Thaksin files defamation complaint against two TV hosts

[billd766]

56 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

We had been discussing the ruling elite's campaign against Thaksin.A forum member was unable to understand how someone guilty of a crime could be a victim of a political vendetta.Since Thaksin is an emotional issue for some I gave the further example of Anwar as an aid to his comprehension.Thus the comparison was directly on topic.Please pay closer attention and if you remain unsatisfied you can refer to the mods.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

I gave you a better aid than Anwar and Malaysia about political corruption but you don't seem to pay any attention to that and that topic is a direct comparison and far more on topic than your attempt at diversion. If you don't like it why don't you stay on topic?

[robblok]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

I gave you a better aid than Anwar and Malaysia about political corruption but you don't seem to pay any attention to that and that topic is a direct comparison and far more on topic than your attempt at diversion. If you don't like it why don't you stay on topic?

That is the jayboy I have come to known.. ignoring other posters their points and getting upset when someone does the same to him.

 

I think your comparison is far closer to the truth, Anwar, is in trouble for a minor thing (alleged gay sex) not a crime in the eyes of normal people. While the case you brought up is far closer to that of Thaksin that the law was really broken and money was gained in a criminal way.

[jayboy]

17 hours ago, robblok said:

That is the jayboy I have come to known.. ignoring other posters their points and getting upset when someone does the same to him.

 

I think your comparison is far closer to the truth, Anwar, is in trouble for a minor thing (alleged gay sex) not a crime in the eyes of normal people. While the case you brought up is far closer to that of Thaksin that the law was really broken and money was gained in a criminal way.

I had not intended to rejoin this discussion since , in the politest possible way I can put it, the various contributions had become mismatched in quality and comprehension.

 

Still one point must be corrected namely that the travails of the South Korean president can be likened in all respects to those of Thaksin.I recognize there is a common element of corruption: however I was make a different point.In other words the comparison fails to incorporate a key aspect namely the determination of the establishment to destroy a popular politician.This was the case with both Anwar and Thaksin but not Park Geun - hye, the latter being a straightforward corruption case.Thus Anwar is a much better comparison with Thaksin since both were hounded by an establishment fearful and resentful of their popular appeal.It shouldn't really be necessary (see comments above on limited comprehension) but it seems I must point out again I am not repeat not suggesting Thaksin's and Anwar's offences were remotely comparable.Thaksin was a corrupt politician and most reasonable people outside Malaysia would query whether Anwar committed an offence at all.In summary however the cases of Anwar and Thaksin demonstrate a political vendetta whereas there was no such campaign in the case of the South Korean President.

[robblok]

20 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I had not intended to rejoin this discussion since , in the politest possible way I can put it, the various contributions had become mismatched in quality and comprehension.

 

Still one point must be corrected namely that the travails of the South Korean president can be likened in all respects to those of Thaksin.I recognize there is a common element of corruption: however I was make a different point.In other words the comparison fails to incorporate a key aspect namely the determination of the establishment to destroy a popular politician.This was the case with both Anwar and Thaksin but not Park Geun - hye, the latter being a straightforward corruption case.Thus Anwar is a much better comparison with Thaksin since both were hounded by an establishment fearful and resentful of their popular appeal.It shouldn't really be necessary (see comments above on limited comprehension) but it seems I must point out again I am not repeat not suggesting Thaksin's and Anwar's offences were remotely comparable.Thaksin was a corrupt politician and most reasonable people outside Malaysia would query whether Anwar committed an offence at all.In summary however the cases of Anwar and Thaksin demonstrate a political vendetta whereas there was no such campaign in the case of the South Korean President.

I agree its mismatched, your making a fool of yourself. You keep hammering on political and vendetta, while that is true at the same time your accepting that his many crimes are real. In Anwar his case his crime might not even be committed and even if it was is in the eyes of most not really a crime. Thaksins crimes are not minor he is accused in a case where his co criminals got up to 18 years. Her stole huge amounts of cash (by corruption) change the law to suit him and put others at a disadvantage. So by all accounts something that would be seen by most if not all as big crimes and prosecuting him is going according to the law. 

 

Its political when an innocent man is convicted of a crime that is either minor or that he has not committed, this is not the case with Thaksin his crimes are major and there is little doubt that he is guilty. None of the charges are made up. (Samak is a good example of Thai politics where it was political.. a cooking show minor nothing)

 

Thanksins situation could be described as a lucky break for his opponents, that they could dispose of him because of his crimes. Because if they had to make up charges it would indeed be political as you said. Now he just shot himself in his foot by by breaking the law and gave his opponents the chance to get rid of him in a legal way without making things up or being accused of it being political.

 

I hope you now gasp the finer points of when something is political and when not. This was just a lucky break for his opponents and without it they might have had to resort to trickery making it political.

 

 

[jayboy]

33 minutes ago, robblok said:

I agree its mismatched, your making a fool of yourself. You keep hammering on political and vendetta, while that is true at the same time your accepting that his many crimes are real. In Anwar his case his crime might not even be committed and even if it was is in the eyes of most not really a crime. Thaksins crimes are not minor he is accused in a case where his co criminals got up to 18 years. Her stole huge amounts of cash (by corruption) change the law to suit him and put others at a disadvantage. So by all accounts something that would be seen by most if not all as big crimes and prosecuting him is going according to the law. 

 

Its political when an innocent man is convicted of a crime that is either minor or that he has not committed, this is not the case with Thaksin his crimes are major and there is little doubt that he is guilty. None of the charges are made up. (Samak is a good example of Thai politics where it was political.. a cooking show minor nothing)

 

Thanksins situation could be described as a lucky break for his opponents, that they could dispose of him because of his crimes. Because if they had to make up charges it would indeed be political as you said. Now he just shot himself in his foot by by breaking the law and gave his opponents the chance to get rid of him in a legal way without making things up or being accused of it being political.

 

I hope you now gasp the finer points of when something is political and when not. This was just a lucky break for his opponents and without it they might have had to resort to trickery making it political.

 

 

In an effort to find common ground let's agree that Thaksin was undoubtedly corrupt.More than that he failed when in power to introduce or nurture the kind of society that the country's fragile democracy required - rule of law, independent judiciary, accountability and transparency in government etc.This was a golden opportunity missed because some of us will remember how much initial support he had among all classes.

 

I can't go on making the same point about Anwar if doesn't register or you can't understand it.You still are commenting that Anwar's offence is not really a crime (I agree) which confirms you simply haven't taken on board the political vendetta issue.Anyway let that pass.

 

Where I think you are mistaken is to focus on one aspect (Thaksin's corruption).You correctly point out Samak's dismissal was a politicised intervention.But actually every democratically supported PM associated with Thaksin has been evicted from power through one means or the other, whether by directed judicial intervention or force of arms.There is a pattern here, namely the refusal of the conservative establishment and their rich middle class supporters to accept the democratic wishes of the Thai people.

 

I can see you don't have a very sophisticated grasp of these matters but you might now understand that Thaksin's corruption was the excuse rather than the cause of the clampdown on Thailand's democracy since when the country has spiraled down to its present disastrous position - neatly summed up recently where foreigners like to visit but where everthing else is going wrong.To be fair i do note that in these exchanges you are blinkingly beginning to understand these matters are a bit more complex and cannot be explained by Thaksin's doings.

[elgordo38]

On 3/25/2017 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!!

They could share a "I have a dream" moment. 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

I had not intended to rejoin this discussion since , in the politest possible way I can put it, the various contributions had become mismatched in quality and comprehension.

 

Still one point must be corrected namely that the travails of the South Korean president can be likened in all respects to those of Thaksin.I recognize there is a common element of corruption: however I was make a different point.In other words the comparison fails to incorporate a key aspect namely the determination of the establishment to destroy a popular politician.This was the case with both Anwar and Thaksin but not Park Geun - hye, the latter being a straightforward corruption case.Thus Anwar is a much better comparison with Thaksin since both were hounded by an establishment fearful and resentful of their popular appeal.It shouldn't really be necessary (see comments above on limited comprehension) but it seems I must point out again I am not repeat not suggesting Thaksin's and Anwar's offences were remotely comparable.Thaksin was a corrupt politician and most reasonable people outside Malaysia would query whether Anwar committed an offence at all.In summary however the cases of Anwar and Thaksin demonstrate a political vendetta whereas there was no such campaign in the case of the South Korean President.

 

You are trying to divert once again. There is NO comparison between Anwar and Thaksin at all. Perhaps in your mind there is but Thaksin was charged with crime and corruption and Anwar was not.

In S. Korea ex-president Park Geun - hye WAS charged with corruption and found guilty. The main difference with Park Geun - hye and Thaksin is that she stayed in the country to face charges whereas Thaksin jumped bail and fled Thailand to avoid a 2 year jail sentence and the probability of much longer jail sentences on the other 15 outstanding charges.

 

As for your ridiculous assertion that the charges are political and a vendetta are patently false. After all the first charge that Thaksin WAS found guilty of happened when the PPP run by Thaksin's brother in law was PM and the PPP was the government in power at that time. The other 15 outstanding charges were all filed during the same period of time.

[jayboy]

 
You are trying to divert once again. There is NO comparison between Anwar and Thaksin at all. Perhaps in your mind there is but Thaksin was charged with crime and corruption and Anwar was not.
In S. Korea ex-president Park Geun - hye WAS charged with corruption and found guilty. The main difference with Park Geun - hye and Thaksin is that she stayed in the country to face charges whereas Thaksin jumped bail and fled Thailand to avoid a 2 year jail sentence and the probability of much longer jail sentences on the other 15 outstanding charges.
 
As for your ridiculous assertion that the charges are political and a vendetta are patently false. After all the first charge that Thaksin WAS found guilty of happened when the PPP run by Thaksin's brother in law was PM and the PPP was the government in power at that time. The other 15 outstanding charges were all filed during the same period of time.

You have spectacularly missed the point on the Anwar/Thaksin issue even after my careful explanations .But leave it to one side as it's not that important in the scheme of things and perhaps the point being made is a little hard for you to grasp.

As to your final paragraph you ignore the politicisation of the Thai legal system., initially exploited by Thaksin himself before being harnessed by his enemies.You also bizarrely seem to be denying the very existence of a conservative establishment campaign against Thaksin.Perhaps you would like to share at least one non partisan source that backs that extraordinary claim.Otherwise I'm afraid your inputs are of little value.

As a helpful piece of advice why don't you do some research before making such comments.It only takes a little effort.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect