Is burning buildings [in Thailand] in a political conflict common arson?

Fire was a weapon used by protesters of the Red movement in response to the assault by troops firing rifles on the protest in central Bangkok. Civic and commercial buildings were torched around Ratchaprasong, the site of the two-month peaceful sit-in, elsewhere in Bangkok and in some provinces. These acts have been widely described as arson. But is that apt given the political context of the violence?

Arson generally refers to setting alight of property with malice or for some personal gain for example through an insurance claim. In civil contexts this seems fairly clear cut and usually draws stiff penalties in most societies given the danger it poses to life, the damage it wreaks on livelihoods and hurt it causes to the soul. Arson then is a criminal act that may deliver a material or other benefit to the arsonist. In cases where the fire is set purely for the pleasure derived from watching fire it may be more accurate to speak of psychotic arson.

However burning property during the course of the political violence that is war usually goes without punishment unless it can be shown there was no military advantage whatsoever to be gained from destroying property. Nevertheless given the chaos that reigns on the battlefield and the difficulty in finding suspects and witnesses such crimes are rarely punished.

A comparative may be drawn with killing for which there are various degrees with varying punishments reflecting the context and provocations. In battle killing is legitimized, there is no punishment for the participants. However killing in war outside of battle may be considered a crime. Troops who shot dead protesters resisting their advance along Ratchadamri are not facing investigation over the killings. Neither are commanders or ministers.

In the torching of buildings that followed the disproportionate use of violent coercion by the state to clear the protests protesters took up calls by their leaders to respond with fire. Many incidents of torching were of buildings with political connotations, although some were not. Fire may be considered in this instance a weapon of the weak.

Is it then appropriate to describe the torchings as arson given the common criminal connotations this carries? Does the description of arson serve to delegitimize their protest as political opening the way for categorization as simply criminal, or in the government's narrative of fear as an act of terrorism? Would it be more appropriate to describe the torchings as political arson or political burning? What is appropriate punishment for burning buildings for political motives in response to state excess?

Source: http://thailandtrouble.blogspot.com