one of two opinions about the man. You can either see him as politically persecuted, or you can see him as a disruptive scoundrel. There are many more descriptive adjectives which could be applied to his conduct. Yet, that's basically why he's such a divisive force for Thais. Add to that, he's mega-selfish, worships money and power, and always wants to be on the front pages of Thai newspapers. If he wasn't super rich, he wouldn't be any more important than the guy who runs the fishing pond at the end of the dirt lane. The sooner he fades away, the sooner Thailand can dust itself off and get on the path to putting its affairs together.

As for divisiveness. Actually, Thai people of all stripes get along quite well with each other (with some exception with Muslims in the far south). It's the politicians, particularly Thaksin-controlled PT members, who keep causing rifts. It's to their advantage to polarize the populace, that's why they're witch hunting against Abhisit and Boonlert, and others in the opposition.

Please tell me that's sarcasm. Perhaps because I wasn't focused on taking sides or venting about Thaksin my point slipped past your radar...

My thanks for your personal views on Thaksin, you may have noticed that I wasn't venturing any and hadn't asked for the opinions of others. Only allowed one of two opinions on the man? I'm afraid it's that very thinking that has brought this rift, not any one man. Actually I'd have to say there's some weight to both perspectives you offer, I'd venture Thaksin has been both politically persecuted and a disruptive scoundrel but again, irrelevant to the point I was making which focused not on the man himself but the actual topic.

If your still struggling to grasp what I was saying before my post was hijacked by the Shina-wafflers, try reading post 80, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Thaddeus]

My thanks for your personal views on Thaksin, you may have noticed that I wasn't venturing any and hadn't asked for the opinions of others.

What happens is this.... you get a little deflated balloon, and it has a little word on it beginning with T .... then you get a load of accolites to blow into this balloon as hard as possible, and then the hangers-on appear and the bigger the word beginning with T gets, yet more hangers-on appear ...... when it looks like the balloon may be deflating however, the blowhards start to suck.