No suicidal protests against a deployed army does not equal a country-wide quorum.

No one said it does. The response was to a ridiculous comment about rich Bangkokians etc. being the only ones glad to see the back of Thaksin.

Some Aussies got away with near murder in LOS so why not a get away with some financial stuff ?

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

"most people" = rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

"most people" as in the 80% that didn't vote for his party in the snap election he called for after dissolving parliament as a way of getting out of the troubles he put himself in.

Calling ANY particular Thai politician 'corrupt' is equivalent to (stealing a great line from 'Apocalypse Now') giving someone a speeding ticket at the Indy 500.

As a farang, and a guest here, I have no stake in any of this. It amazes and amuses me how many of my fellow non-Thai, non-voting OUTSIDERS can get so worked up about this daily political soap opera.

I've tried to get some background on this Thaksin controversy, and it is hard to find unbiased sources. It seems he rose from nothing to the pinnacle of Thai politics, making very savvy business and political moves all the way to the top. Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world.

All I could find in the man's record that was disturbing (to me) was the wave of extra-judicial killings in the 'War on Drugs'. That he used his position to enrich himself and his cronies...what politician does not?

Jumping Bail,and absconding abroad is not exactly showing respect for the Rule of Law. So lets have no more of this: Boo Hoo, poor old me, it's not Fair! Rubbish.

"Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world."

Politicians, civil servants etc are elected by the people, supposedly for the people. Mr. Thaksin was elected by the people, but here's the difference, he was for himself and his family and cronies.

Thaksin Shinawatra is the epitome of an oligarch, a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence.

He leads an oligarchy, (a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control), his entire family is involved at a deep level.

Calling ANY particular Thai politician 'corrupt' is equivalent to (stealing a great line from 'Apocalypse Now') giving someone a speeding ticket at the Indy 500.

As a farang, and a guest here, I have no stake in any of this. It amazes and amuses me how many of my fellow non-Thai, non-voting OUTSIDERS can get so worked up about this daily political soap opera.

I've tried to get some background on this Thaksin controversy, and it is hard to find unbiased sources. It seems he rose from nothing to the pinnacle of Thai politics, making very savvy business and political moves all the way to the top. Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world.

All I could find in the man's record that was disturbing (to me) was the wave of extra-judicial killings in the 'War on Drugs'. That he used his position to enrich himself and his cronies...what politician does not?

Try this Wiki link,there's plenty of background here,which can't all be biased.

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

Calling ANY particular Thai politician 'corrupt' is equivalent to (stealing a great line from 'Apocalypse Now') giving someone a speeding ticket at the Indy 500.

As a farang, and a guest here, I have no stake in any of this. It amazes and amuses me how many of my fellow non-Thai, non-voting OUTSIDERS can get so worked up about this daily political soap opera.

I've tried to get some background on this Thaksin controversy, and it is hard to find unbiased sources. It seems he rose from nothing to the pinnacle of Thai politics, making very savvy business and political moves all the way to the top. Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world.

All I could find in the man's record that was disturbing (to me) was the wave of extra-judicial killings in the 'War on Drugs'. That he used his position to enrich himself and his cronies...what politician does not?

Who do you imagine was the oligarch with the power during one of Thailand's richest men's reign at the top?

And so aside from the murdering of innocents and the stealing from the public purse your hero is an OK guy then?

No suicidal protests against a deployed army does not equal a country-wide quorum.

No one said it does. The response was to a ridiculous comment about rich Bangkokians etc. being the only ones glad to see the back of Thaksin.

What's "ridiculous" is the rich 'Bangkokians' democrats calling for respect for the rule of law.

Jumping Bail,and absconding abroad is not exactly showing respect for the Rule of Law. So lets have no more of this: Boo Hoo, poor old me, it's not Fair! Rubbish.

There was no 'boo hoo' for you or Thaksin. it's more like 'ha ha' for the hypocrisy of the democrats. They sure have you fooled.

rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

You mean like Yingluck and a fair bit of her unelected cabinet?

Unless you work for Fox news, you might want to check your timeline...

rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

You mean like Yingluck and a fair bit of her unelected cabinet?

Unless you work for Fox news, you might want to check your timeline...

Congrats...you broke the record!

Democrats don't seem to be concerned about the 'rule of law' during a crisis. Especially, when a crisis is the only way they get to run the country. That's why Abhisit refers to the coup as a 'military intervention'. It sounds so legal!

The Red Shirts had brought the capital to a standstill for weeks... grenades had been fired from within their area, the protesters on the outer edges of the protest had become increasingly violent and provocative. Red Shirt leaders were advocating burning down the capital - in no uncertain terms. It was madness, if you recall. The protesters made it clear that they they weren't leaving until the government stepped down (alongside a load of other ridiculous demands). A mob that in no way represented the majority (most of them fueled to a large degree by disinformation), was holding the whole country to ransom to demand "democracy" (their own unique form of it). Meanwhile, the pusillanimous egomaniac in Dubai was ranting like he was the keynote speaker at Nuremberg.

So my question is: If you were Prime minister in this situation, what exactly would you have done about it?

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

You do know that Abhisit was elected by those who elect Prime Ministers (i.e. the electorate, which is made up of Members of Parliament), right? So, after the electorate voted him in, why should he have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy?

Can you explain how the "judicial coup" that ousted Somchai for electoral fraud (under rules from both the 1997 and the 2007 constitutions) had anything to do with why MPs elected Abhisit after PPP was dissolved?

If you can give decent answers to these questions, you will be doing your own argument a great service.

The Thai people in 2011 proved that they wanted a PTP-led government in 2011. It says nothing about whether Abhisit was a legitimate Prime Minister, all it says is that PTP won the election. There are many possible reasons for PTP winning the election, including the promise to make all Thais rich within 6 months and their promises that their actions will be for the country (not for one man). Their dwindling support over the last year or so suggests the public are not as impressed with their performance in 2013 as they were with their potential in 2011.

You know the deal to put Abhisit in was done by the military plus an "irresistible power" (as Chumpol Silpa-archa called it)

As for dwindling support, I'm happy to see that tested at elections, and will accept whoever the electorate chooses - will you?

A post in violation of this forum rule has been removed:

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

rich Bangkok Thais and some very influential friends...

You mean like Yingluck and a fair bit of her unelected cabinet?

Unless you work for Fox news, you might want to check your timeline...

Congrats...you broke the record!

Yingluck wasn't in politics during the coup in 2006.

Don't get personal. "I swear to you, I will get very choked up. Honestly, there could be tears."

(quote stolen from a movie

yes, Thaksin has a lot to answer for and should be in jail - of that there is no doubt, but this just seems so hypocritical

Interesting that you speak of hypocrisy because when you write this

His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?

and then follow that with your overly aggressive and infantile posting two hours later

makes for much better discussions instead of sounding like a bunch of boozy council flat legends at the local

it comes across as being quite hypocritical.

Calling ANY particular Thai politician 'corrupt' is equivalent to (stealing a great line from 'Apocalypse Now') giving someone a speeding ticket at the Indy 500.

As a farang, and a guest here, I have no stake in any of this. It amazes and amuses me how many of my fellow non-Thai, non-voting OUTSIDERS can get so worked up about this daily political soap opera.

I've tried to get some background on this Thaksin controversy, and it is hard to find unbiased sources. It seems he rose from nothing to the pinnacle of Thai politics, making very savvy business and political moves all the way to the top. Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world.

All I could find in the man's record that was disturbing (to me) was the wave of extra-judicial killings in the 'War on Drugs'. That he used his position to enrich himself and his cronies...what politician does not?

As a farang with a wife and a business here, I have a stake in this.

If you think Thaksin rose from nothing, this it seems you have found NO sources on this.

He comes from a rich family and he married into a richer family. He had a number of failed businesses until he "managed to get" a computer deal with the police (who he happened to be working for), and then get a monopoly telecom deal handed to him.

Calling ANY particular Thai politician 'corrupt' is equivalent to (stealing a great line from 'Apocalypse Now') giving someone a speeding ticket at the Indy 500.

As a farang, and a guest here, I have no stake in any of this. It amazes and amuses me how many of my fellow non-Thai, non-voting OUTSIDERS can get so worked up about this daily political soap opera.

I've tried to get some background on this Thaksin controversy, and it is hard to find unbiased sources. It seems he rose from nothing to the pinnacle of Thai politics, making very savvy business and political moves all the way to the top. Politicians are merely functionaries, put in place to do the bidding of the oligarchs who REALLY have the Power. This is true all over the world.

All I could find in the man's record that was disturbing (to me) was the wave of extra-judicial killings in the 'War on Drugs'. That he used his position to enrich himself and his cronies...what politician does not?

As a farang with a wife and a business here, I have a stake in this.

If you think Thaksin rose from nothing, this it seems you have found NO sources on this.

He comes from a rich family and he married into a richer family. He had a number of failed businesses until he "managed to get" a computer deal with the police (who he happened to be working for), and then get a monopoly telecom deal handed to him.

That's because his search for background on Thaksin was shallow and not worth the comments subsequently made.

yes, Thaksin has a lot to answer for and should be in jail - of that there is no doubt, but this just seems so hypocritical

Interesting that you speak of hypocrisy because when you write this

>His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?

and then follow that with your overly aggressive and infantile posting two hours later

makes for much better discussions instead of sounding like a bunch of boozy council flat legends at the local

it comes across as being quite hypocritical.

Did you feel addressed by my comment? Odd that, because I was speaking in general terms, but by all means feel offended if you wish.

As for calling someone out - with whom I hadn't crossed words - for being very childish 'ooooh, he's your hero, ooohhhh' . . . I guess if you identify with the guy then doubly good for you.

yes, Thaksin has a lot to answer for and should be in jail - of that there is no doubt, but this just seems so hypocritical

Interesting that you speak of hypocrisy because when you write this

>His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?

and then follow that with your overly aggressive and infantile posting two hours later

makes for much better discussions instead of sounding like a bunch of boozy council flat legends at the local

it comes across as being quite hypocritical.

Well you sure nailed his hide to the wall there.

Now if you could just put those statements in context I would know what he really was saying.

@ Sing-Sing

"His 'hero'? How old are you? Why the need to be so overly aggressive when the poster ha a valid point . . . and I have yet to see him state that Thaksin shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes . . .

Infantile much?"

Your assumption that you are somehow in a postion to assess other poeples' posts and judge them "overly agressive" or label them "infantile" is your opinion - and only that. You may think the poster I replied to has a valid point, and may disagree with my comments.. That's fine and you are entitled to your comments. However, your post suggests and assertive pomposity with an underlying delusion of self importance. That maybe wasn't your intention, maybe it was.

The post I replied to suggestes Thaksin has only committed minor infringements of the law "peanuts" in comparison, which is somewhat debatable. The poster refers to three people by name but only accords Thaksin with the title "khun" which somewhat implies a bias. In this context the word hero is, in my opinion, suitable and not infantile.

I could judge your response to be either an attempt to discredit a view you disagree with, or a pompous comment from someone with delusions of superiority. But, I wouldn't because I am no more an arbiter here than you.

@Sing-Sing

"Did you feel addressed by my comment? Odd that, because I was speaking in general terms, but by all means feel offended if you wish.

As for calling someone out - with whom I hadn't crossed words - for being very childish 'ooooh, he's your hero, ooohhhh' . . . I guess if you identify with the guy then doubly good for you"

As I said before, your entitled to all your opinions and to express your comments. We can then all make are minds up. Actually, going round calling people childish, and revelling if you offended someone speaks volumes for your own levels of maturity - intellectual and enotional. If it makes you happy to feel superior and important then good for you, carry on living in your fantasy.

It's time for Abhisit and Suthep to be HONEST and stand up for there's murder charges and wrongdoings!! Don't try to hide this behind Khun Thaksin.What he have done is "Peanuts" compare to Democratic party, PAD and coup maker's!!!

I doubt the families of the Kru Se victims, the Tak Bai victims, the innocent war on drugs victims or the 'dissappeared' whistle blowing muslim lawyer would agree with you.

or the family of the "shipping moo" who was murdered as he was about to give evidence in Thaksin's tax evasion case. Or the old lady who had to cower behind her fridge as her house was shot up by machine gun during the period of extra-judicial killings dubbed the war on drugs.

Most crimes have a "victim". I would suggest that having the wrong date on some national service paperwork from nearly 3 decades ago as being a fairly victimless crime(at least in comparison with TS's rap sheet.

Whew, luckily that's all Abisith has to answer for . . . I appreciate your even-handedness and clear impartiality in seeing through this whole tawdry affair - it makes for much better discussions instead of sounding like a bunch of boozy council flat legends at the local

Very adult post ! Beginning to see a theme here............ if you don't agree with it, then it must be juvenile or unbalanced. Obviously not a fan of democracy and free speech then.

That's the point - he shouldn't have been PM - he was only there because of the coup process (military then judicial coups)

Both Abhisit & the redshirts knew that.

If Abhisit really believed in democracy he wouldn't have taken the position that was handed to him, or at the very least he should have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy.

Redshirts were protesting about the injustice of how Abhisit was installed as PM, and the Thai people eventually proved that Abhisit was an illegitimate PM, as evidenced by the overwhelming result once the election was finally held.

You do know that Abhisit was elected by those who elect Prime Ministers (i.e. the electorate, which is made up of Members of Parliament), right? So, after the electorate voted him in, why should he have gone to the electorate immediately to prove his legitimacy?

Can you explain how the "judicial coup" that ousted Somchai for electoral fraud (under rules from both the 1997 and the 2007 constitutions) had anything to do with why MPs elected Abhisit after PPP was dissolved?

If you can give decent answers to these questions, you will be doing your own argument a great service.

The Thai people in 2011 proved that they wanted a PTP-led government in 2011. It says nothing about whether Abhisit was a legitimate Prime Minister, all it says is that PTP won the election. There are many possible reasons for PTP winning the election, including the promise to make all Thais rich within 6 months and their promises that their actions will be for the country (not for one man). Their dwindling support over the last year or so suggests the public are not as impressed with their performance in 2013 as they were with their potential in 2011.

You know the deal to put Abhisit in was done by the military plus an "irresistible power" (as Chumpol Silpa-archa called it)

As for dwindling support, I'm happy to see that tested at elections, and will accept whoever the electorate chooses - will you?

1) Yes, I'm aware of the meeting at Prem's house. I'm also aware that the Silpa-archa family business, Chart Thai Pattana, was worried about being Bhum Jai Thai'd like the Chidchob family was. Besides, they were "forced to" join the Democrat coalition before it was ever formed? It was a business proposal, which was duly accepted... there was no reason that the party couldn't have changed its mind the next day. One person has claimed the purpose of this meeting was to "force" other parties to join the Democrat-led coalition and many have refuted it. Note that Chumphol only said this after the Democrat govt had been dissolved in preparation for new elections, and Chart Thai Pattana had already put their chips in with Peua Thai's stack.

2) Yes. I accepted it last time and I will again next time. The last election was one of the fairest that Thailand has ever seen.

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

@ Sing-Sing

@Sing-Sing

Obsessed much?

There are no cleanskins in Thai politics, but the major difference is Thaksin gets his power from the people whilst Abhisit got his from the military++

Someone who gets power from the people can be removed by the people when they are sick of him, but how do you remove the military++ ?

Even by your own "logic" you fail, "Abhisit got his (power) from the military++", then you say only people voted in can be removed by the electorate.

Thaksin was removed by the military after most people were sick of him but he refused to let go of the premiership (as he had promised) by reinstating himself as PM after dissolving parliament and calling sham elections riddled with electoral frauds. Obviously the people had no power to vote him out at that stage.

Abhisit on the other hand stepped down graciously after the last election.

I suggest you readjust your perception of reality and historical facts.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Acknowledged, but that doesn't answer the question.

You perception seems a bit off - Thaksin is the guy who has always been happy to contest elections, and Abhisit is the guy from the party which has boycotted one election, and stalled going to another (at great cost to life and limb of many Thai)

Or to put it another way... Thaksin won his election fairly in 2001, won fairly again in 2005 (through some "fairly" underhand tactics, much the same as how the last Democrat govt was formed... i.e. join us and get rich). Then he called a snap election, with some unbelievably dodgy election protocol and, when this election was annulled and the Election Commission (which Thaksin had stacked with allies) were impeached, he decided that he should be caretaker PM in 2006 after he dissolved his government at the behest of quite a lot of people. He is autocratic, the opposite of democratic.

As regards the Democrats under Abhisit, the boycott of the April 2006 snap election was absolutely justified and, yes, he has lost at every general election he has run in. But, to put it in perspective... he has always accepted the election results. Oh, and he never "stalled going to another". That decision was made by UDD leaders on television after one of them got an SMS. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests Abhisit's hand was forced to disperse a violent armed insurrection attempt, and I have yet to see anything that suggests this insurrection wasn't organised and funded by Thaksin. If Thaksin was organising and funding the armed faction of Red Shirts (which isn't proven), would that make him a terrorist in your book?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Acknowledged, but that doesn't answer the question.

On balance, because of the military & judicial coups, I'd have to say no (ie. he'd be justified in funding a fightback).

btw, most likely the MIB were a military faction anyway