Insurgents Burn Female Villager Alive

[A_Traveller]

Though there are links to the Aceh conflict my impression was that the tsunami was largely responsible for the breakthrough leading to the signature of the peace accord in August 2005.

Regards

And this is a big lie propagated by most medias.

In fact - the MOU was countersigned one day before the Tsunami, after several months of difficult negotiations that were instigated by a Scandinavian businessman.

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this.

Regards

[taxexile]

But we are dealing with an identifiable "enemy" in southern Thailand

who is behind them , where does their money come from , and what mandate to they have for this islamic state , other than that of their paymasters and "intellectual" mentors controlling things from perhaps saudi arabia .

they are all part of the same thing , be it the "pattani liberation front" , the iranian sh1tstirrers in iraq , the taliban and the poison preachers in mosques in london.

[meom]

Thousands of suspected fighters are known by name and photo, but there is not enough evidence against them.

Their organizational structure is known.

If the government can kill 2000 suspected drug dealers without major problems how come they can't kill suspected fighters which are known by name and photo?

[canuckamuck]

ColPyat: Look who’s wearing the rosy glasses now.

I have to go to bed, so I got no time to repute any of that best wishes sort of approach.

Just do me a favor, if you ever go to war, don’t volunteer to lead. Your men would have to shoot you first if they were to have any chance to survive.

PS: you’re in the spell checker now.

[ColPyat]

Though there are links to the Aceh conflict my impression was that the tsunami was largely responsible for the breakthrough leading to the signature of the peace accord in August 2005.

Regards

And this is a big lie propagated by most medias.

In fact - the MOU was countersigned one day before the Tsunami, after several months of difficult negotiations that were instigated by a Scandinavian businessman.

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this.

Regards

I don't know where i have put the card of the businessman, i'll look for it, and if i can find it then will have to go through an endless google search to find that one Swedish article i have read that did a portrait on the guy and the Aceh peace process.

Do i have to do that, or can you just trust me that i have met the man in Aceh and conversed with him about it while he was part of the AMM?

Basically, i just read the account of the Crises Management Initiative, and they list different dates than the ones i was given by the AMM. Who knows, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the public is not made aware of.

I might not be able to give you the citation you want, but i can assure you that i am not wrong.

[ColPyat]

Thousands of suspected fighters are known by name and photo, but there is not enough evidence against them.

Their organizational structure is known.

If the government can kill 2000 suspected drug dealers without major problems how come they can't kill suspected fighters which are known by name and photo?

Simple difference - kill 2000 drug dealers and you will have the population applauding. Kill 200 insurgents, and you have a civil war to deal with. Wrong strategy, and one the military tries to avoid at all costs. If it would have any hope of succeeding to pacify the South - i have no doubt that they would have employed this already.

And no, i would not protest the way i have with the drug war killings, if it would mean ending the insurgency. But it wouldn't, simple as that.

Edited April 11, 2007 by ColPyat

[ColPyat]

ColPyat: Look who’s wearing the rosy glasses now.

I have to go to bed, so I got no time to repute any of that best wishes sort of approach.

Just do me a favor, if you ever go to war, don’t volunteer to lead. Your men would have to shoot you first if they were to have any chance to survive.

PS: you’re in the spell checker now.

I have been "to war". The last one i just returned ten days ago from - the southern provinces. And i will go there again in a few days for a week or two.

[A_Traveller]

Though there are links to the Aceh conflict my impression was that the tsunami was largely responsible for the breakthrough leading to the signature of the peace accord in August 2005.

Regards

And this is a big lie propagated by most medias.

In fact - the MOU was countersigned one day before the Tsunami, after several months of difficult negotiations that were instigated by a Scandinavian businessman.

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this.

Regards

I don't know where i have put the card of the businessman, i'll look for it, and if i can find it then will have to go through an endless google search to find that one Swedish article i have read that did a portrait on the guy and the Aceh peace process.

Do i have to do that, or can you just trust me that i have met the man in Aceh and conversed with him about it while he was part of the AMM?

Basically, i just read the account of the Crises Management Initiative, and they list different dates than the ones i was given by the AMM. Who knows, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the public is not made aware of.

I might not be able to give you the citation you want, but i can assure you that i am not wrong.

One Google article! A single item which is fundamentally different to data put forward by AMM's website or are you suggesting that AMM is being economic with the actuality?

About AMM Emphasis added in italics

The Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM), led by Mr Pieter Feith from the EU, was established to monitor the implementation of various aspects of the peace agreement set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Government of Indonesia (GoI) and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) on 15 August 2005 in Helsinki, Finland. The European Union, together with five contributing countries from ASEAN (Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Singapore), Norway and Switzerland, provided monitors for the peace process in Aceh (Indonesia). The mission came to an end on 15 December 2006 after having completed all the tasks assigned to it.

Following a brief interim presence (IMP) since the signing of the MoU, the AMM was officially launched on 15 September 2005, covering an initial period of 6 months. It was thereafter extended until 15 December 2006. The presence of AMM was based on an official invitation from the GoI and with the full support of the leadership of the GAM.

The AMM was undertaking this mission in order to contribute to a peaceful, comprehensive and sustainable solution to the conflict in Aceh. This has been made all the more important by the terrible tsunami disaster of 26 December 2004 and the suffering it inflicted on the Acehnese people. The EU and ASEAN fully respect the territorial integrity of Indonesia and see the future of Aceh as being within the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia. AMM was completely impartial by nature and did not represent or favour any of the parties.

Regards

Link

http://www.aceh-mm.org

/edit format//

Edited April 11, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

One Google article! A single item which is fundamentally different to data put forward by AMM's website or are you suggesting that AMM is being economic with the actuality?

As i said - i can't give you the citation, and the official account differs from the one i was given directly by the person who started the negotiations, confirmed by several other high ranking members of the AMM.

I will not hold it against you if you choose not to believe me, especially because i cannot give you the proof you seek.

[meom]

Thousands of suspected fighters are known by name and photo, but there is not enough evidence against them.

Their organizational structure is known.

If the government can kill 2000 suspected drug dealers without major problems how come they can't kill suspected fighters which are known by name and photo?

Simple difference - kill 2000 drug dealers and you will have the population applauding. Kill 200 insurgents, and you have a civil war to deal with. Wrong strategy, and one the military tries to avoid at all costs. If it would have any hope of succeeding to pacify the South - i have no doubt that they would have employed this already.

And no, i would not protest the way i have with the drug war killings, if it would mean ending the insurgency. But it wouldn't, simple as that.

"Kill 200 insurgents, and you have a civil war to deal with."

Maybe my interpretation is wrong but doesn't this mean that the local population supports the insurgents?

[ColPyat]

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this.

Regards

I found the article that is closest to the personal account i was given. Yes, the official MOU was not signed until later, but:

"The tsunami, which hit Aceh on December 26th, 2004, had been seen as a spark for the peace talks. In fact, Christensen says that things had moved forward considerably by then. On Christmas Eve before the tsunami, the two sides had agreed, in principle, to start the negotiations,"

He basically said to me that this meant that both sides agreed on peace not only in principle, and only the final terms and details had to be worked out.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finns+sta...s/1135223793515

[ColPyat]

"Kill 200 insurgents, and you have a civil war to deal with."

Maybe my interpretation is wrong but doesn't this mean that the local population supports the insurgents?

That's a very difficult question, which nobody can give you a definitive answer.

The local Muslim population is not exactly endeared by the Thai government and its institutions for obvious reasons of a clear history of oppression. The government knows this, and accepts the basic truth of that.

No, i don't think that the majority of the population is therefore automatically on the side of the insurgents, or does agree with the gruesome tactics employed. There are many people who would prefer autonomy, or independence, but are not willing to engage in warfare to reach that goal, who reject that idea completely. But there are many Muslims down there who are on the side of the Thai state. And you have local Muslims who do support the insurgency.

And that is one of the terrible things in that war - in many Muslim villages people cannot trust each other anymore, as often nobody knows who is an insurgent and who not.

The war is a war of propaganda as well. The insurgents have very well developed propaganda tactics, which the government is not up to par with yet, but works on it.

But, if the government would summarily execute suspected insurgents without clear evidence and due process, you can be sure that the local Muslim population would be enraged, and move towards supporting the insurgents. There is so much mistrust towards the government, and part of that comes from a clear history of abuse of power, the latest and most blatant the still unpunished deaths of Tak Bai. This is a very complex situation.

[qualtrough]

[ you having a laugh right thai buddist peace loving. not the ones in Samui. Muslim relegion is also a peacefull religion. good and bad in all religions

Did I just wake up in another world? Do you watch TV, read the newspaper, know what even goes on in the world nowadays?? - The only thing that was even close to the truth was the "good and bad in all religions" - but more more to the point I would say there are good in bad in all peopl eof all religions. The people are the ones that make the bad - religions are good, it is the interpretation and implementation of the tenets by PEOPLE that destroy it.

Good that there is some common sense here as well well, and not just the hang 'em brigade.

The problem down south is highly complex. The insurgents are everything else than "animals", and escalating the situation, as some here seem to demand, is exactly what the insurgents intend with those atrocities.

This is war, and the insurgents don't kill indiscriminately, they have very clear tactics, and choose their victims carefully for maximum effect. They kill a Buddhist woman to escalate the situation into a religious civil war, a few weeks ago they have had a round of killing army and police in previously quiet districts to disrupt the security forces.

These are so far very successful tactics that give them the initiative, and the lead in the conflict. The government is still struggling for an answer, experimenting with different strategies, which are so far not very successful.

The insurgents are highly organized, with combat units, bomb units, propaganda squads, intelligence units, etc.

Every war is ugly. What in the wars led by western nations presently is termed "collateral damage" are also civilians, women and children, mutilated and killed.

No, the majority of the Muslim population is not on the side of the insurgents, they are terrified. But they are not on the side of the government either. And that is entirely the fault of the government. Decades of oppression resulted in that mistrust. The last opportunities to bring the majority of the civilian Muslim population to the side of the government have been given away by Prem's rejection of the recommendation of NRC to allow using Yawi as a second government language, and by Surayud not arresting and trying the officers responsible for Tak Bai.

There are many soldiers and police officers on the ground who try to do the best they can, but that work is somewhat boycotted by the block heads in the higher ranks and the government, and by the endemic corruption of others in the military and police, who are directly benefiting financially from the war and the huge government funds of which lots can be channeled away.

And no, Buddhists are not that peaceful either. There were already revenge killings by local Buddhists against innocent Muslims, and the Dahan Praan have a terrible reputation down there, not entirely undeserved either.

The only possible solution is on the negotiation table. But i fear that a lot more blood has to flow until both sides are ready and willing for substantial negotiations. All out war might satisfy the bloodlust of some here (most of those will never have to directly deal with that war as well), but it is no solution. At least that the government understands, and has a hard time to hold back extremists out for revenge.

Colpyat, I don't always agree with you, but this is one of the most sensible posts I have seen. The idiots who want to slash and burn down South are no better than the terrorists and are just playing into their hands. Why do they think that kind of tactic will work anyway? Can they share with us where that has worked? Iraq, Afghanistan...??

Edited April 11, 2007 by qualtrough

[A_Traveller]

Would you be so kind as to provide a citation for this.

Regards

I found the article that is closest to the personal account i was given. Yes, the official MOU was not signed until later, but:

"The tsunami, which hit Aceh on December 26th, 2004, had been seen as a spark for the peace talks. In fact, Christensen says that things had moved forward considerably by then. On Christmas Eve before the tsunami, the two sides had agreed, in principle, to start the negotiations,"

He basically said to me that this meant that both sides agreed on peace not only in principle, and only the final terms and details had to be worked out.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Finns+sta...s/1135223793515

I thank you for taking the time to find this article, and I do not wish to be accused of hi-jacking this thread from the underlying subject, so I'll note that as you have now said yourself the MoU was not signed until August 2005, and the statement that they "had agreed to start the negotiations, and [former Finnish President] Ahtisaari had agreed to serve as a mediator.".

As the saying goes the devil is in the detail.

Regards and again thanks.

[ColPyat]

I thank you for taking the time to find this article, and I do not wish to be accused of hi-jacking this thread from the underlying subject, so I'll note that as you have now said yourself the MoU was not signed until August 2005, and the statement that they "had agreed to start the negotiations, and [former Finnish President] Ahtisaari had agreed to serve as a mediator.".

As the saying goes the devil is in the detail.

Regards and again thanks.

My terminology was wrong, i admit that, and misleading. Good that you forced me to find the article again.

Important though is that the Tsunami was not the initiator for the Aceh peace process, and that considerable talks happened before. This is very hopeful, because it does show that it does not need such a disaster to initiate peace, but frank talks at the right time.

Basically, the appearance of the former Finnish president was a face issue for the international stage. The real steps to peace have been done on a lower level beforehand (as usual).

And no, Aceh is not off topic - Aceh is in many ways closely related to Pattani, has many parallels, and the Aceh solution is seen by many the only way out of the mess in the south some time in the future.

[meom]

This is a very complex situation.

So what is the government stance at the moment? Are they negotiating with any parties and in which way do they see the future? If they come to an agreement do the parties they talk to have enough power to control the insurgents or is it already to late for that?

[ColPyat]

This is a very complex situation.

So what is the government stance at the moment? Are they negotiating with any parties and in which way do they see the future? If they come to an agreement do the parties they talk to have enough power to control the insurgents or is it already to late for that?

I have not the slightest idea if anyone presently negotiates. I am not privy to such information. I don't think that i would sit here on an open internet forum if i would be.

I have no idea if the parties they would talk to, if they would do that, would have any power over the insurgents, but i would guess so.

The insurgents are highly organized, and not indiscriminate killers. That is something i can assure you of.

[britmaveric]

Well if majority of the population doesnt support them, I think its high time they stand up and do smth about it. Shear numbers would certainly put these nutters out of business.

[ColPyat]

Well if majority of the population doesnt support them, I think its high time they stand up and do smth about it. Shear numbers would certainly put these nutters out of business.

Well, but they don't exactly support the government either. It's easy to say from behind the safety of the screen - they should do something. Some people do, and as a result they get threatened and killed for working with the government.

The normal population that just wants to get along with life is in constant fear, and that is something that you may have to experience in order to appreciate it.

And no - the insurgents are everything else than nutters - they are highly organized, well trained, calculating - and at the present moment they have the initiative. That should be proof enough for their capabilities.

Edited April 11, 2007 by ColPyat

[A_Traveller]

Just to square the circle I've been doing some further searching through articles and data sets.

The position in Aceh appears that despite public statements of a ceasefire there were continued skirmishes and the civil emergency provisions were only lifted in May 2005. Indeed TNI {Indonesian Military} claimed at the end of January 2005 that they had killed 200+ GAM {Free Aceh Movement} members in over 80 incidents since the tsunami under the aegis of the civil emergency provisions. It should be noted that the tsunami caused more damage to the TNI infrastructure than GAM's.

However, official negotiations commenced about one month after the tsunami. This was not a completely new initiative, since this followed on from secret talks initiated during the previous year by the Indonesian Vice President, Jusuf Kalla. Four days before the tsunami struck Aceh, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari was invited by Kalla and Finnish businessman Juha Christensen to facilitate negotiations, following an agreement for further talks between both government and GAM negotiators.

I'm not so convinced that everything was quite so agreed but clearly there was an ongoing but secret negotiation process in place prior to the tsunami. It is to be hoped that something similar is at least on the radar for the south.

I do contend however that the effect of the event was a trigger for the talks to 'move up a gear' and come to fruition quicker. It was much more difficult for extremists on either side to derail such a process under the resultant conditions created by nature.

Regards

/edit clarifications//

Edited April 11, 2007 by A_Traveller

[ColPyat]

Just to square the circle I've been doing some further searching through articles and data sets.

The position in Aceh appears that despite public statements of a ceasefire there were continued skirmishes and the civil emergency provisions were only lifted in May 2005. Indeed TNI {Indonesian Military} claimed at the end of January 2005 that they had killed 200+ GAM {Free Aceh Movement} members in over 80 incidents.

However, official negotiations commenced about one month after the tsunami. This was not a completely new initiative, since this followed on from secret talks initiated during the previous year by the Indonesian Vice President, Jusuf Kalla. Four days before the tsunami struck Aceh, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari was invited by Kalla and Finnish businessman Juha Christensen to facilitate negotiations, following an agreement for further talks between both government and GAM negotiators.

I'm not so convinced that everything was quite so agreed but clearly there was an ongoing but secret negotiation process in place prior to the tsunami. It is to be hoped that something similar is at least on the radar for the south.

I do contend however that the effect of the event was a trigger for the talks to 'move up a gear' and come to fruition quicker. It would be much more difficult or extremists on either side to derail such a process under the resultant conditions created by nature.

Regards

It's only natural that there will be incidents after successful negotiations. It only shows the resolve of both sides that these incidents did not bring the whole thing to collapse. Nobody refutes that the Tsunami strengthened the resolve for peace. But it wasn't responsible for it.

And that is a sign for hope also for the South. Many people even in the military have expressed the somewhat cynical wish for a tsunami to help bring peace to the south out of desperation, looking at the official account of Aceh. The not so well known account though shines a new light on the Aceh peace process - that bitter enemies can get together at the negotiation table and work out a solution.

The only downer is, that in Aceh there were decades of war, and in the process both the GoI and the GAM have lost all credibility under the population for employing the same horrible tactics, so that they had to enter negotiations. I fear that in the South here a lot more blood has to be spilled until the time is right for substantial negotiations.

[jetjock]

For those posters who say that Islam is a peaceful religion, I submit the following:

The Quran (9:29) says: ( I have included two translations of the same passage for clarity)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam] (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

" Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively"

Sounds like a really peaceful religion, doesn't it ?

In my opinion, I think that there is no question that the Islamic fundamentalist movement is involved in as 'Canuckamuck' said in his post " a global effort to purge the world of infidels". I do not believe, however, that the insurgency in the South started as part of that global effort but I do believe that now it will soon begin, if it has not already, to evolve into part of the larger global movement.

Hopefully this problem in the South can be ameliorated before it becomes totally integrated with the worldwide Islamic fundamentalist movement.

Edited April 11, 2007 by jetjock

[endure]

3) Religious or racial slurs, rude and degrading comments towards women, or extremely negative views of Thailand will not be tolerated.

[Jet Gorgon]

Thaksin sent the army down south to quell the rebels a few years back. Remember? The army killed many and stuffed several suspects sardine-like in a truck, all of whom perished, which caused an uproar worldwide. This was after many monks and civilians were being killed. Most farang and Thai I knew applauded the acts.

I believe the poverty and drive for Islamic dominance and a free state down south is fuelling this horrid situation. But, it makes me think, rural areas in the far north are also poor and there are pockets of Muslim people there, too. They don't kill, burn and torture each other. So, is it the brothers from Malaysia keeping this fight alive?

Thanks, ColPyat for your insights.

And Dupont:

...the rythmic nodding and chanting for hours on end is a sign of mental distress throughout the animal kingdom. But dare to suggest that this is thus in their case and...... oh my god, lefty intelects flaming us left right and centre.

Hasidic Jews do the same rocking and nodding movements when they pray.

[jetjock]

3) Religious or racial slurs, rude and degrading comments towards women, or extremely negative views of Thailand will not be tolerated.

I am not sure if the moderators post was directed at my post or not, but if it was, I must admit that I am not sure where the racial slur is to be found?? If someone views it as a racial slur, then I apologize for it. The reality is that many religions of the world including Muslim are not especially tolerant of other belief systems or what I would term peaceful. I have always personally liked the concept of Buddhism because since one of it's greatest attributes is its tolerance of other religions.

[endure]

I highlighted the word 'religious' in order to indicate that the thread was not going to be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Muslim rant. I've no doubt that you could find equally unpleasant passages if you looked through the Bible. Plucking extracts out of religious books and posting them as though they represent the whole religion is rather disingenuous.

[jetjock]

I highlighted the word 'religious' in order to indicate that the thread was not going to be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Muslim rant. I've no doubt that you could find equally unpleasant passages if you looked through the Bible. Plucking extracts out of religious books and posting them as though they represent the whole religion is rather disingenuous.

Point well taken. I did not mean to mean it as an anti-Muslim rant as I know the history of Christianity and wars quite well. And now back to the original topic.....

[bmanly]

ColPyat, I have been reading all your posts and find that your responses are very informative and probably correct. There is only one question, "what is the answer"? What do you think would be the most effective way to end this ongoing problem and bloodshed?

[solent01]

What was the name of the guy (in England, 1980's) that published his translated version of The Qur'an, then had to go underground because of the price put on his head?

Edit....

jetjock, I'm not poking fun, it's just that you got me thinking of this guy, and for the life of me I can't remember his name.

Edited April 11, 2007 by solent01

[bmanly]

jetjock, I'm not poking fun, it's just that you got me thinking of this guy, and for the life of me I can't remember his name.

Salman Rushdie