Bad excuse for the coup #1

TU Poli Sci offers one of the typical excuses for the coup that we have heard so far, that is, without the coup, bloodshed was likely to take place.

Apart from the coup, there were at least TWO, not one, more options to avoid the bloodshed. IF Thaksin’s opponents anticipated the bloodshed, and if they think that avoiding it is most important, there were two options, not including the coup, to abort it.
1. Thaksin should have stepped down, as many had called.
2. The PAD could have backed off instead of marching on the possible bloodshed.

The second option was equal to the first one, only to the other side of the possible clash. To call only the first one, but the PAD itself pressed ahead despite foreseeable bloodshed, it was bloodthirsty. It is a premeditated clash. Several years ago Khamnoon and Phipob accused me of this false for the Oct 6 massacre. Now it is their turn to explain.

In fact for the same reason I did not understand the weird analysis by the PAD several times before the coup, that if Thaksin did not step down, bloodshed could take place. All the PAD could have done to avoid such a tragedy was to back off. Had the PAD were an observer of a conflict between two other parties, it would have been fair for them to call for either one or both sides of the possible clash to step back. But in this case, they were one side of the possible clash, how could they demand and blame the other, but not themselves? If they sincerely want to abort the looming clash, all they could have done was backing off. They never did so. Like Thaksin, the PAD wanted to win so badly and above anything else. They had played all the cards but cannot lose. They did not care if their action were instigating bloodshed.

The blame for possible bloodshed therefore should go to both sides for refusing to back off.

The next issue is: which one was better to prevent bloodshed:-
A. The coup
B. Back off and not escalating the confrontation. This would have been one stone for two birds, to avoid the bloodshed and to avoid the coup that claims to prevent bloodshed.

Which one is more damaging to Thai democracy and society in the short and long terms: the coup or backing off? The answer to all the questions is back off, back off, and back off, if sincerely care about bloodshed.

If they anticipated the bloodshed, but still pressing ahead and with the hope for the coup to prevent the bloodshed ... it was a horrible, dangerous and inexcusable decision -- plain and simple -- and no need to find excuse for the coup that they truly called for.

I have seen a story of Thaksin’s plan for a clash as the pretext for his coup. The story makes the coup group a savior. But if our memory is not too short, a story of assassination plot against people in the high place was circulated as an excuse for the Suchinda coup in 1991. Old soldier’s trick never dies. Unfortunately there are always credulous people who are ready to believe in order to justify their own actions that share the same goal with the coup.

(Note: If anybody wonders if I apply the above argument to reconsider the Oct 6 massacre. Yes. The above argument is informed by the costly lessons from the past. Sorry if those lessons are lost; 30+ years of democratization are wasted. The coup and these excuses make my lost friends merely historical dust.)