animatic Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) exactly! case closed? he's in the clear??? yes? no??? let's face it YOU don't know and I suspect the panel who reviewed all the evidence DID The panel could of have all the evidence in the world, it was still a panel appointed and set up by the present government. A present government investigating a past leader and a present opposition leader.... so absolutely no conflict of interests then... they all went into the investigation with completely open minds about their arch enemy... Just like those who nailed Thaksin, but that's ok then................ Abhisit clearly does not have the level of major crimes as Thaksin has serially listed and that Thaiksin is serially avoiding be tried about, UNDER HIS Sisters's, and Brother in law's and hand Puppet Samak's GOVs. Yes the assets examination committee is similar, which is why it needs to go to administrative court, and not only a hand picked kangaroo court like this panel is. The AEC never convicted Thaksin of anything. Courts under his own hand picked governments did convict him once so far. You really, really picked a bad point to attempt to make, because it was so easy to shoot to pieces. Edited November 11, 2012 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpoint Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 exactly! case closed? he's in the clear??? yes? no??? let's face it YOU don't know and I suspect the panel who reviewed all the evidence DID The panel could of have all the evidence in the world, it was still a panel appointed and set up by the present government. A present government investigating a past leader and a present opposition leader.... so absolutely no conflict of interests then... they all went into the investigation with completely open minds about their arch enemy... Just like those who nailed Thaksin, but that's ok then................ Abhisit clearly does not have the level of major crimes as Thaksin has serially listed and that Thaiksin is serially avoiding be tried about, UNDER HIS Sisters's, and Brother in law's and hand Puppet Samak's GOVs. Yes the assets examination committee is similar, which is why it needs to go to administrative court, and not only a hand picked kangaroo court like this panel is. The AEC never convicted Thaksin of anything. Courts under his own hand picked governments did convict him once so far. You really, really picked a bad point to attempt to make, because it was so easy to shoot to pieces. But it's the only point he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Isn't it mandatory that every MP needs a criminal conviction? If you haven't committed crimes against humanity or at least accidentally shot your secretary with an uzi at lunch time you aren't qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 English word for the day: Peurile: : 1. juvenile 2. childish, silly trite, vindictive, immature, petty also fit the action to try to taint Abhisit. I already like Abhisit, but now my opinion of him is grander than before, particularly as he compares to the peurile behavior of his political adversaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 A British lapdog, fraud, globalist and traitor to his people...did I mention an accomplice to murder (during the big protests in BKK) where many redshirts were shot dead and/or disappeared. You sound like someone who either works for Thaksin or is enmeshed in some way with his nefarious network. I shouldn't get goaded in to responding to such tripe that was written above, but briefly: Abhistit's only (slight) fault was he restrained his actions too much, during the two month trashing of Bkk by the Reds and MIB, all funded and incited by Thaksin. If someone tough had been in office at that time, that person would have ordered the Reds to spit town. If the Reds refused, there would have much more blood on the streets. At least then, Bkk would not have had sharpened bamboo and petrol-soaked tire barricades causing problems for two months for everyone, other than the trouble makers and arsonists inside. In a nutshell, Abhisit was too nice. But he showed some grit later, and any Reds who left Bkk unharmed should consider themselves lucky and thank Abhisit for being so slow (and considerate of others) to act dynamically as a decisive leader would have. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 (edited) quote name='binjalin' timestamp='1352539198' post='5831206' exactly! case closed? he's in the clear??? yes? no??? let's face it YOU don't know and I suspect the panel who reviewed all the evidence DID The panel could of have all the evidence in the world, it was still a panel appointed and set up by the present government. A present government investigating a past leader and a present opposition leader.... so absolutely no conflict of interests then... they all went into the investigation with completely open minds about their arch enemy... Just like those who nailed Thaksin, but that's ok then................ Abhisit clearly does not have the level of major crimes as Thaksin has serially listed and that Thaksin is serially avoiding being tried about, UNDER HIS Sisters's, and Brother in law's and hand Puppet Samak's GOVs. Yes, the assets examination committee is similar, which is why it needs to go to Administrative Court, and not only a hand picked kangaroo court like this panel is. The AEC never convicted Thaksin of anything. Courts under his own hand picked governments did convict him, once so far. You really, really picked a bad point to attempt to make, because it was so easy to shoot to pieces. But it's the only point he has. I guess that would be pointless. Edited November 11, 2012 by animatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 A British lapdog, fraud, globalist and traitor to his people...did I mention an accomplice to murder (during the big protests in BKK) where many redshirts were shot dead and/or disappeared. You sound like someone who either works for Thaksin or is enmeshed in some way with his nefarious network. I shouldn't get goaded in to responding to such tripe that was written above, but briefly: Abhistit's only (slight) fault was he restrained his actions too much, during the two month trashing of Bkk by the Reds and MIB, all funded and incited by Thaksin. If someone tough had been in office at that time, that person would have ordered the Reds to spit town. If the Reds refused, there would have much more blood on the streets. At least then, Bkk would not have had sharpened bamboo and petrol-soaked tire barricades causing problems for two months for everyone, other than the trouble makers and arsonists inside. In a nutshell, Abhisit was too nice. But he showed some grit later, and any Reds who left Bkk unharmed should consider themselves lucky and thank Abhisit for being so slow (and considerate of others) to act dynamically as a decisive leader would have. well at least we all agree, at last! that Abhisit is indecisive, slow and undynamic and, it seems, a draft dodger to boot!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Just a reminder on how grave, urgent and possibly National Security threatening this particular case is: "The ministry said that Abhisit's document stated he was exempted from military service and was enlisted as a reserve officer on April 8, 1988, but that in the records at the Conscription Registrar's Office, the date of enlistment was stated as July 4, 1986." responding to this gravely urgent 26 year pressing issue with national security implications comes the news he quit 23 years ago... ... Abhisit files suit with Administrative Court against Sukampol's order Opposition Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva Monday had his lawyer file a suit with the Central Administrative Court accusing Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat of illegally issued an order to dismiss him as a military reserve who earns state salary and pension and strip of his military rank and salary. Sukampol endorsed the decision to dismiss Abhisit on the grounds that he used falsified documents to apply for the position as a military lecturer. The suit filed by Abhisit said the Defence Ministry has no authority to dismiss a military official who had decommissioned as Abhiit has quit his military post 23 years ago. -- The Nation 2012-11-12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Just a reminder on how grave, urgent and possibly National Security threatening this particular case is: "The ministry said that Abhisit's document stated he was exempted from military service and was enlisted as a reserve officer on April 8, 1988, but that in the records at the Conscription Registrar's Office, the date of enlistment was stated as July 4, 1986." responding to this gravely urgent 26 year pressing issue with national security implications comes the news he quit 23 years ago... ... Abhisit files suit with Administrative Court against Sukampol's order Opposition Democrat Party Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva Monday had his lawyer file a suit with the Central Administrative Court accusing Defence Minister Sukampol Suwannathat of illegally issued an order to dismiss him as a military reserve who earns state salary and pension and strip of his military rank and salary. Sukampol endorsed the decision to dismiss Abhisit on the grounds that he used falsified documents to apply for the position as a military lecturer. The suit filed by Abhisit said the Defence Ministry has no authority to dismiss a military official who had decommissioned as Abhiit has quit his military post 23 years ago. -- The Nation 2012-11-12 how bizarre? not defending the alleged falsification but the sacking? 'because he had quit already' ??? no mention of the alleged cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly? When they turf this bunch of rabble out!! To be replaced by the other rabble. I think anyone who believes any political party is better or worse than other parties is too one-eyed to make informed comments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly? When they turf this bunch of rabble out!! To be replaced by the other rabble. I think anyone who believes any political party is better or worse than other parties is too one-eyed to make informed comments. Precisely . . . they are ALL as bad as each other, only thinking of themselves, and not what is best for the people or the country. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly? When they turf this bunch of rabble out!! To be replaced by the other rabble. I think anyone who believes any political party is better or worse than other parties is too one-eyed to make informed comments. Precisely . . . they are ALL as bad as each other, only thinking of themselves, and not what is best for the people or the country. it IS ridiculous but the Thai law allows them to sue and counter-sue all the time - you don't see other developed countries suing each other like here instead of Abhisit suing the Defence Minister he should be explaining himself to the people - and that should go for the other side too (but this thread is about Abhisit). Set an example man - show leadership and you might even get re-elected (not that you were ever elected by the people in the first place but that's a different story) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 it IS ridiculous but the Thai law allows them to sue and counter-sue all the time - you don't see other developed countries suing each other like here instead of Abhisit suing the Defence Minister he should be explaining himself to the people - and that should go for the other side too (but this thread is about Abhisit). Set an example man - show leadership and you might even get re-elected (not that you were ever elected by the people in the first place but that's a different story) "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 it IS ridiculous but the Thai law allows them to sue and counter-sue all the time - you don't see other developed countries suing each other like here instead of Abhisit suing the Defence Minister he should be explaining himself to the people - and that should go for the other side too (but this thread is about Abhisit). Set an example man - show leadership and you might even get re-elected (not that you were ever elected by the people in the first place but that's a different story) "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. a side re-MARK they were only there because of the Court so were not elected - as well you know - but when the REAL test came they failed catastrophically the democratic process back on topic? he is not and has not addressed the accusation - care to comment WHY? and care to comment on WHY he chooses to sue for his rank being taken away and not because he has been defamed??? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly? When they turf this bunch of rabble out!! To be replaced by the other rabble. I think anyone who believes any political party is better or worse than other parties is too one-eyed to make informed comments. That's democracy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildorchid Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 What a knob, dodgy doc's, and piss n moan I wanna keep me rank n money, how about he's a cheat, and should have to pay all monies back to the people of thialand!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 What a knob, dodgy doc's, and piss n moan I wanna keep me rank n money, how about he's a cheat, and should have to pay all monies back to the people of thialand!!! The dodgy docs were supplied by this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Obviously the prospects for the PTP to come out on top of the censure debate are/were slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 When are they all gonna grow up and stop playing these stupid games and actually start governing this country properly and fairly? When they turf this bunch of rabble out!! To be replaced by the other rabble. I think anyone who believes any political party is better or worse than other parties is too one-eyed to make informed comments. That's democracy? It has nothing to do with democracy nor any form of politics, it is the system that is at fault. A system which allows and accepts mediocrity, corruption, nepotism etc... to survive and become part and parcel of life - and therefore politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich teacher Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. I am afraid it is flogging a dead horse with these people.Whether through ignorance or sheer obtuseness they will apparently never understand the simple truth that while Abhisit certainly became PM legitimately through a parliamentary system he was "guided" to power by the old order and never obtained moral legitimacy.This could have been obtained by victory at a general election.However he failed this test and the Thai people threw the bum out.Back to the drawing board for the unelected elites and their deluded middle class followers. Edited November 16, 2012 by jayboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. He was the leader of the main opposition party. Why did he need to be picked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post whybother Posted November 16, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted November 16, 2012 "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. I am afraid it is flogging a dead horse with these people.Whether through ignorance or sheer obtuseness they will apparently never understand the simple truth that while Abhisit certainly became PM legitimately through a parliamentary system he was "guided" to power by the old order and never obtained moral legitimacy.This could have been obtained by victory at a general election.However he failed this test and the Thai people threw the bum out.Back to the drawing board for the unelected elites and their deluded middle class followers. Abhisit could have come to power in 2007 if some of the smaller parties didn't support the PPP as they had campaigned. Somehow you seem to think that having meetings with fugitives is an acceptable way to form a coalition government. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. I am afraid it is flogging a dead horse with these people.Whether through ignorance or sheer obtuseness they will apparently never understand the simple truth that while Abhisit certainly became PM legitimately through a parliamentary system he was "guided" to power by the old order and never obtained moral legitimacy.This could have been obtained by victory at a general election.However he failed this test and the Thai people threw the bum out.Back to the drawing board for the unelected elites and their deluded middle class followers. "K. Abhisit was a legitimate PM." Mind you, we still have the nonsense on 'unelected' elite which to me only suggests we also have elected elite and maybe an unelected fugitive and lots of democracy lovers, misguided middle class, downtrodden peasants, ivory tower know-it-alls and so forth and so on Anyway I'm sure one of these days we'll get the finer details on this 'fake paper chase' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) "not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too. But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be. I am afraid it is flogging a dead horse with these people.Whether through ignorance or sheer obtuseness they will apparently never understand the simple truth that while Abhisit certainly became PM legitimately through a parliamentary system he was "guided" to power by the old order and never obtained moral legitimacy.This could have been obtained by victory at a general election.However he failed this test and the Thai people threw the bum out.Back to the drawing board for the unelected elites and their deluded middle class followers. Abhisit could have come to power in 2007 if some of the smaller parties didn't support the PPP as they had campaigned. Somehow you seem to think that having meetings with fugitives is an acceptable way to form a coalition government. You're seriously using 'if' in a discussion like this? There is no if, there is only 'is' Edited November 16, 2012 by Sing_Sling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Abhisit could have come to power in 2007 if some of the smaller parties didn't support the PPP as they had campaigned. Somehow you seem to think that having meetings with fugitives is an acceptable way to form a coalition government. You're seriously using 'if' in a discussion like this. There is no if, there is only 'is' Yes. "If". The "is" came when Abhisit did form a coalition government in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Abhisit could have come to power in 2007 if some of the smaller parties didn't support the PPP as they had campaigned. Somehow you seem to think that having meetings with fugitives is an acceptable way to form a coalition government. You're seriously using 'if' in a discussion like this. There is no if, there is only 'is' Yes. "If". The "is" came when Abhisit did form a coalition government in 2008. and got thrown out at the earliest opportunity by a 'not impressed' populace - now we find out he has been stripped of his rank etc. YET does not defend the charges - only fights the pedantic point that he had resigned anyway - go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaicbr Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Abhisit could have come to power in 2007 if some of the smaller parties didn't support the PPP as they had campaigned. Somehow you seem to think that having meetings with fugitives is an acceptable way to form a coalition government. You're seriously using 'if' in a discussion like this. There is no if, there is only 'is' Yes. "If". The "is" came when Abhisit did form a coalition government in 2008. and got thrown out at the earliest opportunity by a 'not impressed' populace - now we find out he has been stripped of his rank etc. YET does not defend the charges - only fights the pedantic point that he had resigned anyway - go figure Ummm that's because he defended the charges before in court (the Jataporn case) and nothing was found. This ministry committee decided that wasn't good enough so they did this. Go figure! sent from my Q6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 you cannot be serious? he 'can't be bothered' because another court, in another case, found 'nothing'? so the Ministry held it's own inquiry and found him guilty and there is no 'righteous anger' from him? just 'they can't dismiss me because I resigned' that's it??? you believe in Santa too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 you cannot be serious? he 'can't be bothered' because another court, in another case, found 'nothing'? so the Ministry held it's own inquiry and found him guilty Nothing has changed from two threads before this one on the topic... Wouldn't it necessitate a finding of the hyped "Guilty" to be from a court of law instead of a panel from Pheu Thai Party MP Sukumpol? Abhisit hasn't been found guilty by a court of law. A decision has been made on the matter of his conscription by a committee, set up by the government. So rather a case of apples and oranges. Apples and train cars. Even the Pheu Thai Party MP panel didn't use the hyped "Guilty". It doesn't appear anywhere in the referenced article. That term, bolded and over-sized as it is, was Oze-made up. It still hasn't appeared in any referenced article, but there has been a few more since the above was made up. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now