MidTMike Posted May 20, 2010 Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 Noam Chomsky once noted that when the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan, at least one Soviet radio station announcer characterised the action as an invasion. He was courageous in presenting such a reasonable depiction of things. But for saying so, the Soviet authorities promptly placed him in a psychiatric hospital. Chomsky argues that people in the Soviet Union could recognise an invasion when they saw one, but risked being put away for saying so publicly. In contrast, no mainstream US media outlet in the 1960s ever suggested that the US involvement in Vietnam was an invasion. The thought was unimaginable. The inability to use such an unpleasant term led to the deaths of at least a few million Vietnamese and more than 50,000 American soldiers. Necessarily coupled with the inability to imagine the act as an invasion was the construction of the North Vietnamese communist terrorist. The same failure of courage and imagination now faces Thai society. Previously, the killing of at least 40 student protesters in October 6, 1976 was considered a massacre, as was the estimated 40 killed in the May 1992 military suppression of protesters calling for the coup leader-cum-prime minister to step down. Since April 10, 2010 more than 50 Thai protesters, many bare-handed or armed with bamboo sticks, have been killed. A number of prominent international journalists in Bangkok have themselves witnessed unarmed protesters being shot by Thai security forces, both on April 10 and over these past few days, especially in the free-fire zones established by the government. It is true that there was a mysterious black-clad force shooting back at the Thai military on April 10, leading to the deaths of five soldiers. And there may be other forces at play in the killings of the past few days. But these factors do not change the basic contours of this struggle: the main body of protesters adhere to non-violence, are unarmed or dramatically under-armed against military and police forces that have been using live ammunition against them. If the red shirts are armed and dangerous, you wouldn't know it from the number of casualties: in the last two days, more than 30 protesters have been killed, and zero army and police personnel. This suggests disproportionate, excessive, and deadly force is being used by security forces in dispersing the protesters. The definition of "massacre" is: an act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. Let's be clear about what is happening on the streets of Bangkok: this is massacre. Perhaps not a single act or instance, but when taken as a whole, the military and police operations against the red shirt protesters have killed up to this point more than any crackdown by previous Thai military regimes in the past 50 years! It is a slowly unfurling, staggered massacre with no end in sight. The Thai government has promised to bring an end to the crisis by pushing forward with this slow-motion massacre. If this is not a massacre, then when will it be called one? At 80 killings? At 100 deaths? This massacre, though, differs from previous Thai slayings in a number of ways. First, there has been no outrage over the deaths. Governments abroad are hesitating to condemn the Thai government. Human rights organisations have urged both sides not to use violence and to return to the negotiating table. In 1976, it was largely urban students who were killed. There was an international outcry. In 1992, it was the urban population that was killed. There was a domestic and international outcry. But this time, there is no outrage, but rather a grim celebration of a show of force with the aim of getting those rural people and terrorists out of Bangkok - at any cost. Regardless, these are Thai citizens who are being killed indiscriminately. If one believes that the conduct of the Thai government is acceptable, then at least call this operation what it is: a massacre. We should not console ourselves by saying that the red shirts had been warned by the government of their impending doom, or that there are certain factions of the red shirts killing other red shirts, or that these people are terrorists. Understand and accept that it will be a "continuing massacre". For those who cannot accept the possibility of a massacre, for those who choose to err on the side of caution on the chance that much of the killing is a slaughter of the innocents, then it is time to show and express outrage and moral revulsion. It is time to focus on the responsibility of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government. Whether intentional or due to the carelessness or lack of intelligence on the part of the government in deciding to move against protesters on April 10, the Abhisit government is ultimately morally and legally responsible. The dead deserve their day in court to confront their killers. If the Abhisit government cannot begin to figure out who is responsible for these deaths, it should resign so that an uninterested organisation can begin its work. The death of scores of protesters that night was somehow presented as proof of terrorists and justified their killing. In the last few days, the indiscriminate killing is being justified by the claim that there are some 500 terrorists hiding within the main body of protesters. As a protest leader has said, such a statement is tantamount to an "advance issuance of 500 death certificates" for the protesters, whether they be terrorists or not. This state of affairs, this eager acceptance of a massacre, should not and cannot be acceptable to any dignified and democratic society. Whatever the govt may say, this is a massacre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somchai Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 Unfortunate as it might be within many circles.....this 'war' isn't over. The state of affairs in LOS will continue to remain undivided and unstable for the immediate future. Some still fear the worst is yet to come. Let's hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rucus7 Posted June 1, 2010 Report Share Posted June 1, 2010 I agree, the situation is complex. I am not sure what is really wanted by the Thai people. The only consensus is that the Monarchy is beneficial to Thailand. However it is good to hear political discussion ongoing. In years past, discussion of politics seemed to be avoided by my Thai friends, not now However, I feel that the exigent circumstances were glossed over in the above article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somchai Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 Even more bizarre, is that the BKK Post uses a Noam Chomsky reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somchai Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 The only consensus is that the Monarchy is beneficial to Thailand. True, there might be a consensus - but some might challenge the beneficial aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts