"You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal."

rubl, please proof-read before you post.

"Anyway, Abhisit / Suthep may face impeachment over 2010 crackdown, but that seems much less interesting than other issues."

I assume that is why you're bringing up history about past threatened lawsuits.

Proof read? The essence was covered. No need for a three page dissertation on the logical dissection of your sentences.

As for past threatened lawsuits. Well, as you may remember that was just two weeks ago and had to do with this topic. It had relatives vowing to file charges on the NACC for failure to show results. This topic here is about movements, possible results. BTW the lawsuit didn't seem to get substance, only attraction, political as some might say. I was wondering at the time which court would be selected and you didn't think that interesting either.

So, former leaders may face impeachment, even if you don't like I mention this.

Yes, proof-read. "You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal." makes no sense at all.

Re-read the OP and explain how your speculation about past threats of lawsuits applies to the NACC exploring the possibility of impeaching Abhisit and Suthep.

The way you go on, it's clear you think it's a big deal. That was what you thought and from which you extrapolated and managed to get to a situation you would fear.

As for this topic and the previous one, well

Here:

:The National Anti-Corruption Commission said former prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban should face "abuse of power" charges for overseeing the crackdown which also left hundreds injured.:

Previous on Friday 13th this February:

"Nattapat Akhart, whose sister Kamolkate Akhart was shot dead by soldiers during the military operation, has accused the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of deliberately dragging its feet in prosecuting the Democrat Party politicians who authorized the crackdown."

At that time you were interested to discuss anything but the charging of the NACC and speculation on at which court. Now we have the NACC talking about impeachment and you're still not interested in the proceedings it would seem.

"The way you go on, it's clear you think it's a big deal. That was what you thought and from which you extrapolated and managed to get to a situation you would fear."

Now that you have your statement safely removed from context, your clarification still makes no sense.

I remember the earlier topic, you went widely off-topic--speculating on the reasons why negotiations between Abhisit and protest leaders failed and questioning the results of investigations that concluded the army was responsible for the temple shootings. When your off-topic diversions were challenged by others you then insisted that all posts must be narrowly focused on topic.

That's standard practice for you; in order to shield the junta from criticism you will employ off-topic diversions and you will insist all posts should be narrowly focused on-topic.

Edited February 28, 201511 yr by heybruce

Proof read? The essence was covered. No need for a three page dissertation on the logical dissection of your sentences.

As for past threatened lawsuits. Well, as you may remember that was just two weeks ago and had to do with this topic. It had relatives vowing to file charges on the NACC for failure to show results. This topic here is about movements, possible results. BTW the lawsuit didn't seem to get substance, only attraction, political as some might say. I was wondering at the time which court would be selected and you didn't think that interesting either.

So, former leaders may face impeachment, even if you don't like I mention this.

Yes, proof-read. "You think it looks, especially since and therefore your biggest fear is, and you think that's a big deal." makes no sense at all.

Re-read the OP and explain how your speculation about past threats of lawsuits applies to the NACC exploring the possibility of impeaching Abhisit and Suthep.

The way you go on, it's clear you think it's a big deal. That was what you thought and from which you extrapolated and managed to get to a situation you would fear.

As for this topic and the previous one, well

Here:

:The National Anti-Corruption Commission said former prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban should face "abuse of power" charges for overseeing the crackdown which also left hundreds injured.:

Previous on Friday 13th this February:

"Nattapat Akhart, whose sister Kamolkate Akhart was shot dead by soldiers during the military operation, has accused the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of deliberately dragging its feet in prosecuting the Democrat Party politicians who authorized the crackdown."

At that time you were interested to discuss anything but the charging of the NACC and speculation on at which court. Now we have the NACC talking about impeachment and you're still not interested in the proceedings it would seem.

"The way you go on, it's clear you think it's a big deal. That was what you thought and from which you extrapolated and managed to get to a situation you would fear."

Now that you have your statement safely removed from context, your clarification still makes no sense.

I remember the earlier topic, you went widely off-topic--speculating on the reasons why negotiations between Abhisit and protest leaders failed and questioning the results of investigations that concluded the army was responsible for the temple shootings. When your off-topic diversions were challenged by others you then insisted that all posts must be narrowly focused on topic.

That's standard practice for you; in order to shield the junta from criticism you will employ off-topic diversions and you will insist all posts should be narrowly focused on-topic.

and in the mean time I may have missed your comments on the topic here, somehow.

So, Abhisit/Suthep may be put through an impeachment procedure. The issue at hand almost five years ago, but till November 2013 they were still in a political function as MPs. That's less than 16 months ago. Strange I have seen no one suggest that the announcement of possibly starting the impeachment procedure against Abhisit / Suthep is obviously only an attempt to strengthen the arguments that the NLA has the legal power to impeach.

Edited February 28, 201511 yr by rubl