57 minutes ago, h90 said:

no I am accusing the old government for not doing their duty and ask for help as Thailand was without legal government.....so actually they old government seized power that was not theirs.

That is not the military fault...caused by Suthep....

Seems like you're making up the rules to fit your argument. 

 

I think the old government, which had real experience in Thai government, was doing its best in uncharted legal territory, and that what it was doing was preferable to a coup.

21 hours ago, h90 said:

now you already downgraded it from violence to serious crime and threatening violence.....
Threatening violence and violence is something different.....

I agree it was threatening violence. If he would have slapped Yingluck it would have been violence...but he didn't.

Keeping sitting on your chair and ordering people around when you are expired is also a crime.

Imagine your hated Prayut leads a caretaker government that is expired....I am sure you would agree to carry him out of the PMs office together with the chair he glued himself on, right....Same case....Expired illegal government.

What has this to do with the current topic

8 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Sounds like clutching at straws to me.....

Tanks and troops were deployed in the city. Martial law and curfew nationwide, political gatherings were banned. Politicians and anti-coup activists were arrested and detained. Internet censorship were imposed and the junta took control of the media. The coup was a violent act. 
 

The coup was a grossly illegal act carried out by using the very credible threat of extreme violence against those tempted to oppose it.

 

I'm not going to enter into a discussion of semantics; the coup was appalling and unnecessary, and there's something wrong with those who supported it.  And there were a great many expats who supported it at the time.  I find that disturbing.