Harrison George wishes to apologize for the irregular appearance of this column over the past few weeks. This has been caused by an unwise decision to visit foreign (and frozen) parts and the ensuing problem of frostbite attacking the extremities (hands, feet, nose, occipital lobe, etc.).

It also has something to do with viewing events in Thailand from a more distant perspective. Unless you’re actually here, this loony bin really makes no sense. For example, while I was gone, Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd, spokesman for the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation and heart-throb of military-minded middle-aged matrons, said this:

“I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist.”

Pardon?

And those 90 something corpses and two thousand odd injured that occurred in the close vicinity of soldiers firing live ammunition?

Of course, these authoritarian types who want to tell you what your eyes have seen, your ears have heard and your mind can think, normally come up with a reason for their idiocies. It’s worth noting these excuses if only to exclude them from consideration because they are hardly ever the true reason.

“Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever,” says the Colonel.

So the military didn’t want an end to the occupation of Ratchaprasong that was the immediate result of the worst of the shooting? They didn’t have any intention of silencing the opposition whose TV stations, radio stations, web sites and magazines had already been shut down? They didn’t want to décourager les autres as in past actions like Tak Bai, Krue Se and countless acts of military bullying and intimidation?

And we must of course put completely out of mind any thought that the military wanted to influence the political power structure of the country. Heaven forbid.

So what on earth could the Colonel mean?

To find out we need a bit of linguistic analysis.

Linguists argue that the verb ‘kill’ is in fact a rather complicated structure that means ‘cause to become not alive’. This is shown by the different situations that can be described by the sentence ‘I almost killed him’.

I pulled out my gun but then changed my mind and put it back. I almost caused him to become not alive.

I did fire but hit a strategically placed fob watch instead of his heart. I caused him to almost become not alive.

I fired and hit him but left him at death’s door rather than dead. I caused him to become almost not alive.

Now ‘to deny that X did Y’ is the same as ‘to assert that X did not do Y’. And we are ready to analyze the Colonel’s words.

Did he mean ‘I can categorically assert that the army has not caused any Red Shirts or protesters to become not alive’?

This may be the reverse of the well-known National Rifle Association claim that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. In Thailand, the military don’t kill people; their guns kill people.

Or did he mean ‘I can categorically assert that the army caused any Red Shirts or protesters not to become not alive’?

Perhaps this means that, army sharp shooting being what it is, none of those bullets actually hit anyone and if anyone was killed or injured, it was by the other side, or the result of ricochets or some other unintended consequence. Something of a slur on the professionalism of the armed forces, but, hey, he said it, not me, and he’s the Colonel.

Or did he mean ‘‘I can categorically assert that the army caused any Red Shirts or protesters to become not “not alive”, i.e. “alive”’?

I think this must be an expression of faith in the Lazarus-like revivification capabilities of the armed forces. They did shoot and they did kill, but those dead bodies are not really dead.

You know, being back in this madhouse really does help understand things that might otherwise appear incomprehensible.

I think I’ll now go out and listen to some car-park attendants blowing their whistles. I’m sure I can make it mean something.