Red Shirt protesters in support of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who remains in exile, continue to clash with the Thai Govt in Bangkok. In short, the Red Shirts are calling for the Govt to dispell themselves, claiming they did not win a democratic election. Over the past few weeks there have been a series of attacks, bombings, and violent clashes between protesters and Thai police that have resulted in several deaths including tourists. In one memorable demonstration, the Red Shirt protestors poured blood onto the steps of a Govt building. International Govts continue to warn travellers to Thailand to avoid protest areas.
While there have been several bombings and attacks on military institutions and banking facilities, the Red Shirts (nor any other group) have not taken reponsibility. The Red Shirts have made threats against hotels and malls, which would have a high civilian casuality.
The question is this: when do protest groups advocating theri perception of democracy become militant or appear to fit the western definition of 'terrorism'? Granted the Red Shirts are fighting for what they believe to be a noble cause, the pursuit of democracy... But in the pursuit of democracy, it is acceptable to target civilians or tourists in hotels, malls, and other public places for their democracy?
Also, here is a slideshow of Red Shirt protests: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/11/world/20100411THAILAND2_index.html?ref=asia
I think that this is a very difficult question to answer. There is a quote that says 'I would rather die standing up than live on my knees' and I know personally it would be something that I would adhere to. Yea a little dramatic, but many people feel that way.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't believe violence solves anything there comes a point where discussion and mediation no longer works, the only way to get your message across is by violence. Its sad but true, it has happened all through history.
When do your beliefs, the things you are fighting for, matter less than getting a bit violent? Its a very scary situation and a worrying idea.
While I don't think violence is an acceptable for of protest, it is one hell of a way to get your message across. The Cuban Revolution, French Revolution etc.
But isn't non-violence also a very goo way of getting a message across, if that's what one wants? Violence seems useful mostly as a way of forcing others from power, not as a tools of communication...
ReplyDelete