The dust has firmly settled and the dye is fully cast. It has been three years since the eventful months of April and May. The barricades, the speeches, the bloodshed and violence seems like distant memories to some, fresh and painful ones for others. But after three years the only perpetrators that are behind bars are red shirt activists and lèse majesté violators.

Still, the narrative that people believe seems to follow an almost linear path. Red shirts protested and shut down a major intersection of the city and were rewarded with gunfire and a crackdown. As a journalist that covered the events on the ground at that time, this was the narrative that seemed to unfold before my eyes. But as I think back on the events of April and May 2010, I have started to question if everything that i saw was in fact everything that was really going on.

My first question dates back to the first crackdown attempt at Khok Wua. The major argument from the UDD camp throughout the protest was that they were completely peaceful. Yet if this is was the case then who killed Colonel Romklao? Who were the two sides combating on the very streets that tourists now frequent? What was clear in the minds of anyone who was there that night was that the soldiers were very scared and kept falling back into defensive positions before eventually beating a heavy retreat. This was probably due to a myriad of factors the least of which was losing their command structure so fast. The emergence of the 'black shirt' guerrilla also begs the question, if the UDD were as peaceful as they claimed then who were these men at arms? Without question, their involvement prolonged the protest. Without their assistance that night, the red shirts would have been rounded up and perhaps massacred. But with their assistance they were able to survive the first crackdown attempt and readily beat a battalion of soldiers.

The second question comes from the second site at Rajprasong. How inept were the government forces that they couldn't clear a wooden barricade without violence? We are not living in 18th century France, one need not storm the barricades to kill Grantaire and Enjolras. Are dogs, water canons and riot police not an option at all or did armed soldiers have to be sent in? Furthermore there seems to be a serious lack of professionalism within the Thai government structure, the police almost colluding with the protesters at the time. If this is the case one seriously has to question the ability and highlight the ineptitude of the Abhisit government. The very same government who ordered the assassination of one of its own generals in public view in the vicinity of international press I might add.

If anyone had ventured into the protest area during the ENTIRE MONTH that they were camped there, they invariably saw the big "PEACEFUL PROTEST" sign that was hung up on the main UDD stage. If this is the case then why did they fight back against the soldiers? My one grievance here that people tend to overlook, even my fellow journalists was that the final few days of crackdown were an exercise in restraint on the part of the soldiers. Despite horrible public relations (life fire zone' anyone?) my observations were that the soldiers only fired at dangerous areas and only when engaged. If the goal had been similar to 1991, 1976 or 1973 we would have had way more than the 96 deaths over that period. Keep in mind that the 96 number encompasses all dead and not just protesters and over the entire period from April until May. It literally could have been in the hundreds had it not been for the restraint shown by the soldiers. That being said, someone should remind the Democrat party that grenades, APCs, automatic rifles etc do not belong in the streets and NEVER used against one's own citizens.

As for the events after the initial crackdown, questions must also be asked. While one does not doubt the anger and sense of betrayal felt by the majority of red shirts, one has to wonder how in a closed area of engagement such as those around Rama I Road and Central World did soldiers allow a group of people to burn down the place. There seems to be more here than meets the eye. There also needs to be questions asked of the events that transpired at Wat Pathum. Granted I was on the completely other side of Rajprasong at this point, eyewitness accounts completely went against the rules of engagement practiced by the soldiers I saw that day. Here are some of my points:

• Soldiers at Wat Pathum fired indiscriminately into the temple area with fully automatic weapons. But before that, soldiers were not on full-auto, did not fire indiscriminately and only shot at threats.

• Soldiers at Wat Pathum were photographed from a high vantage point making their way across the walk way and BTS line. How was this set up so perfectly? Who in their right mind would climb a vantage point (which was closed to journalists) with a pretty good lens to wait for a photo opportunity? That angle pretty much gave one view and that was of Wat Pathum. Something is not right here.

Finally and perhaps more worryingly, the biggest question that must be asked of the events that transpired is what was it for? The elections came as they were predicted to anyways. The Peu Thai party won it and all that bloodshed and carnage could have been avoided. If it was in the name of democracy, freedom of speech and other liberties then why has the PT banner dropped those causes so readily? Why have they abandoned those who have been imprisoned so readily? If it was instead an attempt by a deposed mad man to make his way back into power then perhaps the UDD should consider where they stand and how they were so willingly sacrificed in some ill-fated attempt at a return. If they do not then they run the risk of becoming a puppet for some higher power like the PAD and the Democrat party. If this were the case then all those people really did die in vain. C’est n’est pas la lutte finale.

- - - - -

Cod Satrusayang is a writer and a blogger based in Bangkok, Thailand. His works have appeared in the Asian Sentinel, CNN, The Huffington Post and a myriad of other publications. His new book The Fall is due out in the summer of 2014.