We're still a target, claim anti-coup students

[ksamuiguy]

For the rest of their lives!

[Linky]

Is it selective memory that stops you and others recognising that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government had resigned? And had been out of office for some time, with minimal input into the running of the country. Not only for this last coup but also for the preceding.

Let me ask you the same thing about "selective memory". Have you "selectively forgotten" that the Thai constitution clearly stated that coups are ILLEGAL and cause for SEDATION? Or is it ok if there is a "non functioning" government at the time? I don't think that particular clause was in the constitution.

Coups are illegal under every constitution, but until Thailand manages to form a non-corrupt government I guess they will keep happening. I freely admit they are illegal under whichever constitution, that's why they require an amnesty.

But that is all irrelevant to why you keep referring to a resigned government as "LEGALLY ELECTED". Should we ignore that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government was forced to resign by public protest over their incompetence and/or corruption? Did Thaksin step down 14 months after a huge win just to prove how popular he was, or wasn't? Did Yingluk step down because she wanted an early election, or because the rice scam was collapsing and people were outraged over her corrupt amnesty/

Isnt that what elections are for? For Thais to consider what they want and vote accordingly?

What if Thais dont like the current govt, what is their option?

If Thais are so outraged they had every opportunity to let that outrage be known at the ballot box, until that was taken away from them. Now they have no say at all about who and how their country should be run.

[robblok]

You reap what you sow.. they wanted to antagonize the government.. they got it.

But wow.. big deal being followed.. they put themselves in the spotlight and now cry like babies. Typical.

Were those killed in the violence before the coup reaping what they sowed.

They wanted violence and got it, and now you cry about it. Typical.

Peaceful protestors who did not deserve to get attacked by red terrorist like for instance in Trat were among the dead were 2 kids. Grenades thrown.. shots fired on a peaceful anti government protest.

So no that is not the same, you cant compare peaceful protests attracting red terrorist with students trying to antagonize the government and getting in the news and then crying when they succeed. The whole idea of the students was to get attention to get in the spotlight. Then when they got the attention they cried.

Says a lot about you when you compare people getting killed with people getting followed after trying to get attention.

[halloween]

Is it selective memory that stops you and others recognising that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government had resigned? And had been out of office for some time, with minimal input into the running of the country. Not only for this last coup but also for the preceding.

Let me ask you the same thing about "selective memory". Have you "selectively forgotten" that the Thai constitution clearly stated that coups are ILLEGAL and cause for SEDATION? Or is it ok if there is a "non functioning" government at the time? I don't think that particular clause was in the constitution.

Coups are illegal under every constitution, but until Thailand manages to form a non-corrupt government I guess they will keep happening. I freely admit they are illegal under whichever constitution, that's why they require an amnesty.

But that is all irrelevant to why you keep referring to a resigned government as "LEGALLY ELECTED". Should we ignore that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government was forced to resign by public protest over their incompetence and/or corruption? Did Thaksin step down 14 months after a huge win just to prove how popular he was, or wasn't? Did Yingluk step down because she wanted an early election, or because the rice scam was collapsing and people were outraged over her corrupt amnesty/

Isnt that what elections are for? For Thais to consider what they want and vote accordingly?

What if Thais dont like the current govt, what is their option?

If Thais are so outraged they had every opportunity to let that outrage be known at the ballot box, until that was taken away from them. Now they have no say at all about who and how their country should be run.

I was discussing the misuse of the term "legally elected". Apparently you don't like that subject and have gone for Option B, change the subject.

[tbthailand]

Gee, I'm wondering the same thing about you in regards to arrogance and ignorance.

Let's see, they had an ILLEGAL coup (according to the Thai constitution), overthrowing a LEGALLY elected government. Whether it was a good or bad government doesn't really matter, as they were LEGALLY ELECTED.

Then the General hand picked all the new members of Parliament, who then "voted" him in as PM. No "normal Thai" were allowed to say crap about it. So just how "legal" is that?

As for him being "confirmed" by the "highest Thai", if you bothered to check, that "highest Thai" has confirmed EVERY coupe that's been held. Still doesn't make them either legal or right.

And as far as my "opinion", for someone who has been coming here regularly for the past 40+ years, living here permanently for the past 7, with a Thai wife and loving adopted Thai son, and who puts over 100k baht a month into the Thai economy, I am fully entitled to my opinion. Just as you are yours. If they don't agree with one another, that's life.

Is it selective memory that stops you and others recognising that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government had resigned? And had been out of office for some time, with minimal input into the running of the country. Not only for this last coup but also for the preceding.

because the government was following the prescribed process under the constitution.

That is one of the reasons constitutions exist... to define the political path to a new government; both under "normal" circumstances as well as in times of crisis.

so what was your point anyway?

[tbthailand]

Is it selective memory that stops you and others recognising that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government had resigned? And had been out of office for some time, with minimal input into the running of the country. Not only for this last coup but also for the preceding.

Let me ask you the same thing about "selective memory". Have you "selectively forgotten" that the Thai constitution clearly stated that coups are ILLEGAL and cause for SEDATION? Or is it ok if there is a "non functioning" government at the time? I don't think that particular clause was in the constitution.

Coups are illegal under every constitution, but until Thailand manages to form a non-corrupt government I guess they will keep happening. I freely admit they are illegal under whichever constitution, that's why they require an amnesty.

But that is all irrelevant to why you keep referring to a resigned government as "LEGALLY ELECTED". Should we ignore that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government was forced to resign by public protest over their incompetence and/or corruption? Did Thaksin step down 14 months after a huge win just to prove how popular he was, or wasn't? Did Yingluk step down because she wanted an early election, or because the rice scam was collapsing and people were outraged over her corrupt amnesty/

just as a note, I recall the government dissolving the parliament because the Democratic party MPs resigned en masse.

[Fat Haggis]

I thought that Yingluck dissolved parliament, and as per the constitution called for elections within the mandatory time frame laid out ?

They then became a caretaker Government, it was their refusal to resign that eventually forced the coup, after Suthep and his bilionth final final final push, threatened to seize control, with or without the army, and putting his own people in place.

The caretaker government didn't resign, neither did Yinglucks original Government, they were most certainly not forced to resign for corruption and incompetence by the people, she was also most definitely NOT FORCED to resign over the rice scam either.

She was tossed out of office based on an abuse of power, by appointing a family member to a position, you know, the same sort of abuse that is going on within this current proxy Government, but hey ho, it's only an abuse of power, if you're from the wrong side of the clique.

The red herring also being thrown about reference amnesty bills too, it was never passed, sure they tried it, very sneaky at what they did, by trying to pass it at mental o'clock, but it was rejected anyway by the upper house was it not?

The PTP are being hauled over the coals for attempting to "change" or amend the constitution, but the Junta ripped the whole thing up, which many would consider a far great travesty.

As much as she's a buffoon, she followed the constitution by calling for elections, the EC said it was a bad idea, they too should all be binned, as they failed in their own roles and responsibility by NOT being ready to hold an election, which If I'm not mistaken was granted by Royal Decree ?

Which makes me wonder, all those who blockaded and disrupted the polls, if it was granted by Royal Decree, why were they not charged under article 112? As they were deliberately going against a Royal Decree ?

I'm also pretty sure that the Police at the time of the protests around Jan/Feb/March 2014 also wanted the Army to intervene by means of an emergency decree and to assist, but they refused,

[halloween]

Coups are illegal under every constitution, but until Thailand manages to form a non-corrupt government I guess they will keep happening. I freely admit they are illegal under whichever constitution, that's why they require an amnesty.

But that is all irrelevant to why you keep referring to a resigned government as "LEGALLY ELECTED". Should we ignore that the "LEGALLY ELECTED" government was forced to resign by public protest over their incompetence and/or corruption? Did Thaksin step down 14 months after a huge win just to prove how popular he was, or wasn't? Did Yingluk step down because she wanted an early election, or because the rice scam was collapsing and people were outraged over her corrupt amnesty/

just as a note, I recall the government dissolving the parliament because the Democratic party MPs resigned en masse.

When parliament is dissolved, so is the government, whether it is be resignation by Thaksin, or loss of quorum. i maintain that referring to a caretaker government as "legally elected" without reference to its status is intentionally misleading, and deliberately so, for reaction from their less well-informed supporters.