Re: "When were the anti-govt protesters ever non-violent", Letters, March 28.
The demonstrators have been under attack with deadly weapons up to this very day. Many innocent lives are lost.
At first the demonstrators started to protect themselves by adding more guards. That didn’t help.
Then nets were set up to catch lobbed grenades. But nets don’t catch deadly bullets.
So seemingly as a last resort, weapons have been brought in by some faction of the demonstrators to defend the demonstrators from attacks.
It seems some letter writers judge the current unrest in Thailand in a very pietistic way through letter scale – and millimetre –measurement when they argue.
They sweep together all kinds of bad but not deadly incidents caused by the demonstrators to counter what is obvious, probably for most of us – those opposed to the demonstrators are the violent ones. They murder, assassinate and wound innocent people with grenades and sprays of lethal bullets.
I am afraid Mr Barth is lost in his own self-righteous fight with the smaller details of the ongoing conflict and seems to be trapped there.
To get the judgement of who are to be called violent correct, the chronology of events must be right.
Who are the attackers who triggered the violence and who are defending themselves?
And can you call people violent when they start to defend themselves after been attacked with grenades and bullets over and over again?