My understanding is she feared exactly what happened, a coup, if she spoke out. I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of coup. Did she have a choice? Of course she had a choice but it would appear she saw it as "be morally correct" or "maintain democracy" and decided to go with the latter. I hate to say it but I'm not sure if I would have picked a different course of action given the same choices.
> I'm not saying that is wrong or right but that's the position she was in and the choice she made with, now proven, fears of a coup.
I am - it was wrong.
Her position went beyond making a hard choice, she defended the genocide and the generals. Describing the generals involved as ‘sweet’ and the victims as ‘terrorists’, she is part of the problem.
Yeah, I'm not well versed enough to talk about the morality of it either, but I would assume that if she had come out against it, the military would've kicked her out, so they would've ended up with both a genocide and a coup. So it seems that it may have been a lose-lose situation anyways.
