Gunmen kill five rangers at Narathiwat checkpoint

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

How about, you leave Thailand and allow Thailand to rule itself. You are constantly lecturing us about international law and the rule of law, so why don't you follow your own moralizing edicts. The borders are already established and recognized. They are incontestable. Malaysia has made no claim to the area andrecognizes Thailand's control and sovereignty of the region and accepts the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 1909. That same agreement s what transferred control of a large chunk of the region held and/or claimed by Thailand, at that time, to present day Malaysia. The old Sultanate does not exist and has no continuing legal legacy that continues. A small group of violent thugs is trying to force its political positions on the population who do not want to be ruled by an Islamic dictatorship. There is no popular support for an Islamic state in the south of Thailand.

It may or may not be "a small group of violent thugs" as you say or there may be a sizeable portion of the population, perhaps even a majority I should say here that I do not believe in this sort of selective process because it leaves too many people dissatisfied. What's needed is participatory democracy, consensus. In any case, I can't find any stats.

Let's look at it another way. Why should Patani not be autonomous? Muslims throughout Thailand could even have the choice to move there, hehe, a sort of homeland.

FTR, I am not lecturing anybody. I'm just expressing my opinion as a 1960s Quaker pacifist radical. Take it or leave it. But I will never stop trying to better my adopted home according to my own lights.

Let's try this example. I move into a rented apartment/house. It's rundown in places so I start to fix it bit-by-bit. I don't ask the landlord for money because these are small improvements. And when I leave the property is much more attractive to renters.

It's the same anywhere I live. If you choose not to participate, your choice. But I'm invested because I live here, I am close to many Muslim activists (none of them militants but human rights defenders and it's my duty (if no one else's) to find a solution that suits everyone.

Call me a busybody...

12 hours ago, bendejo said:

I spent a lot of time in Malaysia in the '00 decade.

A new PM came in (after decades!) and talked of "Islam Hadari" (modern Islam), a lead balloon that after a few months was never mentioned again -- can you imagine The Pope declaring a thing could bring about, say, Catholic priests being allowed to marry? If nothing else, it seemed to give a boost to the fundamentalist political party.

In the press, if you read the details of articles you may come across the existence of private armies with a nationalist/religious bent, but such never makes the headlines. Soldiers are salaried employees. They seemed to be stationed in the Malaysian states along the east coast near to the Thai border.

One thing Malaysia has that LOS does not is an (officially) multi-tiered legal system.

As a cab driver who worked the Sadao border told me: the good thing about the Thai LE is they just want the money and then they go away. Malay cops will kick your ass, they love doing choke-holds, just for the fun of it.

There are, of course, well-organised militants in the South.

AI: Southern Thailand separatist groups include the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), the Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO), and Gerakan Mujahidin Islam Patani (GMIP), which seek autonomy or independence for the Malay-Muslim majority provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, Satun and parts of Songkhla.

As ISOC has grown more repressive, enforcing curfews, policing mosques, political arrests, the violence against ISOC personnel has increased. PULO only blew up the train tracks--the visible reason Patani is oppressed--and gave lots of warning so no one was hurt.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Why should Patani not be autonomous? Muslims throughout Thailand could even have the choice to move there, hehe, a sort of homeland.

Not sure why Muslims need their own separate states. Is it because their religion doesn't integrate well?

As someone living in the region, I speak for many people when I say that stricter martial law measures, curfews etc. aren't gonna improve thing whatsoever. The only real progress can be made at the negotiation table, where both parties have to be sincere in their approach.

An autonomous Malay-Muslim region seems to have the highest likelihood of success, but I don't think Bangkok wants to give the insurgents even an inch, let alone control of their homeland region.

3 hours ago, MarcelV said:

As someone living in the region, I speak for many people when I say that stricter martial law measures, curfews etc. aren't gonna improve thing whatsoever. The only real progress can be made at the negotiation table, where both parties have to be sincere in their approach.

An autonomous Malay-Muslim region seems to have the highest likelihood of success, but I don't think Bangkok wants to give the insurgents even an inch, let alone control of their homeland region.

Arguing for countries to be dismantled or restructured to reflect local ethnicity is ridiculous. Using your logic, much of Tower Hamlets, or Birmingham should be carved out if their cities because there is a muslim majority. This approach to national borders would rip apart many African countries which are amalgamations of tribal territories. What's next? Declaring 90% of Jordan part of the Palestinian state because of the majority Palestinian arab population, or carbing out the Christian section of Lebanon?

The islamic insurgents have no right to demand a muslim state or even autonomy in the southern part of Thailand. They would soon impose their brand of shariah law and undertake the forced removal of non muslims.

14 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

They would soon impose their brand of shariah law and undertake the forced removal of non muslims.

And so they should if that's what the majority of people want. They have my blessing.

5 hours ago, MarcelV said:

And so they should if that's what the majority of people want. They have my blessing.

Wow. Do you think before writing? Seriously, do you understand what you wrote? It is pure evil. Because a majority of people at a given time might support something does not mean that it is right. The imposition of a new Islamic caliphate on the people of the deep south is not even supported by the general population. The Islamic candidates in the elections can't even attract a noticeable amount of votes at election time.

On 7/25/2026 at 2:58 PM, CG1 Blue said:

Not sure why Muslims need their own separate states. Is it because their religion doesn't integrate well?

It infiltrates better than it integrates.