Thaksin files defamation complaint against two TV hosts

[jayboy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Yes its hardly worth debating with someone who equals gay sex with massive corruption.

 

Its also hard to debate with someone who skips all the questions. He would never have had the problems if he did not break the law..  and the laws he broke were not minor at all like Anwar. Next time your comparing him with Ghandi. 

 

 

The problem I'm afraid is that you don't seem to be able to grasp even simple arguments.The Anwar/Thaksin analogy had nothing to do with the respective alleged offences but demonstrated a case could be primarily political in nature even where 'guilt' can be presumed.I don't necessarily expected high levels of intelligence and analytical ability from you but if you wish to participate please pay full attention.

[wakeupplease]

Good luck on that TS you will need it, but maybe its time the world courts can do something as this has gone on far to long and for all the wrong reasons? I like the word sanctions?

 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, jayboy said:

The problem I'm afraid is that you don't seem to be able to grasp even simple arguments.The Anwar/Thaksin analogy had nothing to do with the respective alleged offences but demonstrated a case could be primarily political in nature even where 'guilt' can be presumed.I don't necessarily expected high levels of intelligence and analytical ability from you but if you wish to participate please pay full attention.

I think the problem is you fail to see that the crimes are real and without them the enemies would have no stick to hit him. You are not denying his guilt, so why let him go ?.

 

Just because others have gotten away with it does not mean he has to get away with it too. You fail to see this and call it political. I only call things political if things are a setup or if the crimes are really minor like in Anwar his case. Don't forget Thaksin is charged in a case where co defendants got up to 18 years.. I know your definition of minor is real wide but even you could not call that minor. 

 

Anyway I give up.. you fail to see that without his crimes he would not have any problems at all. 

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Since I have specifically discussed Thaksin's corruption, it's odd to be accused of denying it.The charges levied against Thaksin are relatively trivial: the serious ones have never been in play for reasons most understand.Thaksin has the moral values of the Sino Thai tycoon class, ie very little but it's absurd to suggest he is somehow unique.

I'm reluctant, for obvious reasons to use the 'L' word here but if this: "It's nothing to do with corruption of course as the intelligent opponents of Thaksin freely admit"is not a denial then how would term it? Slip of the finger?

Yes, the Sino-Thai tycoon class are hardly upstanding individuals but Thaksin was certainly unique in more than one way: stealing multi-billions openly (where other political crooks - eg Banharn, Chatchai, Chavalit) were in the multi-million category and using violence, legally by the police & army & illegally by the red shirt militias which the others didn't do.

He was, & still is, the worst by far so - as Robblok correctly says - it is definitely better to target the worst than none at all.

 

[jayboy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Anyway I give up.. you fail to see that without his crimes he would not have any problems at all. 

And in that sentence you show very clearly you have no idea at all of the nature of Thailand's political conflict.Thaksin's mobilisation of the Thai people at the polls presented a profound threat to the non elected elites.Crimes or no crimes they would try to destroy him.

[wakeupplease]

Its those words R&T again no I am bored I will have a day off the sun is shining so I will go practice my freedom of speech and avoid the propaganda by sitting in my garden you have a nice evening

Edited March 30, 2017 by wakeupplease

[robblok]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

And in that sentence you show very clearly you have no idea at all of the nature of Thailand's political conflict.Thaksin's mobilisation of the Thai people at the polls presented a profound threat to the non elected elites.Crimes or no crimes they would try to destroy him.

No you fail to see that his demise is of his own doing.. no crime no stick to hit him. They could try.. but it would not work. He would have had enough cloud to combat it all. But he was corrupt .. broke the law many times and they used it against him. 

 

You like to make it out like the poor guy was setup and its political.. it is NOT.. it would have been political if the crimes were minor or made up. He gave them a gun and loaded it for them. 

[jayboy]

4 minutes ago, khunken said:

I'm reluctant, for obvious reasons to use the 'L' word here but if this: "It's nothing to do with corruption of course as the intelligent opponents of Thaksin freely admit"is not a denial then how would term it? Slip of the finger?

Yes, the Sino-Thai tycoon class are hardly upstanding individuals but Thaksin was certainly unique in more than one way: stealing multi-billions openly (where other political crooks - eg Banharn, Chatchai, Chavalit) were in the multi-million category and using violence, legally by the police & army & illegally by the red shirt militias which the others didn't do.

He was, & still is, the worst by far so - as Robblok correctly says - it is definitely better to target the worst than none at all.

 

I really don't think he was the worst.Unlike the politicians you mention he had a huge legitimate business and I'm puzzled by your airy reference to stealing multi billions.His corruption lay much more in changing the rules of the game to suit his interests.I'm not getting into a discussion about violence - always tu quoque mindlessness when this subject is raised on this forum.

 

You also seem to be a bit dense tonight.The quote you refer to simply makes the point that it is not Thaksin's corruption which drives the effort to destroy him and his influence.

[jayboy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you fail to see that his demise is of his own doing.. no crime no stick to hit him. They could try.. but it would not work. He would have had enough cloud to combat it all. But he was corrupt .. broke the law many times and they used it against him. 

 

You like to make it out like the poor guy was setup and its political.. it is NOT.. it would have been political if the crimes were minor or made up. He gave them a gun and loaded it for them. 

You are incoherent now.I suggest you continue this dialogue if you wish at a level where you can function more comfortably.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, jayboy said:

You are incoherent now.I suggest you continue this dialogue if you wish at a level where you can function more comfortably.

Funny guy not being able to combat the points i state you you make it personal. 

 

nice Ad_hominem,

 

[khunken]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

I really don't think he was the worst.Unlike the politicians you mention he had a huge legitimate business and I'm puzzled by your airy reference to stealing multi billions.His corruption lay much more in changing the rules of the game to suit his interests.I'm not getting into a discussion about violence - always tu quoque mindlessness when this subject is raised on this forum.

 

You also seem to be a bit dense tonight.The quote you refer to simply makes the point that it is not Thaksin's corruption which drives the effort to destroy him and his influence.

I'm not too dense to see through your efforts to whitewash him. You seem prone to a Trumpish feature that is to deny or twist what you said into the opposite meaning.

 

No one could be so dim as to fail to include corruption with any other reasons to go after him. The Eximbank loan, originally B1b was bumped up to B2b by Thaksin for Myanmar's telecoms. We also know that the foreign shareholding in Telecom companies here was bumped up from 25% to 49% just before the sale of AIS to Singtel. The latter not long after it was reduced from 49% to 25% in an effort to prevent Telenor from buying TAC. If Thaksin didn't gain billions from these shenanigans then who did? His gardener?

[khunken]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Funny guy not being able to combat the points i state you you make it personal. 

 

nice Ad_hominem,

 

Robb this poster never fails to include personal attacks when someone trips his arguments up. I get them too but make sure to give some back.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

His problems mostly derive from the fact he encouraged the rural majority and paid attention to their concerns.He became the most successful politician in Thailand and upset deep vested interests.He was neither virtuous nor personally admirable.If you are too dense to understand the Anwar point, it's hardly worth my while elaborating.Most will understand very well.

No need to be so rude jayboy. 

[ajarngreg]

 

      Not long and it will be TVF.....

[jayboy]

I'm not too dense to see through your efforts to whitewash him. You seem prone to a Trumpish feature that is to deny or twist what you said into the opposite meaning.
 
No one could be so dim as to fail to include corruption with any other reasons to go after him. The Eximbank loan, originally B1b was bumped up to B2b by Thaksin for Myanmar's telecoms. We also know that the foreign shareholding in Telecom companies here was bumped up from 25% to 49% just before the sale of AIS to Singtel. The latter not long after it was reduced from 49% to 25% in an effort to prevent Telenor from buying TAC. If Thaksin didn't gain billions from these shenanigans then who did? His gardener?

You prove my point.His corruption lay in manipulating the rules of business not outright theft.You are simply wrong in suggesting corruption was a leading factor in the witch hunt against him though it was certainly the public excuse.None of this is really disputable or perhaps you feel people like Suthep are evangelicals in the fight against graft.

[khunken]

3 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

You prove my point.His corruption lay in manipulating the rules of business not outright theft.You are simply wrong in suggesting corruption was a leading factor in the witch hunt against him though it was certainly the public excuse.None of this is really disputable or perhaps you feel people like Suthep are evangelicals in the fight against graft.

The Singtel deal certainly did lie in manipulation but the Eximbank loan didn't require any manipulating of laws - just an order from he who must be obeyed - as did the KT loan. BTW I said corruption was A factor - twisting words in my post as well as your own - tut tut.

No your attempted Suthep deflection won't work either. Suthep was & is a crook, more in the Chalerm class than Thaksin's.

[A1Str8]

Thaksin is still struggling? Nobody cares about him.

[jayboy]

9 hours ago, khunken said:

The Singtel deal certainly did lie in manipulation but the Eximbank loan didn't require any manipulating of laws - just an order from he who must be obeyed - as did the KT loan. BTW I said corruption was A factor - twisting words in my post as well as your own - tut tut.

No your attempted Suthep deflection won't work either. Suthep was & is a crook, more in the Chalerm class than Thaksin's.

You miss the point - yet again.I have never said that Thaksin wasn't corrupt simply that his corruption was not the reason the unelected elite (deeply corrupt themselves) were determined to destroy him and his influence.Suthep - as you suggest just a feral thug - was small fry, but he had powerful backers (not least the present incumbent at Government House) with whom he co-ordinated action.But don't get your knickers in a twist about Suthep, not a diversion just an illustration of the rampant hypocrisy of the Thaksin haters.

 

The key point in all this is that there is an elite in Thailand which does not accept the Thai people have the right to choose their own government or have the ordinary people engaged in the political process.If democracy produces a government with elite approval, the views of the people are tolerated.If it does not then armed military thugs, a politicised court system and a grotesque parody of Thai values are invoked to crush democratic and progressive aspirations.The arguments about Thaksin are all very well but ultimately his significance is that of a catalyst.It's a cliche but in this case the genie really cannot be forced back into the bottle.

 

 

[robblok]

32 minutes ago, jayboy said:

You miss the point - yet again.I have never said that Thaksin wasn't corrupt simply that his corruption was not the reason the unelected elite (deeply corrupt themselves) were determined to destroy him and his influence.Suthep - as you suggest just a feral thug - was small fry, but he had powerful backers (not least the present incumbent at Government House) with whom he co-ordinated action.But don't get your knickers in a twist about Suthep, not a diversion just an illustration of the rampant hypocrisy of the Thaksin haters.

 

The key point in all this is that there is an elite in Thailand which does not accept the Thai people have the right to choose their own government or have the ordinary people engaged in the political process.If democracy produces a government with elite approval, the views of the people are tolerated.If it does not then armed military thugs, a politicised court system and a grotesque parody of Thai values are invoked to crush democratic and progressive aspirations.The arguments about Thaksin are all very well but ultimately his significance is that of a catalyst.It's a cliche but in this case the genie really cannot be forced back into the bottle.

 

 

You are the one constantly missing the point, there is no disputing that they go after Thaksin because they dislike to have him in power (his PTP did the same with going after their enemies in court). But the point is that Thaksin set himself wide open to be expelled because of the crimes he committed. IF he was clean there would not be a thing they could do and I would gladly join the Thaksin camp. But fact remains all he is accused of is not minor nor made up. He knew they would come after him, but he loaded the gun for them and gave it to them so they could shoot him.

 

Had he be clean we would not have this discussion and I would have been on your side. But he is a convicted criminal with many major cases still waiting for him, i know that hero worshiping can blind someone but you should really get over it. You should accept they have it in for him, but that without his many crimes they would not have a stick to hit him with. I know you like to call it all political, but you have admitted that he did the crimes so WHY should he go free. 

 

Again you and I both go through red light and I get stopped and you have better connections then me and are not fined while I am. Does that mean I have to go free too. I don't think so I broke the law and should be punished, you should too but that the system did not work in your case does not mean I should get off free. 

 

Be honest do and please answer this question, do you really want them to drop all cases against him and let him keep all the corruption money even though you know he is guilty ?

[jayboy]

22 minutes ago, robblok said:

You are the one constantly missing the point, there is no disputing that they go after Thaksin because they dislike to have him in power (his PTP did the same with going after their enemies in court). But the point is that Thaksin set himself wide open to be expelled because of the crimes he committed. IF he was clean there would not be a thing they could do and I would gladly join the Thaksin camp. But fact remains all he is accused of is not minor nor made up. He knew they would come after him, but he loaded the gun for them and gave it to them so they could shoot him.

 

Had he be clean we would not have this discussion and I would have been on your side. But he is a convicted criminal with many major cases still waiting for him, i know that hero worshiping can blind someone but you should really get over it. You should accept they have it in for him, but that without his many crimes they would not have a stick to hit him with. I know you like to call it all political, but you have admitted that he did the crimes so WHY should he go free. 

 

Again you and I both go through red light and I get stopped and you have better connections then me and are not fined while I am. Does that mean I have to go free too. I don't think so I broke the law and should be punished, you should too but that the system did not work in your case does not mean I should get off free. 

 

Be honest do and please answer this question, do you really want them to drop all cases against him and let him keep all the corruption money even though you know he is guilty ?

You still betray your complete lack of comprehension, rather like an ant crawling over a mosaic - conscious of what lies behind and a few inches ahead but blissfully ignorant of the bigger picture.Very simply then, you appear to be saying you would have been a supporter of Thaksin if he had been innocent of all crimes.I am arguing that even if he had been purity itself his enemies would have been determined to crush him and his influence.I think all the evidence supports me.The reason for this is that Thaksin completely undermined the traditional power structures under which Thailand was ruled by a small set of unelected elites.Corruption is the cover story but any knowledge of Thailand demonstrates the pursuers were as immersed in a corrupt system as the pursued.I am not minimizing the dangers of corruption simply pointing out it wasn't the reason Thaksin became the devil incarnate in the eyes of the elite and their camp followers, the myopic Sino Thai middle class.

 

As to your question, I couldn't care less whether the cases against Thaksin are pursued or not since I'm merely interested in pointing out the massive hypocrisy involved.As to the "corruption money" you might wish to bear in mind that Thaksin was an astute tycoon with huge legitimate businesses as opposed to the current ruling generals who have accumulated large fortunes on the basis of tiny salaries.But let that pass for the moment.I don't care whether Thaksin's confiscated wealth is returned or not, though people like you often forget/omit to mention a significant element was already returned under the Abhisit administration.You seem not to understand that THaksin and his convoluted fortunes are ultimately irrelevant and I certainly have no interest in promoting his claims.But unless you understand the wider context you reall are just like that ant crawling over the mosaic (see above).

 

P.S Actually if I was a Thai I would not have been a supporter of Thaksin.I dislike that brand of populism as I dislike referendums.I strongly believe in electoral democracy and detest military dictatorship.Nevertheless I expect elected representatives whether individually or through a party system to avoid pandering to popular prejudices.I prefer well educated/intelligent representatives to rabble rousers.I do not believe one man's opinion is as good as another's whether on this forum or the world at large.If Abhisit was a braver generous spirited soul, he is the type of leader I would support.

Edited March 31, 2017 by jayboy

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, jayboy said:

You still betray your complete lack of comprehension, rather like an ant crawling over a mosaic - conscious of what lies behind and a few inches ahead but blissfully ignorant of the bigger picture.Very simply then, you appear to be saying you would have been a supporter of Thaksin if he had been innocent of all crimes.I am arguing that even if he had been purity itself his enemies would have been determined to crush him and his influence.I think all the evidence supports me.The reason for this is that Thaksin completely undermined the traditional power structures under which Thailand was ruled by a small set of unelected elites.Corruption is the cover story but any knowledge of Thailand demonstrates the pursuers were as immersed in a corrupt system as the pursued.I am not minimizing the dangers of corruption simply pointing out it wasn't the reason Thaksin became the devil incarnate in the eyes of the elite and their camp followers, the myopic Sino Thai middle class.

 

As to your question, I couldn't care less whether the cases against Thaksin are pursued or not since I'm merely interested in pointing out the massive hypocrisy involved.As to the "corruption money" you might wish to bear in mind that Thaksin was an astute tycoon with huge legitimate businesses as opposed to the current ruling generals who have accumulated large fortunes on the basis of tiny salaries.But let that pass for the moment.I don't care whether Thaksin's confiscated wealth is returned or not, though people like you often forget/omit to mention a significant element was already returned under the Abhisit administration.You seem not to understand that THaksin and his convoluted fortunes are ultimately irrelevant and I certainly have no interest in promoting his claims.But unless you understand the wider context you reall are just like that ant crawling over the mosaic (see above).

No you have no understanding you lack comprehension and are blinded by hero worshiping, you can't railroad someone with Thaksins power if he was innocent. The claims are all valid the pursuit of these claims is to get rid of him (I don't deny that). But he is the one who broke the law and made it easy for them. That part is what you fail to recognize. Its funny that you think I don't understand that there are 2 sides who constantly try to have a go at each-other over the power. Both sides use the law and whatever they can to get in a better position. Thaksin was quite close but lost it. He is out played. 

 

I really hope this would change in the future (not that Thaksin is outplayed he is a crook) but the fact that neither side ever goes after their own and that corruption is only interesting when it is someone on the other side or out of grace. But until that time I prefer to have some of the crooks in jail and losing their ill gotten gains then none at all. 

 

Only truly clean politicians make a chance.. but there are few of those and the lure of money is strong. 

 

 

[jayboy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

No you have no understanding you lack comprehension and are blinded by hero worshiping, you can't railroad someone with Thaksins power if he was innocent. The claims are all valid the pursuit of these claims is to get rid of him (I don't deny that). But he is the one who broke the law and made it easy for them. That part is what you fail to recognize. Its funny that you think I don't understand that there are 2 sides who constantly try to have a go at each-other over the power. Both sides use the law and whatever they can to get in a better position. Thaksin was quite close but lost it. He is out played. 

 

I really hope this would change in the future (not that Thaksin is outplayed he is a crook) but the fact that neither side ever goes after their own and that corruption is only interesting when it is someone on the other side or out of grace. But until that time I prefer to have some of the crooks in jail and losing their ill gotten gains then none at all. 

 

Only truly clean politicians make a chance.. but there are few of those and the lure of money is strong. 

 

 

It's hard to conduct a conversation when you not only don't address points made but give every impression of not understanding them.How you consider me a hero worshiper is hard to understand given my expressed comments.Still you have given everybody a chuckle by your inane suggestion that Thaksin has "made it easy" for those involved in the witch hunt.I suspect the coup makers may have a different perspective.

 

Where I agree with you is that Thaksin was outplayed.I don't share the common view that he was a particularly skilfull politician, for example the umbrella amnesty fiasco.But when Thai children read their country's history a hundred years from now (assuming they are not full of lies and superstition as at present) Thaksin's significance will be recognized - not as a virtuous man but a key catalytic figure.

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, jayboy said:

It's hard to conduct a conversation when you not only don't address points made but give every impression of not understanding them.How you consider me a hero worshiper is hard to understand given my expressed comments.Still you have given everybody a chuckle by your inane suggestion that Thaksin has "made it easy" for those involved in the witch hunt.I suspect the coup makers may have a different perspective.

 

Where I agree with you is that Thaksin was outplayed.I don't share the common view that he was a particularly skilfull politician, for example the umbrella amnesty fiasco.But when Thai children read their country's history a hundred years from now (assuming they are not full of lies and superstition as at present) Thaksin's significance will be recognized - not as a virtuous man but a key catalytic figure.

I am just following your lead in not addressing points made.. like you i find it easier. Thanks for teaching me this. 

 

Easy is relative, they got him removed because of his criminal / corrupt activities. It would have been far harder had he be clean and really for the people. 

[jayboy]

I am just following your lead in not addressing points made.. like you i find it easier. Thanks for teaching me this. 
 
Easy is relative, they got him removed because of his criminal / corrupt activities. It would have been far harder had he be clean and really for the people. 

Sayonara baby, you're getting too flakey for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[smutcakes]

24 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am just following your lead in not addressing points made.. like you i find it easier. Thanks for teaching me this. 

 

Easy is relative, they got him removed because of his criminal / corrupt activities. It would have been far harder had he be clean and really for the people. 

Such is the system the people you support created, it is probably impossible for anyone to get to power without being corrupt. Seems corruption never bothered any of the powers that be prior to TS.

[overherebc]

On 25/03/2017 at 6:53 PM, Thaidream said:

Maybe we can get Trump to visit Thaksin in Dubai-  a one way ticket only. He can tell Thaksin how to make Thailand great again!!

So Great.

[robblok]

25 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Such is the system the people you support created, it is probably impossible for anyone to get to power without being corrupt. Seems corruption never bothered any of the powers that be prior to TS.

 

Ah now its the system that made Thaksin corrupt, any more sob stories ?

 

Corruption bothers me no matter what side its on, I just welcome any chance to get one of these HISO's in jail. You won't see me shed a tear about any of them. I guess its different for some but for me I don't care on what side they are I want them all caught. Unfortunately that does not happen so I am happy with those that do get caught even if there is an ulterior motive. 

 

Many seem to think that because some people don't get punished for it nobody should get punished for it.. that is a step too far for me but for many its not when it is one the group they support.

 

You would see me celebrate if they got Suthep or any of the generals or nephew. I have made it often quite clear I am against corruption also on the side I support (your words). My words would be side I dislike less instead of support. There are no good guys here (unfortunately), though i found Korn and Abisith come close to what politicians in Thailand should be.

 

I just don't agree with letting people off because others were let off.. where would it end. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by robblok

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

You would see me celebrate if they got Suthep or any of the generals or nephew.

At a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think is the chance of Suthep, generals or nephew be charged and convicted. 1 being the lowest possibility. 

[robblok]

At a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think is the chance of Suthep, generals or nephew be charged and convicted. 1 being the lowest possibility. 

Suthep 4 generals 3

Its not a high chance but i wish it was higher. That still does not mean others have to go free because of it.

[Jai Dee]

Some good discussion going on here guys... but it is beginning to get a bit personal.

 

Can we please leave phrases like turnip-head out of the discourse?

 

By all means put your arguments forward... but discuss the issues not each other.