Several Bombs Rocks Southern Thailand

[cdnvic]

Ok, so now we're comparing our conversations here to world diplomacy. Taking ourselves a wee bit seriously aren't we?

[blaze]

Ok, so now we're comparing our conversations here to world diplomacy. Taking ourselves a wee bit seriously aren't we?

No, simply responding to your (rhetorical?) question. Nor taking 'ourselves' particularly seriously- though I take the southern situation, dead serious.

[Siripon]

The killers are waging a war of terrorism because they want to terrorise 2 groups.

1. They want all Buddhists in the 3 provinces to leave. By killing innocent civilians such as monks, teachers, rubber tappers, cattle herders, ordinary people and young children they want all local Buddhists to flee; hence the 3 provinces become Islam per se.

2. They kill any Muslims associated with the state, ie village headmen, teachers, police or informers to terrify the locals to not cooperate with the state.

[Plus]

Plus killing yourself defeats the purpose.

That line caught my attention

Colpyat is rigth here - what looks like subhuman indiscritminate killings actually follows logic.

Collateral damage (what US does) and delibirate targeting of civilians (what terrorists do) is not as far apart as some think. The US military strategy for ages, since WWII, has targeted civilian infrastructure rather than confronting enemy troops. Recent war in Yugoslavia was a perfect example - they brought the country down without engaging in any actual combat at all. Or take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - this isssue is far from settled in the eyes of millions of people. They don't see Hiroshima as a military target, and it was attacked with a clear goal of scaring Japanese government into surrender.

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just reminding that the issue is still hotly debated. To many it was a biggest terrorist act in history.

Situation with guerilla warfare is in many ways similar. They know that given the choice the state would not hesitate to kill civilians and they don't see the government as morally superior in any way. In the south they target clear symbols of Thai state - governement offices, schools, or karaoke joints. They go after muslim "traitors", too. I think they resent "traitors" even more than they resent Thais.

Political solution is not possible at the moment as young fighters are not a political force and they won't listen or reason with anybody - PULO, Bersatu, or whoever.

Police can't o anything about violence among teenagers in Bangkok, forget the South.

[Tony Clifton]

Police can't even cordon off a building entrance for Thaksin's son to walk in and testify. Says a lot.

[bingobongo]

General fears attacks in Bangkok

Feb 20, 2007

First Region Army commander Prayuth Chan-ocha Tuesday condemned southern insurgents who staged Sunday night bombings and arson attacks in the deep South, saying that they "attack people from behind."

Lt-Gen Prayuth said the attacks caused him to worry about possible attacks in the central region, especially in Bangkok.

The concern was shared by Council for National Security chairman Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, who told security agencies to watch out for possible attacks during the Songkran festival in April.

Lt-Gen Prayuth added that there were still gaps in cooperation between soldiers and police, which cause tracking down of suspects to be slower.

He added that the army would step up security measures at locations where arms and weapons were stored to prevent insurgents from breaking in and stealing the weapons.

Edited February 20, 2007 by bingobongo

[sriracha john]

BREAKING NEWS

Bangkok Embassy Security Increased

Security measures at 38 embassies in the capital will be heightened following Sunday's [and Monday's] coordinated bombings in the Thai-Malaysian border provinces, a senior police officer said Tuesday.

Speaking to journalists after meeting representatives of 38 embassies in the capital to discuss increased security measures, Pol. Col. Phongsiam Meekhanthong, superintendent of Lumpini Police Station, said police are collecting information from expatriates, at popular commercial venues, a dozen embassies and at varied businesses owned by foreign investors in his jurisdiction.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=116947

[John K]

We there are certainly some strong points from many sides here and to debate is to use your ears as well as your mouth and not just blindly charge forward only open to you own point of view.

Bottom line is these animals are incompatible with everyone including themselves and they must be removed by whatever means is necessary. Unfortunately it looks to be fight fire with fire and we must go down to their level as that they appear incapable of coming up to ours. That is how Saddam Hussein dealt with them successfully. As they poked there head out of their hole he put a bullet in them.

Unfortunately acting like that is totally un-Thai and that probably will turn out to be the Achilles heel of the Thais. If there was any doubt in their mind that they could attack Bangkok, whoever bombed Bangkok new years eve shattered that doubt and may have open the door to pandoras box.

Edited February 20, 2007 by John K

[ColPyat]

Plus killing yourself defeats the purpose.

That line caught my attention

Colpyat is rigth here - what looks like subhuman indiscritminate killings actually follows logic.

Collateral damage (what US does) and delibirate targeting of civilians (what terrorists do) is not as far apart as some think. The US military strategy for ages, since WWII, has targeted civilian infrastructure rather than confronting enemy troops. Recent war in Yugoslavia was a perfect example - they brought the country down without engaging in any actual combat at all. Or take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - this isssue is far from settled in the eyes of millions of people. They don't see Hiroshima as a military target, and it was attacked with a clear goal of scaring Japanese government into surrender.

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just reminding that the issue is still hotly debated. To many it was a biggest terrorist act in history.

Situation with guerilla warfare is in many ways similar. They know that given the choice the state would not hesitate to kill civilians and they don't see the government as morally superior in any way. In the south they target clear symbols of Thai state - governement offices, schools, or karaoke joints. They go after muslim "traitors", too. I think they resent "traitors" even more than they resent Thais.

Political solution is not possible at the moment as young fighters are not a political force and they won't listen or reason with anybody - PULO, Bersatu, or whoever.

Police can't o anything about violence among teenagers in Bangkok, forget the South.

Thank you.

Your post is also the first post of yours in a very long time i can fully agree with.

[seagull]

I don't care about lessons in Histories nor political science. Nor do I care about what brings this "sub-human" to conduct such in-human acts. There is simply no good reasons. Yes, they have their reaons to kill, so does the innocent lives lost world wide due to terrorism, they too have a reason to live. plenty I may add. The sorrows and grieve that this so called freedom fighters left behind on the victims by their bloodied hands, cannot at all be justified, no matter how you wish to justify it. There is no justification. Forget about Hitler, forget about Hiroshima and the others. You are going nowhere. This is now. 2007.

And I too, do not give a hoot, whether you agree or not. I fully condemned this "sub-human" to hel_l. And may they get decapitated too.

For those who strongly disagree with me? Well, wait till one goes off, killing your love one who was just going to the market, or simply to school. I beg that it would not happened to you.

[John K]

I don’t know if there is a term to agree with someone who agrees with you.

[ColPyat]

We there are certainly some strong points from many sides here and to debate is to use your ears as well as your mouth and not just blindly charge forward only open to you own point of view.

Bottom line is these animals are incompatible with everyone including themselves and they must be removed by whatever means is necessary. Unfortunately it looks to be fight fire with fire and we must go down to their level as that they appear incapable of coming up to ours. That is how Saddam Hussein dealt with them successfully. As they poked there head out of their hole he put a bullet in them.

Excuse me, but this statement is beyond believe. History of every similar internal conflict has clearly shown that the by you proposed tactic only further exagerates the situation instead of solving anything. That way you do exactly fall into the strategical trap of the insurgents.

Such emotional kneejerk reactions where political agenda over rides strategy have caused, for example, the mess in Irak, and have prolongued many wars.

It is well known that a guerilla war cannot be won on the battle field.

And it is ironic to say how Saddham Hussain has dealt with anything succesfully, given his end after years of escalation.

Unfortunately acting like that is totally un-Thai and that probably will turn out to be the Achilles heel of the Thais. If there was any doubt in their mind that they could attack Bangkok, whoever bombed Bangkok new years eve shattered that doubt and may have open the door to pandoras box.

"Un-Thai" is comical. What do you mean with "un-Thai"? Brutal warfare? I am sorry, but you really should read up on Thai history. The least possible "un-Thai" thing could be extremely brutal reactions to social threads. On the opposite - Thailand has a consistent history of gross human rights violations.

[ColPyat]

I don't care about lessons in Histories nor political science.

Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it. Maybe you should start caring about history or political science.

[Mid]

Three charged with South bombings

(BangkokPost.com from reports)

Security forces have arrested three Muslim men in connection with a series of bombs and shootings that killed eight people in the far south of the country at the weekend.

quick me thinks ..........................

[ColPyat]

I don’t know if there is a term to agree with someone who agrees with you.

The term you are searching for is *mutual agreement*.

Any more help needed?

[seagull]

I don't care about lessons in Histories nor political science.

Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it. Maybe you should start caring about history or political science.

Would it help, if I am a major in political science or histories ?. In particular, thailand's, to stop all this killing of the innocents? Or is it simply knowledge gained but action ain't. Being an academic is applaudable. But in eradicating this problem of terrorism, cannot be accomplished in an academic way. Why? The murderers (cowardly) are not interested in talking! They wants to kill, maimed and terrorise those who do not conform with their believes! They have a set goal! That is also one of the reasons you have suicide bombers. Fanatics, is all I can describe them to be. And again...."sub-human"

[John K]

We there are certainly some strong points from many sides here and to debate is to use your ears as well as your mouth and not just blindly charge forward only open to you own point of view.

Bottom line is these animals are incompatible with everyone including themselves and they must be removed by whatever means is necessary. Unfortunately it looks to be fight fire with fire and we must go down to their level as that they appear incapable of coming up to ours. That is how Saddam Hussein dealt with them successfully. As they poked there head out of their hole he put a bullet in them.

Excuse me, but this statement is beyond believe. History of every similar internal conflict has clearly shown that the by you proposed tactic only further exagerates the situation instead of solving anything. That way you do exactly fall into the strategical trap of the insurgents.

Such emotional kneejerk reactions where political agenda over rides strategy have caused, for example, the mess in Irak, and have prolongued many wars.

It is well known that a guerilla war cannot be won on the battle field.

And it is ironic to say how Saddham Hussain has dealt with anything succesfully, given his end after years of escalation.

Unfortunately acting like that is totally un-Thai and that probably will turn out to be the Achilles heel of the Thais. If there was any doubt in their mind that they could attack Bangkok, whoever bombed Bangkok new years eve shattered that doubt and may have open the door to pandoras box.

"Un-Thai" is comical. What do you mean with "un-Thai"? Brutal warfare? I am sorry, but you really should read up on Thai history. The least possible "un-Thai" thing could be extremely brutal reactions to social threads. On the opposite - Thailand has a consistent history of gross human rights violations.

To kill innocent people without cause or simply because they don’t see things your way, yes I stand by my statement totally. I think you need take your 50 mm lens off and use a 20 mm or lower here.

Times change, 140 years ago and earlier nearly everyone around the world was packing some sort of weapon because it was necessary. Several generations have passed and the need to teach to kill when necessary I am very sure is not in the Thai curriculum. Perhaps at one time Thais were as aggressive as you say, but certainly not today. My statement stands. History means past and I very recently heard someone say;

“Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.”

It appears the Thais have learned and are not repeating it.

[ColPyat]

To kill innocent people without cause or simply because they don’t see things your way, yes I stand by my statement totally. I think you need take your 50 mm lens off and use a 20 mm or lower here.

20 mm wideangle lenses tend to distort the view. It's an optical rule.

Maybe, staying with your example, you should put on your 50 mm lens, and start seeing that the insurgents down south have a cause. That cause is found in the history of that conflict - it'a a cause of separation and re-establishing their independence.

In order to achive that they use long established guerilla tactics of terror and attrition against a superior opponent - the Thai state. The people they kill, as has been pointed out to you, may be personally innocent, but they do represent the Thai state against which the insurgents are fighting.

Times change, 140 years ago and earlier nearly everyone around the world was packing some sort of weapon because it was necessary. Several generations have passed and the need to teach to kill when necessary I am very sure is not in the Thai curriculum. Perhaps at one time Thais were as aggressive as you say, but certainly not today. My statement stands. History means past and I very recently heard someone say;

“Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.”

It appears the Thais have learned and are not repeating it.

Given Tak Bai (i hope you are familiar with that), and the drug war of 2003 and it's wide approval under the Thai population, and collaboration of all armed forces (i know that you are familiar with that as i have seen you debating it here in this forum) it should be clear that the Thai state has not learned to solve social threats without the use of extreme violence.

Your statement might stand, but it is a wrong statement nonetheless.

[ColPyat]

Would it help, if I am a major in political science or histories ?. In particular, thailand's, to stop all this killing of the innocents? Or is it simply knowledge gained but action ain't. Being an academic is applaudable. But in eradicating this problem of terrorism, cannot be accomplished in an academic way. Why? The murderers (cowardly) are not interested in talking! They wants to kill, maimed and terrorise those who do not conform with their believes! They have a set goal! That is also one of the reasons you have suicide bombers. Fanatics, is all I can describe them to be. And again...."sub-human"

You don't need to be a major in any science. But it would definately help if you are familiar with the history of a particular conflict in order to know what it all is about.

The conflict down south is not about conforming to believes, but an ethnic and nationalist conflict. Before the declaration of independence by the US - the founding fathers and their armies were exactly what todays terrorists here in south Thailand are, and have employed very similar tactics against their colonial masters.

Down south the insurgents have even more of a case than in those days the founding fathers of the US, as Thailand has in fact annexed their own country without asking them first.

[younghusband]

John Le Carre not just a master of the espionage genre but a great and knowledgeable writer covered S.E Asia in The Honourable Schoolboy.

Background to the quote below is that the eponymous hero, Jerry Westerby, arrives in Bangkok and is on guard against his enemies.

"And he knew that when they were cross the Thais killed a great deal sooner and more thoroughly than anyone else, even though, when they condemned a man to the firing squad,they shot him through a stretched bed sheet in order not to offend the laws of the Lord Buddha"

Most foreigners, and for that matter most Thais, know this to be so.That's why the potential for disaster in the South is so unnerving for some of us, not to mention the scope for violence in the broader political picture.Even a glancing knowledge of Thai history demonstrates the danger.

[John K]

To kill innocent people without cause or simply because they don’t see things your way, yes I stand by my statement totally. I think you need take your 50 mm lens off and use a 20 mm or lower here.

20 mm wideangle lenses tend to distort the view. It's an optical rule.

Maybe, staying with your example, you should put on your 50 mm lens, and start seeing that the insurgents down south have a cause. That cause is found in the history of that conflict - it'a a cause of separation and re-establishing their independence.

In order to achive that they use long established guerilla tactics of terror and attrition against a superior opponent - the Thai state. The people they kill, as has been pointed out to you, may be personally innocent, but they do represent the Thai state against which the insurgents are fighting.

Times change, 140 years ago and earlier nearly everyone around the world was packing some sort of weapon because it was necessary. Several generations have passed and the need to teach to kill when necessary I am very sure is not in the Thai curriculum. Perhaps at one time Thais were as aggressive as you say, but certainly not today. My statement stands. History means past and I very recently heard someone say;

“Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.”

It appears the Thais have learned and are not repeating it.

Given Tak Bai (i hope you are familiar with that), and the drug war of 2003 and it's wide approval under the Thai population, and collaboration of all armed forces (i know that you are familiar with that as i have seen you debating it here in this forum) it should be clear that the Thai state has not learned to solve social threats without the use of extreme violence.

Your statement might stand, but it is a wrong statement nonetheless.

I am talking about a 10 year old picking up a gun and shooting at a known terrorist walking by knowing if you don’t kill him, he will one day kill you. That is the level!!!! That’s the level the animals are at. When you hear about 14 year old female suicide bombers in Israel, I am talking about civilians not military being able to kill. Remember civilians are targets not only the military.

[seagull]

Would it help, if I am a major in political science or histories ?. In particular, thailand's, to stop all this killing of the innocents? Or is it simply knowledge gained but action ain't. Being an academic is applaudable. But in eradicating this problem of terrorism, cannot be accomplished in an academic way. Why? The murderers (cowardly) are not interested in talking! They wants to kill, maimed and terrorise those who do not conform with their believes! They have a set goal! That is also one of the reasons you have suicide bombers. Fanatics, is all I can describe them to be. And again...."sub-human"

You don't need to be a major in any science. But it would definately help if you are familiar with the history of a particular conflict in order to know what it all is about.

Knowing what it is all about, belongs in the class rooms. We ain't in class room now as far as this topic is concerned.

The conflict down south is not about conforming to believes, but an ethnic and nationalist conflict.

Aren't ethnics and nationalist conflicts are an attempt to conform to their believes?

Before the declaration of independence by the US - the founding fathers and their armies were exactly what todays terrorists here in south Thailand are, and have employed very similar tactics against their colonial masters.

Isn't this another history lesson?

Down south the insurgents have even more of a case than in those days the founding fathers of the US, as Thailand has in fact annexed their own country without asking them first.

And again, history and justification for the killings of innocents.

[A_Traveller]

For those who are not sure of these things, permit me to put some data into this.

1. Patani the Kingdom was founded in the thirteenth century, though some Islamic scholars suggest it was much earlier and the court converted to Islam during the fifteen century {Current Era}.

2. The Thai {I'll avoid Siam here since it simply adds to the confusion} Kingdom exercised suzerainty over Patani from the sixteenth century onwards. There are some breaks and skirmishes, and Patani took advantage of the Burmese raids which lead to the destruction of Ayutthya to break away.

3. Rama I's son, Prince Surasi, attacked Patani in 1786. The Sultan Muhammad was slain in battle and his capital was burned to the ground. It is claimed that 4,000 Patani Malays were chained and marched to Bangkok, where they became slaves and were made to dig the city's system of canals.

4. As part of this successful campaign, two cannon, a skill for which the armourers of Patani were famous, the 'Seri Negara' and 'Seri Patani' were brought to Bangkok and both can be seen today at the entrance to the Thai MoD building.

5. There were further rebellions against Thai rule, the last significant one being in 1808, which ultimately resulted in Patani being partioned into seven states. Four of those states subsequently claimed independence for about six months but were retaken by Thai authorities, reverting to Thai suzerainty as the others had remained throughout.

6. In 1826 both the Thai and British signed the Burney Treaty which acknowledged the Thai territorial claims as extant {Note time-line above}.

6. Under these circumstances the British further negotiated with the Thai government of the day and both signed the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 which effectively created the Thai-Malay(sia) border of today.

7. As was the position historically the British and Thai governments did not include representation of the citizens of the states being discussed.

HTH

Regards

/edit format //

Edited February 20, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

Aren't ethnics and nationalist conflicts are an attempt to conform to their believes?

Eh, no, its *ethnic*, not "ethics" (please type into google these two terms with the term definition, seperately, and find out what that means, and what the difference between those two is).

Nationalist in this context means *national*, like in 'country'.

Which basically means that this is about the southern insurgents trying to re-gain their country wich Thailand has taken away from them.

I am sorry that historical facts get in the way of your opinions.

Edited February 20, 2007 by ColPyat

[ColPyat]

For those who are not sure of these things, permit me to put some data into this.

7. As was the position historically the British and Thai governments did not include representation of the citizens of the states being discussed.

Thanks for the historical run down.

As can be seen - there is a long ongoing conflict. And one can add that the latest significant uprising against Thai rule is presently happening, with a yet open end.

[dog412]

Aren't ethnics and nationalist conflicts are an attempt to conform to their believes?

Eh, no, its *ethnic*, not "ethics" (please type into google these two terms with the term definition, seperately, and find out what that means, and what the difference between those two is).

Nationalist in this context means *national*, like in 'country'.

Which basically means that this is about the southern insurgents trying to re-gain their country wich Thailand has taken away from them.

I am sorry that historical facts get in the way of your opinions.

[MiG16]

Which basically means that this is about the southern insurgents trying to re-gain their country wich Thailand has taken away from them.

if by that logic..then how many of current day countries can retain its border?

should pakistan and bangladesh become India again?

or should india go back to being the various small kingdoms ruled by numerous kings?

and should the Ottoman empire and the likes be re-instated?

cos isnt that how things WERE?

not that I have anything against any of the above kingdoms or empires in particular....just random names that pop into my head....but things have moved on...borders established.

other solution to live together needs to be worked out.

if they can do it in isaan, in the north.....then whys the south gotta be different....

[A_Traveller]

For those who are not sure of these things, permit me to put some data into this.

7. As was the position historically the British and Thai governments did not include representation of the citizens of the states being discussed.

Thanks for the historical run down.

As can be seen - there is a long ongoing conflict. And one can add that the latest significant uprising against Thai rule is presently happening, with a yet open end.

Hm... well that's called selective reading I think.

A key point is that the history shows the area has been under effective Thai control for 400 + years. Whilst having different culture and religion, the level of control was sufficient for the British to recognise the position on the ground and deal with the rulers of the area, in this case the Thai government.

The other point is to note that there no historical evidence to support a long ongoing conflict, in point of fact the reverse is true.

Regards

[A_MIKE_U_LIKE]

Would it help, if I am a major in political science or histories ?. In particular, thailand's, to stop all this killing of the innocents? Or is it simply knowledge gained but action ain't. Being an academic is applaudable. But in eradicating this problem of terrorism, cannot be accomplished in an academic way. Why? The murderers (cowardly) are not interested in talking! They wants to kill, maimed and terrorise those who do not conform with their believes! They have a set goal! That is also one of the reasons you have suicide bombers. Fanatics, is all I can describe them to be. And again...."sub-human"

You don't need to be a major in any science. But it would definately help if you are familiar with the history of a particular conflict in order to know what it all is about.

The conflict down south is not about conforming to believes, but an ethnic and nationalist conflict. Before the declaration of independence by the US - the founding fathers and their armies were exactly what todays terrorists here in south Thailand are, and have employed very similar tactics against their colonial masters.

Down south the insurgents have even more of a case than in those days the founding fathers of the US, as Thailand has in fact annexed their own country without asking them first.

I am sorry ColPyat i Don,t think this is similar to the colonial war as for the most part this was Fought by two opposing Armies who fought toe to toe ..What we are seeing in Thailand is the Birth of something similar to the Northern Ireland Troubles ..There will be a few Gangster types bullying the population into support and useing Religion as a excuse ..There will be high up officials Military and Goverment who will see this as Spring board for there careers and a over Zealous Goverment that will not want to loose Face ..All that will come of this ..is the Bullies will get Political Recognition ..The Goverment at the time will claim Recognition for bringing peace to the area ..But when you look back you will see everybody else paid the high price ..From the Soldier/Police officer who never wanted to get caught up in it all to the terrorist that was recruited/Bullied into it from the Playground and to the Mothers who lost there Children from both sides ...What the Area needs is 100% employment a heavy military presence that can be promised to diminish as the violence receeds and most of all a population that will get sick and tired of it sooner rather than later so that politicions and High Profile names can,t get any mileage from it any longer ...This is my view only and from some of my own personal experiances .... as you can see from my Grammer there,s no Academic Qualifications here but i did serve in the H.M Forces and have seen this kind of BS up close and personal ..This is not to be confused with the Guerilla tactics of yesteryear .. This is secretarian violence being indiscrimitaly meeted out onto schools temples and mosques ..Trust me this is not a War this is Gangster Rule Fueled by Religion ..This is a Hornets nest being shaken up and those doing the shaking are laughing there <deleted> off while everyone else in side is suffering ..Just my 10 Bahts worth

[ColPyat]

Which basically means that this is about the southern insurgents trying to re-gain their country wich Thailand has taken away from them.

if by that logic..then how many of current day countries can retain its border?

should pakistan and bangladesh become India again?

or should india go back to being the various small kingdoms ruled by numerous kings?

and should the Ottoman empire and the likes be re-instated?

cos isnt that how things WERE?

not that I have anything against any of the above kingdoms or empires in particular....just random names that pop into my head....but things have moved on...borders established.

other solution to live together needs to be worked out.

if they can do it in isaan, in the north.....then whys the south gotta be different....

I would definately tend to agree with that. The only problem is that the insurgents down south don't (and i doubt they would listen to my opinions on that issue ). They believe that they should regain their country. Back to square one.

Yes, these small nationalist-ethnic conflicts are idiotic, unrealistic and usually marked by horrific atrocities. And yes, better solutions should, and could be found, by both sides of those conflicts. But that doesn't really help us when both sides are so adamant in their own righteousness of their cause.

And yes, especially Isaarn was a huge concern of the Thai state until the 80s. Now though it doesn't seem to be the case anymore, and people there are appearantly happier to be part of Thailand than part of Laos. What makes it easier is that Isaarn has a very similar language, culture, and does belong to the T'ai ethnic group.

People down south though have a different language, culture, religion, and belong to a different ethnic group.