Civil Court accepts petition against Emergency Decree

[SamMunich]

Well it is certainly correct, that the courts can look into acts and laws coming from the executive or the legislative part. That is normally called a basics of democracy: that everybody can be scrutinized. Btw the courts as well.

If the executive can not be criticized or challenged, that is then called dictatorship. Didn't they teach that in school?

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

[godden]

mickey mouse for prime minister

[binjalin]

Well it is certainly correct, that the courts can look into acts and laws coming from the executive or the legislative part. That is normally called a basics of democracy: that everybody can be scrutinized. Btw the courts as well.

If the executive can not be criticized or challenged, that is then called dictatorship. Didn't they teach that in school?

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

that is not what is happening here

what is happening is the yellow ammart are trying to find anything, anything at all, to disrupt democratic elections and any government in the world had the right to call an emergency decree

now we will see the legal system interfering in politics AGAIN because they are all yellow supporters

of course I do not support stopping standing for elections if they don't have a degree - that is an elite yellow tactic NOT a red one

[millwall_fan]

Here we go again the PDRC have failed dismally, as the PAD did when it closed the airports. will now fall back on their old friends in the judiciary to achieve by quasi legal means what all their street protests have failed to do. Same old, same old.

[rubl]

Here we go again. Members complaining about people complaining about a simple Emergency Decree. Unbelievable.

At least our darling Ms. Yingluck said the government would fully coordinate with the Election Commission to ensure a smooth election.

Just oversight that she forgot to mention 'even if it has to take four months'

[djhotsox]

Well it is certainly correct, that the courts can look into acts and laws coming from the executive or the legislative part. That is normally called a basics of democracy: that everybody can be scrutinized. Btw the courts as well.

If the executive can not be criticized or challenged, that is then called dictatorship. Didn't they teach that in school?

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

I was not aware of this fact (univ.degree)....thanks for that SamM.....that explains a lot!

[CapeCobra]

how can this possibly be? the elected government taken to court against a decree? it's farcical I'm expecting Basil Fawlty to walk in at any minute

What's so wrong with that. Elected governments have to follow laws and rules everywhere in the world. It's the same in Western countries. Governments aren't allowed to overstep the mark. What would you rather, some kind of dictatorship?

I agree. Egypt comes to mind. The people brought down the dictator. Democracy. They elected a new parliament. Democracy. The elected government abused their power (legally). The people returned to the streets to oust the legally perfect leaders. That's democracy. The leaders called the protestors terrorists. They lost. We applauded. Similar thing happening in Thailand. People elected this government. Thaksin haters didn't like it. But no problem. They accepted. Democracy. The ruling party tried to abuse their temporary mandate. People return to the streets. Btw, Hitler came to power by democratic means.l, legally. His party won 43.9% of the votes and formed a coalition. Wonderful democracy. It was the last time that more than one party was allowed.

Sometimes, democracy as we know it, doesn't help the people.

[Baerboxer]

how can this possibly be? the elected government taken to court against a decree? it's farcical I'm expecting Basil Fawlty to walk in at any minute

What's so wrong with that. Elected governments have to follow laws and rules everywhere in the world. It's the same in Western countries. Governments aren't allowed to overstep the mark. What would you rather, some kind of dictatorship?

oh you mean like the one Suthep proposes? no I would not

but you seem to like the idea of constant court appearances (completely unbiased of course) and the idea that a government cannot issue an emergency decree

this country is being dragged to the abyss of procrastination where no government will ever get anything done as everything will be challenged in court - it's an absurdity which ever shade your shirt is

Of course a government should be able to issue an emergency decree and declare a SOE. Providing it does so in accordance with the law, and for appropriate reasons and circumstances.

A petition has been filed, claiming that the caretaker government issued a SOE inappropriately.

The Criminal Court has accepted the petition, will here evidence from all involved and then make a decision based on the law and interpreting the law, should it be necessary. It's what judges do, and is very relevant as many Thai laws are written without clear black and white meaning.

Being elected to govern in a democracy, even by a landslide minority, does not give the right to do as you please and disregard the law and due process whenever it suits.

Claiming that all legal decisions that don't go in favor of the Shin clan are politically motivated, biased, unfair, and wrong is poppycock. If the Shins has more respect for the law they wouldn't be in the mess. Rather than amending laws through due process they want to dictate, tell everybody how it is and make them up to suit their own agenda.

The absurdity is the seemingly lack of proper impeachment mechanisms, a lack of morals, ethics and honor among all politicians and a country allowing a convicted fugitive fraudster to run it and expect good results.

[TallPalm]

These judges are either biased, bought, intimidated or any combination of the 3. They say that there's no provocation to invoke an emergency decree but isn't prevention better than cure (?) or do these short minded pompus fools really want blood on the streets of Bangkok again? (Or perhaps I've just answered my own question!)

[Baerboxer]

Here we go again the PDRC have failed dismally, as the PAD did when it closed the airports. will now fall back on their old friends in the judiciary to achieve by quasi legal means what all their street protests have failed to do. Same old, same old.

Quasi legal means??

Poor PTP - they have to act within the law. Nobody told them that. They come from election, have landslide minority. They make the law

[Baerboxer]

These judges are either biased, bought, intimidated or any combination of the 3. They say that there's no provocation to invoke an emergency decree but isn't prevention better than cure (?) or do these short minded pompus fools really want blood on the streets of Bangkok again? (Or perhaps I've just answered my own question!)

Do you have any evidence of the serious criminal charges of which you say the judges are guilty?

If so you should bring it to the attention of the authorities. If not, then you may wish to read up on Thailand's harsh defamation laws.

[pipkins]

Here we go again. Members complaining about people complaining about a simple Emergency Decree. Unbelievable.

At least our darling Ms. Yingluck said the government would fully coordinate with the Election Commission to ensure a smooth election.

Just oversight that she forgot to mention 'even if it has to take four months'

Could be over with in 3 days time, but for Suthep, the Courts, The Army encouraging the protest to continue.

The longer this goes on, the more the elites will be exposed to the world.

Everybody sees it and everybody reports it. Maybe this time, they will overreach for the coup and fail and take themselves out with it. Could happen.

The Courts are really deliberating now in front of everybody in the world, The Thai way, just will not wash!!!!! Happy couping guys

[Cnxforever]

The court has absolutely now authority to rule over the degree - this is a very dangerous precedent!

[pipkins]

These judges are either biased, bought, intimidated or any combination of the 3. They say that there's no provocation to invoke an emergency decree but isn't prevention better than cure (?) or do these short minded pompus fools really want blood on the streets of Bangkok again? (Or perhaps I've just answered my own question!)

They do indeed NEED the blood on the streets and Tida shut that door to them today by cancelling the Smaut Rally.

However, they can only think one thing at a time, so they thing Coup Coup Coup. They do not follow on with thoughts such as who will enforce the coup

The army cannot. Another 2 dead today in Pattani. 9 this week, 7 bombs and this is the norm in the 2-3% of the Country that is under the control of the army.

It is short sighted blinkered thinking. The thing after that to think is when the Army fail to control the uprising the Coup would cause, is will all us old elites that have backed this end up in exile or worse.

I cannot see a case where the Government after fighting this off, do not really go for the Jugular with the Amart and it will be very well received in the world.

[englishoak]

Its got nothing to do with justice but rather positioning and shoving square pegs into round holes by both sides.

Have a read here about whats going on, from a long term respected and unbaised journo Shawn Crispin http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-300114.html

Edited January 30, 2014 by englishoak

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

how can this possibly be? the elected government taken to court against a decree? it's farcical I'm expecting Basil Fawlty to walk in at any minute

I don't see what's so farcical about it.

Perhaps you missed the part in civics study where they explained that, in supposed democracies, the courts serve as part of the system of checks and balances alongside the executive and legislative branches of government.

The courts are given the authority by law to reign in the executive branch and the legislatives branches of government when the courts perceive that they've exceeded their legal authority under the applicable laws and the Constitution. That's exactly what's being argued in this case.

You can disagree with the courts' rulings, and you might argue that Thailand's judicial system isn't as unbiased and untainted as it might or could be. But deciding this kind of case is exactly what the courts are there to do. And obviously, the court hasn't ruled on the case yet, so you don't know what they're going to decide. Just accepting the case doesn't automatically predict what the ruling will be.

BTW, there's also I believe a companion issue -- though I'm not sure it's being argued in this case -- of whether a "caretaker" government such as the current one has the authority under the Thai Constitution to declare a State of Emergency. Some have raised that as an issue. I'm not sure how much of a legal issue that is.

Edited January 30, 2014 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[CapeCobra]

"It is short sighted blinkered thinking. The thing after that to think is when the Army fail to control the uprising the Coup would cause, is will all us old elites that have backed this end up in exile or worse."

@pipkins

How did you become a member of the old elites? There is more than one? Please, elaborate. I only know one of them, the Shin clan. The Chinese founder made the family's original wealth with tax farming, a disgusting but legal way to make money. The famous fugitive, after many entrepreneurial failures, increased the clan's wealth by partly legal, partly illegal, always unethical means. Yes, I agree with you. Thais must get rid of such "elites".

Sent from my HTC One max using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 30, 2014 by CapeCobra

[thaisaregrt]

how can this possibly be? the elected government taken to court against a decree? it's farcical I'm expecting Basil Fawlty to walk in at any minute

they are not the elected govt, they resigned remember so they are no longer in the same position to do as they please, they have to obey the rules like everyone else and cant simply make it up as they go like they used to. The courts will soon tell everyone what is and isnt legal and this temporary stand in mob will have to do as they are told.

[Baerboxer]

The court has absolutely now authority to rule over the degree - this is a very dangerous precedent!

How do you know?

You have links to the relevant Thai law?

If you're right, then PTP's legal experts will be aware. No comment from them yet?

[tingtongteesood]

People think corruption is just money changing hands. Skimming projects. The other kind of corruption is worse. The kind where connections and heritage give you advantages. Scratch my back I will scratch yours.

Now it is possible the democrats rewrote the rules after 2010 so the PDRC can get away with whatever they want this time, but I have not seen any such changes so a difference in ruling from 2010 is double standards. That would mean the court is not looking at the law, but have their mind on the WHO of the case they got.

Are you so lacking in discernment that you can see no difference in the levels of violence now as compared to 2010? Can you also not see that the majority of the violence is directed AT the protesters and not FROM them, yet the SoE is aimed solely at restricting/reducing the protests, not curbing the violence.

I must admit though that the SoE is a vehicle to enable greater police powers, and in both 2010 and now, they don't even attempt action. The similarity ends there.

Without attempting to justify violence of any kind, in 2010 there wasn't the same reticence on the part of the forces of order to enforce rulings or disperse gatherings, and you have to see the subsequent disorder and violence in that context. The military crackdowns in wglhich dozens of protesters died preceded the arson attacks, for example.

Today, protesters are being allowed to do pretty much as they please with absolutely no hint of military intervention. So of course it has been relatively peaceful so far, because law - enforcement has been nonexistent.

Please stop trying to justify mass arson by the 2010 rioters, there is no justification for it. And the mob in 2010 had killed 20 soldiers before the 'crackdown' started not to mention the injuries and deaths of others due to their efforts, the army did nothing then too for some time but after the reds beat up many soldiers and stole their arms and vehicles, plenty of video clips of unarmed soldiers being assaulted and dragged out of their vehicles by reds, some balance needed to be restored. The 'crackdown' then was fully justified given the mayhem, deaths and injuries the rioters had caused up until that point.. At the moment the protests ARE peaceful aside from a few isolated incidents as the 'leaders' are not chanting 'Kill the aristocrats' at their followers, although I have to admit the rhetoric is starting to get worse on both sides right now. And there has been much violence directed towards the protestors, let's call a spade a spade and say it is by the government or people working for them.

[tingtongteesood]

how can this possibly be? the elected government taken to court against a decree? it's farcical I'm expecting Basil Fawlty to walk in at any minute

What's so wrong with that. Elected governments have to follow laws and rules everywhere in the world. It's the same in Western countries. Governments aren't allowed to overstep the mark. What would you rather, some kind of dictatorship?

oh you mean like the one Suthep proposes? no I would not

but you seem to like the idea of constant court appearances (completely unbiased of course) and the idea that a government cannot issue an emergency decree

this country is being dragged to the abyss of procrastination where no government will ever get anything done as everything will be challenged in court - it's an absurdity which ever shade your shirt is

Wrong as usual. Taksin is trying for dictatorship, the protests stopped him. Amnesty and changes to the laws PT were trying for would pathe the way to dictatorship. Thank god they stopped it.

[tingtongteesood]

Are you so lacking in discernment that you can see no difference in the levels of violence now as compared to 2010? Can you also not see that the majority of the violence is directed AT the protesters and not FROM them, yet the SoE is aimed solely at restricting/reducing the protests, not curbing the violence.

I must admit though that the SoE is a vehicle to enable greater police powers, and in both 2010 and now, they don't even attempt action. The similarity ends there.

Without attempting to justify violence of any kind, in 2010 there wasn't the same reticence on the part of the forces of order to enforce rulings or disperse gatherings, and you have to see the subsequent disorder and violence in that context. The military crackdowns in wglhich dozens of protesters died preceded the arson attacks, for example.

Today, protesters are being allowed to do pretty much as they please with absolutely no hint of military intervention. So of course it has been relatively peaceful so far, because law - enforcement has been nonexistent.

So you don't remember the violence that occurred before the military crackdown? The military would not have been needed had the police performed their duty.

There was a couple of dozen protesters killed before as well yes, as well as the guy whose name escapes me taken out by a sniper while he was talking. Hundreds injured, mostly protesters.

But the general stance of the authorities was considerably more 'robust' throughout, compared to today. No strategic points were occupied. No blockade of Bangkok. Think back even further to PAD's airport occupation, and how much that cost the country. There is a clear pattern, a different approach in handling crises, dictated by the Army.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No strategic points were occupied. ? - Ratchaprasong and Pathumwan were most certainly very occupied and they closed the entire area for 2 months at a cost to the country estimated at 100 million baht per day. Meanwhile in 2014 you can go shopping there if you want and if there are only 10 protestors as the pro red sheeple keep trying to make us believe then the protests shouldn't affect your enjoyment much. And although in 2010 they didn't 'blockade' anywhere else for any length of time, there were roving groups of violent rioters burning tires and carrying very visible guns and knives including stolen army weapons all over central areas and you never had any idea where they would turn up, not to mention the M whatever grenade launches multiple times on many nights against anyone the reds decided they didn't like. They even came out to Nontaburi burning tires too.

As for what happened in 2006, that was also very wrong, the airport shutdown was a very dumb thing to do, almost as dumb as burning down Centralworld....

[JRSoul]

Well it is certainly correct, that the courts can look into acts and laws coming from the executive or the legislative part. That is normally called a basics of democracy: that everybody can be scrutinized. Btw the courts as well.

If the executive can not be criticized or challenged, that is then called dictatorship. Didn't they teach that in school?

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

I was not aware of this fact (univ.degree)....thanks for that SamM.....that explains a lot!

That requirement has been removed. Can't remember which constitution, but if SM is correct, it would have to be in the "evil" 2007 version.

DJ, you have to learn that a lot of red shirt "history" is at best half true, most of it is pure tripe to delude the ignorant and uneducated.

[Crushdepth]

Well it is certainly correct, that the courts can look into acts and laws coming from the executive or the legislative part. That is normally called a basics of democracy: that everybody can be scrutinized. Btw the courts as well.

If the executive can not be criticized or challenged, that is then called dictatorship. Didn't they teach that in school?

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

I was not aware of this fact (univ.degree)....thanks for that SamM.....that explains a lot!

That requirement has been removed. Can't remember which constitution, but if SM is correct, it would have to be in the "evil" 2007 version.

DJ, you have to learn that a lot of red shirt "history" is at best half true, most of it is pure tripe to delude the ignorant and uneducated.

For an MP you just have to have attended an "educational institution" in the province you are standing for. You need a uni degree to be a senator though.

[smedly]

what you have in the red shirt movement can be broken down as follows - my opinion

Leaders who's job is to coordinate and feed the propaganda machine for those gullible enough to believe - they are on the direct payroll of Thaksin and are extremely well off

Senior members - they are a mafia like machine that has taken over scams and run a money machine for themselves - a fine example would be the airport parking and various operations in resorts like Pattaya and Phuket - they are all linked into the red shirt movement and backed by PTP/Thakisn as a thank you for loyal service

The rest like the rice farmers scam and minimum wage are for people deluded duped into thinking that PTP is helping them with huge unaffordable schemes to buy votes - which have now proven to be unsustainable and a financial disaster for all the Thai people requiring massive loans to support them

Then you have the product of all this - PTP headed by a convicted billionaire criminal running Thailand from a foreign country with his ill gotten gains who refuses to step down because he has never stepped up and runs the country by proxy and corruption

You want to know who the corrupt elite are in Thailand - just keep reading the above until it sinks in

This country needs massive reform - how that can happen I really do not know but one thing I do know is that Thaksin and PTP will never do it because they are raping the Thai people blind - it's time for change, I don't care who does it but the Thai people deserve better

[SamMunich]

...

And as we are talking about basic rights: Why is it in Thailand not permitted to stand for parliament elections, if you don't have an university degree? That is afaik written into the 1997 constitution and excludes not only 99.9% of all red shirts, it excludes also at least 90% of all Thais. And opened the "pay-for degree" business for wealthy Thais...

I was not aware of this fact (univ.degree)....thanks for that SamM.....that explains a lot!

That requirement has been removed. Can't remember which constitution, but if SM is correct, it would have to be in the "evil" 2007 version.

For an MP you just have to have attended an "educational institution" in the province you are standing for. You need a uni degree to be a senator though.

The stipulation is a lot older than 2007. I recall Chalerm having a problem with his "degree" from Ramkhamhaeng, and he is an MP since about 1995 (give or take a year or two).

Can anybody point to the juristic text, that describes this situation clearly? As far as I know that has never been changed,- for obvious reasons...

[wedders]

People think corruption is just money changing hands. Skimming projects. The other kind of corruption is worse. The kind where connections and heritage give you advantages. Scratch my back I will scratch yours.

Now it is possible the democrats rewrote the rules after 2010 so the PDRC can get away with whatever they want this time, but I have not seen any such changes so a difference in ruling from 2010 is double standards. That would mean the court is not looking at the law, but have their mind on the WHO of the case they got.

Are you so lacking in discernment that you can see no difference in the levels of violence now as compared to 2010? Can you also not see that the majority of the violence is directed AT the protesters and not FROM them, yet the SoE is aimed solely at restricting/reducing the protests, not curbing the violence.

I must admit though that the SoE is a vehicle to enable greater police powers, and in both 2010 and now, they don't even attempt action. The similarity ends there.

Without attempting to justify violence of any kind, in 2010 there wasn't the same reticence on the part of the forces of order to enforce rulings or disperse gatherings, and you have to see the subsequent disorder and violence in that context. The military crackdowns in wglhich dozens of protesters died preceded the arson attacks, for example.

Today, protesters are being allowed to do pretty much as they please with absolutely no hint of military intervention. So of course it has been relatively peaceful so far, because law - enforcement has been nonexistent.

Please stop trying to justify mass arson by the 2010 rioters, there is no justification for it. And the mob in 2010 had killed 20 soldiers before the 'crackdown' started not to mention the injuries and deaths of others due to their efforts, the army did nothing then too for some time but after the reds beat up many soldiers and stole their arms and vehicles, plenty of video clips of unarmed soldiers being assaulted and dragged out of their vehicles by reds, some balance needed to be restored. The 'crackdown' then was fully justified given the mayhem, deaths and injuries the rioters had caused up until that point.. At the moment the protests ARE peaceful aside from a few isolated incidents as the 'leaders' are not chanting 'Kill the aristocrats' at their followers, although I have to admit the rhetoric is starting to get worse on both sides right now. And there has been much violence directed towards the protestors, let's call a spade a spade and say it is by the government or people working for them.

Sorry but your "20 soldiers killed prior to crackdown" is news to me.

The first deaths occurred on the 10th of April, when the army tried to crack down on the Phan Fah,Bridge site. There were 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injured.

On the 22nd of April, grenade attacks that the UDD thought came from Chulalongkorn Hospital killed one and injured 86 protesters.

On the 28th of April in north Bangkok the army and protesters fought, wounding 16 protesters and killing one soldier.

On May 13th 'Seh Daeng', one of the protest leaders, was killed by a sniper's bullet from outside the Ratchaprasong encampment. Following this in the first crackdown called "Savage May" (พฤษภาอำมหิต) 40 protesters and one Italian journalist died, and more than 250 were injured, including soldiers. One soldier died from friendly fire.

The area was then declared to be a 'live fire zone' by the army. 19th of May saw armoured vehicles force their way into Ratchaprasong killing at least five, including another journalist Soldiers fired on medical staff who went to the aid of victims.

Then - after the UDD had surrendered - the protesters dispersed, and the arson occurred.

A different version of events, then, to your 20 soldiers killed before it kicked off.

So no - I was not trying to justify violence on either side. Just to put it into an accurate context and timescale.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[wedders]

Are you so lacking in discernment that you can see no difference in the levels of violence now as compared to 2010? Can you also not see that the majority of the violence is directed AT the protesters and not FROM them, yet the SoE is aimed solely at restricting/reducing the protests, not curbing the violence.

I must admit though that the SoE is a vehicle to enable greater police powers, and in both 2010 and now, they don't even attempt action. The similarity ends there.

Without attempting to justify violence of any kind, in 2010 there wasn't the same reticence on the part of the forces of order to enforce rulings or disperse gatherings, and you have to see the subsequent disorder and violence in that context. The military crackdowns in wglhich dozens of protesters died preceded the arson attacks, for example.

Today, protesters are being allowed to do pretty much as they please with absolutely no hint of military intervention. So of course it has been relatively peaceful so far, because law - enforcement has been nonexistent.

So you don't remember the violence that occurred before the military crackdown? The military would not have been needed had the police performed their duty.

There was a couple of dozen protesters killed before as well yes, as well as the guy whose name escapes me taken out by a sniper while he was talking. Hundreds injured, mostly protesters.

But the general stance of the authorities was considerably more 'robust' throughout, compared to today. No strategic points were occupied. No blockade of Bangkok. Think back even further to PAD's airport occupation, and how much that cost the country. There is a clear pattern, a different approach in handling crises, dictated by the Army.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No strategic points were occupied. ? - Ratchaprasong and Pathumwan were most certainly very occupied and they closed the entire area for 2 months at a cost to the country estimated at 100 million baht per day. Meanwhile in 2014 you can go shopping there if you want and if there are only 10 protestors as the pro red sheeple keep trying to make us believe then the protests shouldn't affect your enjoyment much. And although in 2010 they didn't 'blockade' anywhere else for any length of time, there were roving groups of violent rioters burning tires and carrying very visible guns and knives including stolen army weapons all over central areas and you never had any idea where they would turn up, not to mention the M whatever grenade launches multiple times on many nights against anyone the reds decided they didn't like. They even came out to Nontaburi burning tires too.

As for what happened in 2006, that was also very wrong, the airport shutdown was a very dumb thing to do, almost as dumb as burning down Centralworld....

By "strategic" I was referring to the likes of airports, government buildings, or blatant attempts to close down Bangkok. Not the tent city occupation of an intersection which had the knock-on effect of forcing the closure of 5* hotels and shopping malls.

As for violent rioters, hyperbole aside, see my reply before this one for more details on the numbers of deaths and injuries, and the time line.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app