While it's hard to find someone who publicly opposes the "Stop Hurting Thailand and Stop Using Violence" campaign launched by a dozen organisations including the Thai Journalists Association (TJA), King Prajadhipok Institute, civic groups and even the Armed Forces, delivering results will be another matter.

Although hurting Thailand can't be a good thing, there are Thais who intentionally hurt Thailand because they care more about their personal interest. And some unintentionally harm Thailand by supporting violence without being aware of the ramifications of their actions.

Instead of marching forward to the latest campaign tune and waving national flags without retrospection and reflection, it would do well for some of these groups and people to asked if they have, over the past three years of political conflict, used or at least supported violence and hurt Thailand or themselves in the process.

It seems ludicrous and mind-boggling that some people who supported some form of political violence now lead this much-publicised campaign.

These people includes many journalists and editors who tacitly if not outrightly supported the 2006 coup and now accept censorship of media linked to the red-shirt Democratic Alliance Against Democracy (DAAD) as justifiable.

It also includes officers in the Army who did nothing while senior officers staged the coup, as well as people who collaborated with those who drafted the troubled and anti-democratic junta-sponsored 2007 charter - such as Borwornsak Uwanno, secretary-general of King Prajadhipok Institute.

People must recognise that supporting a coup or any form of censorship constitutes political violence as it relies on the use of force. One can think of a coup as a form of militarised rape of citizens' political rights and censorship as denying people the right to be informed and express oneself.

People who support "good" coups and "good" censorship are impatience about political developments. If people end up fighting on the streets, then this mentality could call for a coup. The same goes with the suppression of political differences through censorship.

Both are manifestation of a militarised culture and instant gratification - a political fast-food mentality. It won't solve any problem in the long run, however, and the Kingdom is now even more deeply divided that it used to be before the 2006 coup.

On top of that, another common characteristic of those who support a "good" coup and "good" censorship is that these people tend to look down on ordinary people's ability and potential to solve problems by themselves or judge things by themselves.

A coup was thus needed to prevent political chaos, and censorship thus required to prevent poor people from being duped by anti-government or anti-monarchy "propaganda".

This mentality treats the majority of Thai citizens as juveniles, without agency, and unable to learn so some enlightened adults must always watch them like big brother and intervene or censor every now and then.

These people, who formed a crucial part of the latest campaign, also tend not to believe in the normalisation of political conflict.

They dwell in a world where people supposedly have no competing political interest, no class exploitation, a world where national unity, peace and order can co-exist in harmony with censorship and military intervention.

Are these people simply naive, incapable of restrospection and unable to recognise this? Or are they just plain hypocrites?

All parties need to put all cards on the table, express contrition about the past if need be, otherwise there can be no end to political violence and the latest campaign will lead nowhere beyond helping flag-makers earn more money.

Many within the Thai media don't see themselves as part of the problem. They always think they're part of the solution. They need a few minutes to review themselves and that assumption before they grab the tiny national flag again next week.