I'd think you would have to try to separate killing performed in the name of religion (citing spedific religious dogma) from killing performed by people from certain religions but who were primarily reacting over other issues like nationalism, general xenophobia or historic territorial conflits.

Rutiger wrote:I'd think you would have to try to separate killing performed in the name of religion (citing spedific religious dogma) from killing performed by people from certain religions but who were primarily reacting over other issues like nationalism, general xenophobia or historic territorial conflits.

There is no xenophobia against Muslims in Thailand or the Philippines. They're conflicts about a group of people who have a certain religion believing that their religion can't coexist with a majority who are of a different religion, despite the host country treating them no different to anyone else. The race issue is played out, as the people in Isaan are just as non-Thai Laotian as the people in the South are non-Thai Malay, yet the much discussed red/yellow conflict has claimed fewer lives over 15 years than die in the South in a bad month. In the Philippines, they are the same general race as the majority. The one difference is the religion, hence the monumental violence that seems to happen in every country with a significant Islamic population.

Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon, Somalia, India, China, Philippines, Russia, Thailand... there's one factor in why the separatism in all of them is brutally violent and that factor is Islam.

Funny how the separatists in Catalonia, Tibet, the Moluccas, and even our own Khmer Krom have managed to no slaughter thousands of innocents in recent years, but they aren't Islamic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _in_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... ts_in_Asia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _in_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... th_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... in_Oceania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... th_America

Islam is a religion that very quickly resorts to violence and intimidation. I would not be surprised if you went through every single one of these separatist movements, tallied up the casualties and the number caused by ALL other non-Islamic causes was far lower than Islamic ones.

I do wonder if Thailand ceded Pattani, Yala and Narathawat to Malaysia whether the violence would stop. I admit I haven't read or understand the issue enough, ( but I intend to), but what would these areas/cities/towns/states stand to gain by moving the border. Economically Songkla is hugely important but most oil deals are split in territorial waters anyway, the instability doesn't benefit anyone.

I disagree with you OtMeinKampf, that area of Thailand seems to me exactly the same as the Catalans, Irish or numerous other places where people are killed over a piece of land so you can be governed by a different bunch of crooks speaking your own language or from the same background.

It's depressing that nothing is being done to address the problem and until they hit the tourist targets nothing will be done, if they do Phuket would be the obvious starting point.

CowshedCowboyRedux wrote:I do wonder if Thailand ceded Pattani, Yala and Narathawat to Malaysia whether the violence would stop. I admit I haven't read or understand the issue enough, ( but I intend to), but what would these areas/cities/towns/states stand to gain by moving the border. Economically Songkla is hugely important but most oil deals are split in territorial waters anyway, the instability doesn't benefit anyone.

I disagree with you OtMeinKampf, that area of Thailand seems to me exactly the same as the Catalans, Irish or numerous other places where people are killed over a piece of land so you can be governed by a different bunch of crooks speaking your own language or from the same background.

Like just before the partition of India with hordes of migrating Muslims and Hindus, many Thai Buddhists would surel\y feel the imminent need to vacate those former Southern provinces if the region was no longer part of Thailand for fear of living under a new hostile government without protection and suffer evictions and retributions. Who knows, the region might decide to become a separate Islamic Republic. I can't foresee Thailand giving up those provinces for any reason, but I can see the Thai junta losing patience and finally getting serious about counter-insurgency. They have only dabbled in it half-assed so far with no effectiveness or commitment.

That's the question I guess, who are the most integrated or accepting. I stayed and travelled through that area 20 years ago when I first came to the region, Songai Golok. I was a naive traveller because bombs were going off at the time and I never saw another foreigner while I was there. Personally as soon as I crossed the border from Malaysia to Thailand I felt the warmth of the people increase. Malaysia's a pretty multicultural place so if it's really about territory why butcher buddhists when you've got what you want if they were to cede.

CowshedCowboyRedux wrote:T if it's really about territory why butcher buddhists when you've got what you want if they were to cede.

You think the whole insurgency is about simply moving the border further north? Some obviously want the land now owned by Thai Buddhists. The new rulers are going to allow the current Thai land owners to keep living there? There will obvioulsy be massive land evictions if those provinces change hands. Hundreds of thousands of local Thais will then be forced to either give up everything and migrate north with nothing, or stay and fight an insurgency of their own.

Similar to other parts of modern-day Thailand such as the north (Kingdom of Lanna), upper Issan (Kingdom of Vientiane), and lower Issan (Kingdom of Champasak/former Khmer Empire), the deep south (Kingdom of Pattani) was not originally part of the Kingdom of Siam. All of the territory in those regions is land that was conquered under the current Chakri dynasty.

I was under the impression that the Kingdom of Pattani had been acquired by a trade with the British Empire for the Island of Penang, as the British needed the island for their navy. But wikipedia says this:

Patani was easily defeated by Siam in 1785 and resumed its tributary status. However, a series of attempted rebellions prompted Bangkok to divide Patani into seven smaller Puppet kingdoms in the early 1800s during the reign of King Rama II. Britain recognised the Thai ownership of Patani by treaty in 1909. Yala and Narathiwat remain separate provinces to this day.

The current problems started when Mr. T supported George W's invasion of Iraq. There were protests, which resulted in a massacre by the Army as well as several other incidents of brutality. Since then, low-level guerrilla warfare has been pursued.

They have their own website but not much is in English:
http://puloinfo.net/

So, read about the goals of the Patani United Liberation Organisation (PULO) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patani_Un ... ganisation

Vladster: Sorry (not really) I don't see Jews and Christians strapping on C4 vests and blowing up innocent people. Islam cannot tolerate other religions and their holy book says so. The world needs to wake up and see that its a holy war. 35 year ago when I first went to Thailand there was Islamic idiots blowing up things and killer innocent people in the south of Thailand. The King said, if you lay down your weapons and become peaceful I will give you land. He did and they did. Now we have a generation of these peoples children that are being stirred up by the Muslim Imams. The border of Thailand and Malaysia is were the Islamic invasion stopped centuries ago and still Islam is waging a war on other religions.

CowshedCowboyRedux wrote:I do wonder if Thailand ceded Pattani, Yala and Narathawat to Malaysia whether the violence would stop. I admit I haven't read or understand the issue enough, ( but I intend to), but what would these areas/cities/towns/states stand to gain by moving the border. Economically Songkla is hugely important but most oil deals are split in territorial waters anyway, the instability doesn't benefit anyone.

I disagree with you OtMeinKampf, that area of Thailand seems to me exactly the same as the Catalans, Irish or numerous other places where people are killed over a piece of land so you can be governed by a different bunch of crooks speaking your own language or from the same background.

It's depressing that nothing is being done to address the problem and until they hit the tourist targets nothing will be done, if they do Phuket would be the obvious starting point.

Except that the Catalans have managed to get much further politically by not killing a soul in bombings. I don't see how the relentless slaughter of every day Buddhists in the south is some righteous freedom fighter movement and not ethnic cleansing, but it seems to be the typical position that people take when Muslims do it. Of course when the majority resist the slaughter of civilians, suddenly it becomes "problematic" and people start whining about "genocide" like in Burma. The targeting of Buddhist monks by the Pattanis isn't religious cleansing?

Notice how the attacks on Muslims in Burma are described as "genocide" whereas the slaughter of Buddhist Thais in the South is merely called separatism, despite the latter claiming far more lives? This is solely due to the monumental free pass that Islam has been given by Western academia for decades. There's always a reason why Muslim violence is justified blah blah blah that never stretches to any other religion, even Buddhism.

If the province was seceded, all the Buddhists would be slaughtered at an even greater rate, and Western academia wouldn't give a shit because Muslims can do no wrong according to them. Now Western countries are learning the hard way. Muslims slaughter at a whim and then find a way to blame the victims, like in Paris, like in Brussels.

I have absolutely no doubt that if the Pattani separatists were Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Jewish, Scientologist, we would be seeing political solutions and not massacres of civilians justified by vacuous leftist academics (ie. as we see in Israel, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya...) You forget that a political deal ended the Irish troubles dead in its tracks. We've seen dozens of political agreements to end these Islamic Jihads and none ever does a thing because the goal isn't political. The goal is religious cleansing.

ot mien kampf wrote:Islam is a religion that very quickly resorts to violence and intimidation. I would not be surprised if you went through every single one of these separatist movements, tallied up the casualties and the number caused by ALL other non-Islamic causes was far lower than Islamic ones.

1. Explain to me about Israel and how peaceful Judaism is.

2. The west, especially America, likes to portray themselves as Christian countries (dog bless Murrika). Which country has started more wars than any other in history?

An Islamic country? No. A Jewish country? Strictly speaking, NO. A Christian country? Helloooo...