Sure. But how many get pointed in multiple directions

Lots of planes get pointed in multiple directions.

that just happens to coincide with political and FIR boundaries,

Which are all over the place around Malaysia and a not insignificant percentage of random paths will likely also coincide just as roughly with the same boundaries.

avoid radar

Which you think you know because ... the plane didn't avoid radar.

"Avoiding radar" is talking head speculation on CNN who were already sold on terrorism and/or suicide pilot. We know what the plane did prior to engine pings primarily because it was tracked on radar. It flew right over Malaysia and Malaysia/Thai border. It flew right over the second largest city in Malaysia. It flew right past two of the busiest airports in Malaysia. Anyone who thinks this route was chosen to 'avoid radar' is just parroting speculation, not seriously considering the data.

and travel along known flight paths to an eventual end out of reach?

There's zero evidence supporting the last leg of the trip (what we are talking about here) followed a known flight path.

If that's a failure, it of a kind no one has ever seen before.

Because clearly I said the entire flight was a random walk not just the final turn to the south. If you want to beat up straw men, have at them.

If more likely manual or preprogrammed flight control.

I'm not sure what you think I'm offering as a competing theory but I'm certainly not suggesting the plane was pointed south by the wind.

Those are ideas that are driven more by a need to exonerate the crew rather than looking at logical theories, however disagreeable they might be.

I could care less about exonerating the crew. The fact is no matter where the plane went, West, East, South, North, etc. you can create a convincing backstory to that location which supports suicide pilot theory.

The idea that the SIO in particular is more evidence of suicide pilot than some other place doesn't appear to be supported by actual arguments. When I point this out you don't actually even try and support the argument that SIO itself suggests suicide pilot, instead you retreat to other well worn evidence in favor of suicide pilot. It'd be like if I said "SIO is further evidence of a mechanical problem" and you called me on it and then I started talking about people who saw a plane on fire. That's not the claim!