Theories full of holes versus the only thing that really matters

It’s almost always human nature to imagine florid scenarios behind such an utterly savage and hideous act such as the bombing at the Erawan Shrine on Monday. Who would be sadistic enough to want to kill and maim innocent bystanders, including children, women and the elderly, at a time they were most vulnerable – during their prayers at a place of worship?

At present, two “theories” stand out as being most plausible. 

The first contends that the attack was “revenge” for the Thai government’s deportation of 100-plus Uighur Muslims to China and an uncertain fate at the hands of the Beijing authorities. Leaked in-flight images of the deportees handcuffed, hooded and each flanked by robot-like Chinese guards were enough to make grown men cry. The Uighur sympathisers who carried out the Bangkok attack, goes the theory, could be lone wolves, as in the Boston Marathon bombing, or a more organised terrorist movement linked to the Islamic State.

The second theory places the blame squarely on an indigenous dissident political faction that supports a former prime minister. The blast came a few days after a leaked video clip showed the former Thai premier launching a verbal attack on the government in Bangkok, at a party in Finland.

 Strong criticism from red-shirt leaders and Pheu Thai politicians of the government’s work and the draft constitution add to the weight of the argument implicating this side of the political divide.

Each of the theories has a whole variety of sub-theories, especially when it comes to the motive, the modus operandi, the mastermind, the team leader, and, by no means a small matter, the government’s explanation and findings so far. 

Each of the “main artery” theories, their tributary sub-theories and sub-sub-theories has its “blank spaces”. Hence it is no surprise that we are hearing more and more argumentum ad absurdum (“arguments to absurdity”), which attempt to show that a statement is false by demonstrating the absurd and untenable outcomes that follow if we believe it.

A few examples:

“Uighur attackers never use explosives, they only use knives and machetes.” However, it could not be established that it was an Uighur who did the bombing.

“No Thai would ever consider committing sacrilege against the Lord Brahma, let alone detonating a bomb at his shrine.” But again, a few years ago, a crazed Thai – perhaps hired by political puppeteers for reasons of superstition – managed to hammer the statue to pieces, before being beaten to death by shrine guards, eliminating any chance of finding out who might have hired him. But again, he was a psychologically unstable man.

“The man in the yellow T-shirt was just a decoy, because the real perpetrator couldn’t be wearing yellow – the most conspicuous colour. But he must not be ‘colour’ sensitive. The T-shirt was bought in Indonesia. 

“If he’s the real McCoy, he could not have acted alone and must have had local accomplices.

The man in yellow can’t be a foreigner, because he seemed to know his way around. He could be a Thai disguised to look like a foreigner. But wait, he could be a decoy, but a foreigner, to throw off the authorities.

“Two Thai men, one in a red T-shirt who gave up his seat to the man in yellow and stepped forward to stand next to the other, who was wearing white, were both caught on camera glancing back at the man in yellow. They could be his local accomplices. But wait, they can’t be; they wouldn’t have been able to move fast enough to escape the blast because, by stepping in front of the man in yellow, they placed themselves further from the exit. But again, there was a pause of about three minutes between the time the man in yellow put his backpack down under the stone bench and the time of the explosion, which would have left enough time for the two ‘accomplices’ to sneak away unnoticed. But no CCTV camera caught them fleeing.”

These are just some of the more obvious holes and contradictions that riddle the theories surrounding the bombing. If we apply Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction, since an assertion cannot be both true and false, if the contradiction can be derived logically from the assertion, the assertion must be false. From a contradiction (or falsehood) anything follows – a rule known as the principle of explosion.

All of this is not to make light of the grave situation we are facing. What it is trying to say is that the government will have to come up with a clear, logical, straightforward, unbiased, airtight and precise finding at the end of its investigation to dispel doubts that would further erode the confidence of the Thai public and foreign visitors. There is no room for logical or investigative deficiencies. More importantly, favouritism, politics, ideology and backbiting must have no place in the process, which must deal in facts and truth alone. The real culprit/s – not scapegoats or fall guys – must be brought to justice.

Sink or swim, we are in this together, red shirts and elites, military and civilians. As a country, we can bicker over where to sit as we hurtle towards a brick wall, or we can unite and steer our way out of this dreadful abyss.