Has Thailand's politics ever been more ablaze than now? This is a classic example of an uprising. My lack of revulsion doesn't mean I'm harbouring somewhat sadistic emotions about what's going on; it's just that this is history in the making.
The Reds were on the brink of retreat; in fact a significant number of their leaders had declared surrender. Many people were tired, particularly those who want nothing to do with the political affairs of the warring camps. These people simply wanted stability and normalcy to occur. Up to a point, some of the laypeople interviewed were even accusing the Reds of going out of the way to get their demands heard. "This [violence] is not the right way to do things," one person was quoted as saying.
But truthfully speaking, is the violence all that unwarranted? Could they have garnered the attention they have now if they didn't resort to taking up arms and aggressing? Aside from Gandhi, who has nobly set a very high standard for non-violent protest, all revolutions and uprisings have been violent and entail unrest, often destabilizing society. History tells us the story, and history will repeat itself again. As Churchill puts it well, "we are not makers of history; we are made by history." The violence is almost inevitable - in the battle between the system and the idealists, lives have to become dispensable.
Perhaps irresponsibility occurs only when people forget the cause they fight for and enact unnecessary violence because emotions are running wild. The building set ablaze as the Reds were apparently surrendering brings to mind one such example. But in the zealous fight for an ideological end, it can be quite hard to draw the lines on these things.
"The history of the world is the record of a man in quest of his daily bread and butter."
- Hendrik Wilhelm van Loon, The Story of Mankind