News
Special Report – Option B: The Blueprint for Thailand’s Military Coup

Anti coup protesters show a banner opposing Thai army chief General Prayut Chan-O-Cha during a gathering in Bangkok
CHIANG MAI (Reuters) – On Dec. 27 last year, Thailand’s powerful army chief stood before a crowded news conference and stunned the beleaguered government of Yingluck Shinawatra by saying he would not rule out military intervention to resolve a deteriorating political crisis. General Prayuth Chan-ocha said “the door was neither open nor closed” when he was asked whether a coup would happen. “Anything can happen.”

A woman tries to help as an anti-coup protester is detained by a Thai police officer during a street protest in Bangkok,
It was a marked shift from the strong coup denials the armed forces had routinely made up until then. Prayuth was not just speaking off the cuff in front of reporters. A document drawn up by the army’s chief of staff and dated Dec. 27 – the same day the general faced the media – runs through various scenarios of how the crisis could unfold and how the military should respond.
One of the scenarios details what the army should do “if at any time the situation is beyond the control of police”. If that happened, the document says, the army would impose a state of emergency or impose martial law. The document also provides guidance on how to take power “while acting in a neutral manner”, and how to help mediate between the warring camps.
As events unfolded over the next five months, the army found itself dealing with most of the scenarios mentioned in the document: failed attempts at mediation, rising political violence culminating in martial law.
There have now been 12 successful coups over the past eight decades of Thailand’s modern monarchy. But the latest, on May 22 following a last ditch effort by the military to mediate, did not follow the usual script, which runs: lock down Bangkok while the rest of the country watches with bemusement from the countryside, untouched by events.
This time, the army moved swiftly across the country rounding up politicians, activists and academics, most of them “red shirt” supporters of the ousted government, according to multiple interviews with activists, the military and families of the detainees.
The meticulous moves to put a military government in place – and the lack of any timeline for a return to democracy soon – have many wondering if the generals have plans and scenarios for running the country for a long period of time.
The junta has denied planning the coup in advance. Lt. Gen. Chatchalerm Chalermsukh, the deputy army chief of staff, told foreign media on Thursday that “planning for a coup is treason which is why we did not plan it”.
“What we did was a risk, because if we don’t carry out our plan properly then we might go to jail or be put to death, Chatchalerm said. “There was no planning in advance.”
The junta has suspended the old constitution, muffled the media and imposed martial law – including prosecuting civilians in military courts.
The generals are promising unspecified reforms aimed at ending the power struggle that has stymied the kingdom for years. It is a contest between a royalist establishment, including the military brass, elite bureaucrats and big business, and a mainly rural-based “red shirt” movement loyal to populist former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
In the months ahead, the military will have to grapple with how democracy will ultimately work in Thailand: through elections that inevitably return a pro-Thaksin government or through an establishment that aims to limit the power of elected – and, in their view, corrupt – politicians.
That question has become ever more acute because King Bhumibol, a revered figure who has reigned for nearly seven decades, is 86 and only recently was released from three years in a Bangkok hospital. Anxiety is growing about his succession.
BLOODIED MONUMENT
The Thai army began putting in motion plans to seize control of the country after men armed with guns and grenades killed three and injured more than 20 in an attack on anti-government protesters at Bangkok’s Democracy Monument. The May 15 attack at the monument – erected after a 1932 coup that overturned an absolute monarchy – conjured up the military’s worst nightmare: civil war in the Kingdom of Thailand, whose ailing king has all but faded from public view. It signalled to Gen. Prayuth that the situation was getting beyond the control of police.
“After that incident, the feeling among prominent members of the military was that the mood of the country had changed and every side was prepared to use violence,” army deputy spokesman Veerachon Sukhontapatipak said. “We soon announced martial law (on May 20) to give everyone a chance to retreat. But after that day, clear steps were put in place, and ‘option B’, which we all wanted to avert, was a coup.”
A “judicial coup” preceded the military one, in the view of the ousted government. And it left the military in a dilemma. On May 7, the Constitutional Court removed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra – Thaksin’s sister – and several cabinet ministers from office for “abuse of power”. Pro-government protesters warned of “civil war” if an unelected leadership was put into office.
But the court unexpectedly decided to leave a rump of the pro-Thaksin government in power as a caretaker administration, and that alarmed the military, according to a source involved in back channel talks between the government and its opponents in the street.
“They (the caretaker government) couldn’t sign any national security laws. They were powerless to deal with civil unrest,” the source said. That’s when the military started thinking about an “option B”, the source said.
The army document seen by Reuters said the military needed a Cabinet directive to take control of the streets and disperse protesters, which the caretaker government was unable to give.
The same court in February annulled an election that would likely have returned Yingluck’s government to power. In another decision, it banned the use of force to disperse anti-government protesters.
Yingluck herself sowed the seeds of the anti-government movement last November, when the lower house of parliament passed an amnesty bill that could have allowed Thaksin to return from self-exile. Though the bill died, it spawned a protest movement under former deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban. He demanded the government be dissolved and replaced by an unelected “people’s council”.
A telecommunications billionaire, Thaksin, 64, revolutionized Thai politics. He won two landslide election victories with his brand of retail politics, populist programmes and crony capitalism. The army ousted Thaksin in a 2006 coup, accusing him of corruption, nepotism, abuse of power and insulting the monarchy. He faces a two-year jail sentence after being convicted in absentia on a conflict of interest charge. From his outposts of exile – London, Dubai and Hong Kong – he has funded and effectively controlled the “red shirt” movement.
RELUCTANT COUP-MAKER?
Allies of Gen. Prayuth insist he was a reluctant coup-maker, given the army’s experience the last time it tried governing. The 2006 army putsch only entrenched political divisions and was infamous for botched policies, including imposing capital controls that caused a 15 percent one-day plunge in Thailand’s stock market.
Prayuth, then a major-general, was part of the junta that seized control of the government in 2006. When he was appointed army chief in 2010, he was seen as a hardline royalist, opposed to the red shirt movement. In 2011, Jatuporn Promphan, a red shirt leader and member of parliament, was imprisoned for making comments deemed to be disrespectful of the monarchy. The case was prompted by a complaint by Prayuth.
Plans for a full military takeover were already advanced when Prayuth declared martial law on May 20 – two days ahead of the coup – ostensibly to maintain order while the politicians worked out a solution, a senior military officer said.
“From the moment martial law was announced, there was a 50-50 chance he would take power, but he first wanted to give all sides a chance to back down,” the military officer said.
The junta has provided no timeline for when fresh elections would be held, but have indicated it won’t be any time soon.
The coup contingency planning documents seen by Reuters details how to give power back to the people “in the shortest time possible”.
Chatchalerm, the deputy army chief of staff, said conditions had to be right and divisions healed before there could be a return to civilian rule.
“How long it takes to heal divisions between two groups that has been going on for 10 years?” Chatchalerm asked foreign media.
After the Sept. 19, 2006 coup, it was 15 months before elections were held, in December, 2007.
Prayuth’s new team of advisers, a junta kitchen cabinet, includes a former defence minister, General Prawit Wongsuwan, and former army chief General Anupong Paochinda. The two are towering figures in Thailand’s military establishment and have close ties to Prayuth. All three are staunch monarchists who helped oust Thaksin in 2006.
A Reuters report in December revealed Prawit and Anupong had secretly backed the anti-government protests that undermined Yingluck’s government.
The junta faces an uphill struggle to revive Thailand’s economy, which contracted 2.1 percent in the first quarter from the previous three months, and some economists say a recession may be unavoidable.
Prayuth’s advisor overseeing the economy is Pridiyathorn Devakula. He was finance minister in the military-installed government following the 2006 coup that introduced strict – and, after the stock market tanked, short lived – capital controls to prop up the Thai baht.
DECAPITATING THE RED SHIRTS
In Bangkok, the junta publicly summoned at least 258 activists, intellectuals and journalists to report to army bases. The purpose of the round-up was to “calm everyone down”, prevent further incitements to violence, and silence critical comment that “might affect the military’s work”, according to junta statements. Almost all of them have been released.
But in “red shirt” country in the north and northeast, where the potential for anti-coup dissent is much greater, the military is conducting a more draconian sweep and things have been less transparent.
“At least in Bangkok, the military issues a formal announcement. But in the provinces it’s informal,” said an academic from the northern city of Chiang Mai who is in hiding. “They just show up in a truck and take you away.”
In Chiang Mai province, the Shinawatra family powerbase, local Army commander Major General Sarayuth Rungsri declined to answer questions about how many people were detained.
Interviews with activists, academics, detainees’ families and the military reveal at least 20 red shirt organisers were taken into custody in Chiang Mai and neighbouring Chiang Rai province. Most were released on Tuesday.
Those who were detained say they were made to sign documents – euphemistically entitled “Memoranda of Understanding” — pledging to swear off political agitation, incitement or unauthorised travel. They were warned that breaking the contracts could mean prosecution and up to two years jail.
“They questioned us on whether we’re radical, whether we’re stockpiling weapons,” a Chiang Mai red shirt leader who was detained for six days, and who declined to be identified, told Reuters.
The red shirt leader said he was held with 11 other activists on an army base in comfortable double bedrooms. Detainees were briefly questioned at the start and end of their time at the base, as well as given briefings by army officers to “correct their perceptions”, the leader said.
Asked if the army’s efforts succeeded in changing his mind, the red shirt leader said: “Let’s just say I know the answer, but I can’t say it out loud. It’s like I have something stuck in my throat. I’m bound by the conditions of my release.”
At least half a dozen academics and activists, most unaffiliated with the red shirts, are on the run. None of the names of those detained were found on lists released by the army in Bangkok.
In Chiang Mai, the military’s tightening grip has thwarted the kind of uprising that Thaksin’s loyalists warned of in the lead-up to the military takeover.
Sarayuth said he would be clamping down further.
“Whenever we have a report that one or two people are preparing to do something, we will go and control the situation,” he said.
Daily protests peaked in Chiang Mai on Saturday, when at least 200 people jeered at and sporadically scuffled with police, but have fizzled since. Attempts by anti-coup activists to organise flash mob-style protests via social media and mobile messaging have been foiled by military intelligence gathering, with soldiers taking over rally sites in advance.
At least 16 people have been arrested in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai at anti-coup protests. Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai are just two of 36 provinces in the north and northeast. It is not clear how many people have been detained across the entire region.
In the northeastern province of Khon Kaen, another red shirt stronghold, local activists say seven of their leaders have been detained. Their names were absent from army lists disclosed in Bangkok.
DEFUSING THE ROYALISTS
Some in Bangkok believe the coup was a way out for protest leader Suthep, whose support had been dwindling in recent weeks and whose ultimatums for the government to step down were going nowhere.
For months, leaders of his People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC), backed by Thailand’s conservative royalist establishment, had called on the army to intervene.
Samdin Lertbutr, an anti-government protest leader, said protesters knew the army would step in if the government did not stand aside, but told Reuters there were no closed-door meetings between the army and the PDRC leadership.
“We weren’t surprised the army staged a coup. It was not the result we wanted,” Samdin told Reuters. “We wanted a people’s revolution, and up until Thursday (May 22), we believed that’s what we were going to get. There were no meetings between us and the army to discuss the possibility of a coup.”
A second PDRC leader, Somsak Kosaisuk, agreed that the protest group did not know a coup was imminent when they attended talks at the Army Club that Thursday aimed at trying to reach a compromise with the caretaker government.
Army chief Prayuth “asked the government side one more time whether it would resign before he took power,” Somsak said.
“They said they would not.”
That’s when Prayuth calmly announced he was taking power. “Everyone must sit still,” Prayuth said, according to two sources who attended the meeting.
Immediately after that, hundreds of troops surrounded the Army Club and whisked away everybody from the building. By bringing all sides together for the talks, Prayuth’s forces were able to detain many of Thailand’s most powerful political figures at the same time. The coup had gone off without a hitch.
(This story was refiled to correct Thaksin’s age to 64 from 65)
(Additional reporting by Panarat Thepgumpanat and Pairat Temphairojana; Editing by Alex Richardson and Bill Tarrant)

News
Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning3 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?