Ousted Thai ministers meet first time after military takeover

[fab4]

Maybe Johnny was driving and crashed the car. Maybe Johnny was walking and got hit by a car. Maybe Johnny was a passenger and got hurt in an accident.

?

I realise multiple possibilities must be challenging for a person only able to deal with one thing at a time - bring back Thaksin - Burn Bangkok - Red is Good and it must come as a surprise, nay a revelation, that there can be multiple possibilities to any given situation.

However, like your posts, none of the above possibilities make sense when the basic premise is a play on words about Johnny Walker and the message don't drink and drive. But don't let me get in the way of a good old rant about Thaksin and burning bangkok.

[djjamie]

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

But....but...Suthep....

When will those reds stop their whining ?

Yet you don't find anything wrong with seemingly every thread some dingbat will be asking "Where's Chalerm"

Just one more thing - what is it you people don't understand about using members of the "opposition" as examples in a reply. Are they exempt for some reason. The above is a perfect example. A post that comes up with a fatuous and unpleasant comment such as "Damn it! Chalerm is still walking" deserves a ripost. One would immediately think of a figure that is relevant to the situation, in this case a political figure of opposite persuasion. He was hardly likely to write "So is Robben. so what". Apart from the ridiculousness of using Robben as an example of a person who is still walking when he obviously has so much trouble staying on his feet, that is

And that post typifies why you are the Rubics' Cube of TVF!

The only forum member whose posts need to be "solved" as opposed to read.

[scorecard]

fab4, on 04 Jul 2014 - 16:53, said:

tingtongteesood, on 04 Jul 2014 - 16:37, said:

diehard60, on 04 Jul 2014 - 15:08, said:

UbonRatch, on 04 Jul 2014 - 13:59, said:

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

But....but...Suthep....

When will those reds stop their whining ?

Yet you don't find anything wrong with seemingly every thread some dingbat will be asking "Where's Chalerm"

Just one more thing - what is it you people don't understand about using members of the "opposition" as examples in a reply. Are they exempt for some reason. The above is a perfect example. A post that comes up with a fatuous and unpleasant comment such as "Damn it! Chalerm is still walking" deserves a ripost. One would immediately think of a figure that is relevant to the situation, in this case a political figure of opposite persuasion. He was hardly likely to write "So is Robben. so what". Apart from the ridiculousness of using Robben as an example of a person who is still walking when he obviously has so much trouble staying on his feet, that is

?

[tingtongteesood]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

[Morch]

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

But....but...Suthep....

When will those reds stop their whining ?

Yet you don't find anything wrong with seemingly every thread some dingbat will be asking "Where's Chalerm"

Just one more thing - what is it you people don't understand about using members of the "opposition" as examples in a reply. Are they exempt for some reason. The above is a perfect example. A post that comes up with a fatuous and unpleasant comment such as "Damn it! Chalerm is still walking" deserves a ripost. One would immediately think of a figure that is relevant to the situation, in this case a political figure of opposite persuasion. He was hardly likely to write "So is Robben. so what". Apart from the ridiculousness of using Robben as an example of a person who is still walking when he obviously has so much trouble staying on his feet, that is

Don't be quick to discount the possibility posters actually miss Chalerm.

For all his faults, there's almost none in Thai politics that incorporates comedy value, an appreciation of the finer things

in life and that touch of belligerence ready to surface at any given time.

Not speaking against the coup as such, but what have they brought us so far on this front? So, yes, Prayuth got a snappy

comeback now and then, and he penned The Song. But look as if his former penchant for losing his temper is sadly gone.

The rest are even worse - dull, sense making lot who speak too politely and to the point. Not much to choose from, even

compared to lower tier performers such as Suthep, Plodprasob, Surapong, Yingluck and Jatuporn.

Boring!

[bigbamboo]

Strange how both Prbkk and fab4 appear at the same time, multiple name posters perhaps?

or multiple personalities

Come on guys, give them a break.

There aren't many of them left and at least they're still in there kicking and screaming when most of their fellow red fighters have long since taken a powder.

[Cthulhu]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

Ok wise one. Please tell me which of the facts I offered to you are incorrect. I was here at the time and read the Bangkok Post everyday as events unfolded. Please tell me why winning 2 elections was an illegal seizure of power.

Ok I know about corruption and vote buying (but Thais tell me they take the money and then vote for who they prefer anyway) but all the parties do it.

Please also tell me where you would like me to do my reading in order "to learn something". Is the Bangkok Post not up to your exacting standards? Khao Sod maybe?

Also I congratulate you on your choice of name online; it's very appropriate.

[Emster23]

"Ms Yingluck declined to answer political questions posed by journalists at the temple." This ought to refute some folks belief that she is dumber than a bag of hair.

Those who complain about whiners would probably do same if Adolf clone installed a puppet government to replace elected in your home country.

[rametindallas]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

There you go again Bb, you big party-pooper. Ruining an otherwise perfectly good story with the truth.

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Technically, correct. She appointed a person to office. She then replaced him with her brother's ex wife's brother.. Nepotism..or a bullshit excuse to remove the PM?

Is my Brother's Ex Wife's brother my family? I don't even know their names!! Honestly.

Did you just fall off the cabbage truck? No, that can't be it because your profile says you joined this forum in 2005. Why the willful ignorance of who was pulling the strings of Yingluck's puppet government?

BTW, anyone who has to say 'honestly' after a statement is likely not being honest.

[rametindallas]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

Revisionist, much?

Thaksin dissolved Parliament (his winning elections meant nothing at that point). He held crooked elections, where he had proxy parties run in districts that the Democrats boycotted and got caught and, those elections were annulled by the court. When his time as caretaker PM ran out, he stepped down and a deputy PM became caretaker PM. A few weeks later, Thaksin waltzed back into Government House and, without any legal authority, declared himself PM again. There was no authority but the military to stop his abuse of power. If you continue with your lies propaganda, I will post citations so everyone on the forum can see that you are a propagandist. Popularity is not and excuse to abrogate the constituton.

[Chris Lawrence]

An opposition is needed to get Thailand going again; they need debate.

[Chris Lawrence]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

Revisionist, much?

Thaksin dissolved Parliament (his winning elections meant nothing at that point). He held crooked elections, where he had proxy parties run in districts that the Democrats boycotted and got caught and, those elections were annulled by the court. When his time as caretaker PM ran out, he stepped down and a deputy PM became caretaker PM. A few weeks later, Thaksin waltzed back into Government House and, without any legal authority, declared himself PM again. There was no authority but the military to stop his abuse of power. If you continue with your lies propaganda, I will post citations so everyone on the forum can see that you are a propagandist. Popularity is not and excuse to abrogate the constituton.

Rame, so what is different to the events that have happened over the past few months? I am not mocking you, but there are parallels between both parties and action of the armed services.

The sooner debate happens the better for the country.

[JAG]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

Revisionist, much?

Thaksin dissolved Parliament (his winning elections meant nothing at that point). He held crooked elections, where he had proxy parties run in districts that the Democrats boycotted and got caught and, those elections were annulled by the court. When his time as caretaker PM ran out, he stepped down and a deputy PM became caretaker PM. A few weeks later, Thaksin waltzed back into Government House and, without any legal authority, declared himself PM again. There was no authority but the military to stop his abuse of power. If you continue with your lies propaganda, I will post citations so everyone on the forum can see that you are a propagandist. Popularity is not and excuse to abrogate the constituton.

Talking of abrogating the constitution, what do you think is happening now? Or will you threaten me with citations for "lies and propaganda"?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kimamey]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

There you go again Bb, you big party-pooper. Ruining an otherwise perfectly good story with the truth.

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

[Skywalker69]

Strange how both Prbkk and fab4 appear at the same time, multiple name posters perhaps?

Clones?

[rametindallas]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

Revisionist, much?

Thaksin dissolved Parliament (his winning elections meant nothing at that point). He held crooked elections, where he had proxy parties run in districts that the Democrats boycotted and got caught and, those elections were annulled by the court. When his time as caretaker PM ran out, he stepped down and a deputy PM became caretaker PM. A few weeks later, Thaksin waltzed back into Government House and, without any legal authority, declared himself PM again. There was no authority but the military to stop his abuse of power. If you continue with your lies propaganda, I will post citations so everyone on the forum can see that you are a propagandist. Popularity is not and excuse to abrogate the constituton.

Rame, so what is different to the events that have happened over the past few months? I am not mocking you, but there are parallels between both parties and action of the armed services.

The sooner debate happens the better for the country.

The biggest difference is that the military taking out Thaksin in 2006 had more legitimacy as Thaksin was blatantly, illegally, occupying the position of PM. Let's be grown-ups here. These military coups are not authorized by the constitution and by definition are always illegal BUT, since this is Thailand, and Thailand has had very little experience with true democracy in it's 82 years since the end of absolute monarchy, this has come to be the way out of corners that politicians paint themselves into/get painted into. Would I prefer these things were handled without intervention by the military? YES. Do the ends justify the means? Let's wait to see what the ends are. If the coup leads to a situation where politicians are more beholden to the people instead of their own special interests, etc. MAYBE.

Bottom line: Thaksin violated some truly basic rules of political behavior and suffered the consequences. He didn't seem to get the message in 2006 so he is being chastised again. There was an implicit agreement made that Thaksin would not be pursued and his political parties could have free rein to govern/steal as they like but Thaksin, himself, could not come back free and clear. When his PTP government passed the blanket Amnesty Bill, he violated that peace treaty. I cannot prove any of this but this is the story that has been going around some circles for quite some time and it hasn't changed.

[tingtongteesood]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

Ok wise one. Please tell me which of the facts I offered to you are incorrect. I was here at the time and read the Bangkok Post everyday as events unfolded. Please tell me why winning 2 elections was an illegal seizure of power.

Ok I know about corruption and vote buying (but Thais tell me they take the money and then vote for who they prefer anyway) but all the parties do it.

Please also tell me where you would like me to do my reading in order "to learn something". Is the Bangkok Post not up to your exacting standards? Khao Sod maybe?

Also I congratulate you on your choice of name online; it's very appropriate.

See post 43. I have better things to do than try and school ignorant people..,..

[rametindallas]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

Revisionist, much?

Thaksin dissolved Parliament (his winning elections meant nothing at that point). He held crooked elections, where he had proxy parties run in districts that the Democrats boycotted and got caught and, those elections were annulled by the court. When his time as caretaker PM ran out, he stepped down and a deputy PM became caretaker PM. A few weeks later, Thaksin waltzed back into Government House and, without any legal authority, declared himself PM again. There was no authority but the military to stop his abuse of power. If you continue with your lies propaganda, I will post citations so everyone on the forum can see that you are a propagandist. Popularity is not and excuse to abrogate the constituton.

Talking of abrogating the constitution, what do you think is happening now? Or will you threaten me with citations for "lies and propaganda"?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I was only responding to your revision of 2006 history. I cannot threaten you you with exposure for lies propaganda you haven't posted yet. Stick to the truth when you write about history and say what you want opinion-wise and you'll get no argument from me.

[northernjohn]

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

One is a criminal hiding behind his boss in Dubai and the other kept the hope for freedom alive long enough for the army to deliver it.

any more dumb questions?

[northernjohn]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

Ok wise one. Please tell me which of the facts I offered to you are incorrect. I was here at the time and read the Bangkok Post everyday as events unfolded. Please tell me why winning 2 elections was an illegal seizure of power.

Ok I know about corruption and vote buying (but Thais tell me they take the money and then vote for who they prefer anyway) but all the parties do it.

Please also tell me where you would like me to do my reading in order "to learn something". Is the Bangkok Post not up to your exacting standards? Khao Sod maybe?

Also I congratulate you on your choice of name online; it's very appropriate.

To be honest I don't think Yingluck was ousted by the court she was found guilty of nepotism but the court and Senate didn't have time to officially say you are out.

Actually Thaksin was not in power when he was ousted he had resigned and illegally occupied the office. Don't really remember all the details as I was just considering when to come back for a second look at Thailand at the time. I remember seeing a picture in are daily newspaper of an old lady offering a rose to a tank in the street that had a crew member leaning out of it. Decided it was a good time to come back and see more of this beautiful country.

Now what has all this got to do with Yingluck getting thrown out on her ear? Either by the court o0r the army. the important thing is she was thrown out of office before she could do or let more damage be done to Thailand.

[rubl]

"Several key members and ministers of the Pheu Thai Party met again Thursday night as they attended the US Independence Day Party, held at a Bangkok hotel."

Hope it didn't spoil the party

[fasteddie]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

"you clearly should read more, you might learn something".

Why's that? You clearly never did.

[fasteddie]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

There you go again Bb, you big party-pooper. Ruining an otherwise perfectly good story with the truth.

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

Exactly!

[fasteddie]

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

One is a criminal hiding behind his boss in Dubai and the other kept the hope for freedom alive long enough for the army to deliver it.

any more dumb questions?

"and the other kept the hope for freedom alive long enough for the army to deliver it."

The army has delivered freedom? what parallel universe are you from?

[oldsailor35]

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

Chalk and cheese, or chalky and cheesy... Chalerm being the latter...

Chalerm.....a drunken fool.

Suthep.......Thailands master corruptionist and enroacher.

[daboyz1]

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Not so small details that many (intentionally?) overlook.

[NeilSA1]

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

We all know that the Thai reported news is not always clear. You had to read the sub heading twice. You are aware of recent events, hence you can make sense of the reporting, but any person who is not up to date with recent events in Thailand will surely read it as it is written, and will clearly think that, - the members together with YL were ousted in the military takeover-. That is the correct interpretation of the first sentence to any English speaking person

.

[mikemac]

Strange how both Prbkk and fab4 appear at the same time, multiple name posters perhaps?

or multiple personalities

Come on guys, give them a break.

There aren't many of them left and at least they're still in there kicking and screaming when most of their fellow red fighters have long since taken a powder.

..................." Come on guys, give them a break."........................

Yes, all one of them !

[fasteddie]

We all know that the Thai reported news is not always clear. You had to read the sub heading twice. You are aware of recent events, hence you can make sense of the reporting, but any person who is not up to date with recent events in Thailand will surely read it as it is written, and will clearly think that, - the members together with YL were ousted in the military takeover-. That is the correct interpretation of the first sentence to any English speaking person

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

.

No, just simply a missing comma.

[Cake Monster]

The conversation around the som-tam mat probably went along these lines.

Good to see you again

Yes, I am a free person

Have you gotten away with all your scams while you were in office

Yes - so far - I am not under investigation yet

Good - maybe we will have another jolly soon when the junta holds an election

That would be good

Both Ha Ha Ha