10 Killed In Thai Mosque Attack

[justanothercybertosser]

Also a highly likely scenario, I was merely refuting the idea that it had to be a secret death squad since Muslims were not killing other Muslims in the South. The fact is, Muslims are killing Muslims in the South.

It would not have been the first time that attacks by pro government militias happened. If you read, for example, the International Crisis Group report 'Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries', this problem is clearly outlined, and one of the groups is named - Ruam Thai (available from this link: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5132&l=1 ).

This is also not just a clear 'Muslim vs. Buddhist' conflict scenario. There are Muslims that do fight on the side of the Thai government, both as paramilitary rangers, and in the village defense group 'Chor Lor Bor'.

Another complication is that many unrelated killings in the region are simply categorized as insurgency related, while in reality reasons are underworld business conflicts (drugs, illegal logging, smuggling), or the notoriously corrupt local politics.

It is though an unlikely scenario that insurgents have attacked a mosque directly in such a fashion. There is also no indication whatsoever that in Thailand a Sunni/Shia conflict exists as we know from Pakisthan. The vast majority of Muslims there are Sunni, some Wahabi, and only very few Shia.

[wackysleet]

The real sadness is that is Moslems killing other Moslems. The radical groups want to exterminate anyone who preaches tolerance with other groups. It is NOT Christians slaying the infidels like in historic times.

Who perpetrated this atrocity? It's sick, regardless of who did it, but particularly sick if it's muslims killing muslems - on a par with the worst that happens weekly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

It may not have much to do with the plethora of violent films/videos available everywhere, but severely restricting such bad influences wouldn't do any harm. Film makers should have at least a modicum of responsibility for the influences they market. A Steve Martin film L.A.Story parodies the wanton use of violence in the filming industry.

Many, if not most kids - everywhere - are exposed to repeated doses of such violence in their homes, when parents/guardians allow kids to see the violence on TV screens. Even if it's not planned/allowed for the kids to see the videos, but kids are adept at peeping around corners to see forbidden things their parents are watching. Even just the soundtracks are horrible psychic influences.

Again, it may be a small factor in the equation, but I don't think anyone can deny that multiple exposures to extremely violent films - to kids of all ages, will affect those kids' developing psychology. It would be similar to a child being allowed to observe perverted sex acts constantly over the years. Would anyone be surprised if that child grew up to be a sexual deviant/predator?

I think if subjected to these events that the child is more likely to believe that certain events are normal and actually not be shocked and horrified by seing such acts and thus perpetuating the problems.

[marsteele]

I just do not understand why we can't all just get on together. We are just one world but bent on destroying each other.

[wackysleet]

"They are trying to make it look like the attackers are the authorities, because Muslims would apparently not shoot inside a mosque. But it's impossible that it is the work of the military,'' he said.

Violence has flared up again in the deep South. Earlier Monday a soldier was killed by a bomb blast and militants shot dead a rubber-tapper. Militants also blew up another army patrol vehicle, wounding nine soldiers.

Of course it was the Army that killed them. They had a patrol vehicle blown up, and a soldier killed, so they dress up in plain cloths and get even by attacking a mosque. Just because the Army spokesman says its not true, doesn't make it not true.

Where's Somchai Neelaphaijit? Dead, killed by the Police.

Muslims not firing in a mosque yea right, why not? if they are prepared to kill because others are not so fanatical in their beliefs of the muslim faith or indeed their interpretation of the Koran then I'm sure they will justify it if indeed it was insurgents.

I have never doubted the policy of extra judicial killings, but as for the comment .... of course it was the army, is until evidence is supplied just supposition, indeed the army recently suffered losses in the area probably due to the separatist movement not by peaceful muslim thais and the military would know it so why further inflame an already volatile situation.

[sriracha john]

RIP victims of senseless violence. Seems there is no end in sight to the unrest in Thailand's deep south and no strategy to bring peace to these troubled provinces.

I've read that Thailand plans to increase security along the border with Malaysia as it's believed the insurgents cross the border easily and enjoy sanctuary and support on the Malay side of the border.

I've never been to Thailand's deep south, but just had a look at the map:

Roughly eyeballing it I'd guesstimate the border is about ~200km long? If Thailand really wanted to secure this border would it really be that difficult? They would also need military vessels patrolling the waters to prevent insurgents infiltrating Thailand by sea.

According to wiki, the border is 646.5 km long. Also, many areas of it are hilly jungle and thus difficult to secure. Golok River forms the easternmost portion of the border for 95 km and presents a different topographical challenge to securing in addition to the sea border of both coasts as you point out.

[sbk]

Also a highly likely scenario, I was merely refuting the idea that it had to be a secret death squad since Muslims were not killing other Muslims in the South. The fact is, Muslims are killing Muslims in the South.

It would not have been the first time that attacks by pro government militias happened. If you read, for example, the International Crisis Group report 'Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries', this problem is clearly outlined, and one of the groups is named - Ruam Thai (available from this link: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5132&l=1 ).

This is also not just a clear 'Muslim vs. Buddhist' conflict scenario. There are Muslims that do fight on the side of the Thai government, both as paramilitary rangers, and in the village defense group 'Chor Lor Bor'.

Another complication is that many unrelated killings in the region are simply categorized as insurgency related, while in reality reasons are underworld business conflicts (drugs, illegal logging, smuggling), or the notoriously corrupt local politics.

It is though an unlikely scenario that insurgents have attacked a mosque directly in such a fashion. There is also no indication whatsoever that in Thailand a Sunni/Shia conflict exists as we know from Pakisthan. The vast majority of Muslims there are Sunni, some Wahabi, and only very few Shia.

Actually, the Muslims I know from the deep South are not in a different sect or anything like that, they just refused to join the insurgency and told me that they were given three choices, join the insurgency, not join and be killed or leave and live somewhere else.

I also know people who attempted to do business in the south (building roads specifically) and were forced to drop the contract and pull out, not because of any Muslim insurgency but because they were told to either pay a very large protection fee for their crew and their equipment or find their crew killed and their equipment destroyed.

Sure, it could also easily be militia, army, "mafia", or insurgents. As said, the situation is very unclear and it seems to me that for some members to assume its the army and to reject other equally plausible options is, well, quite a simplistic view of things in the South.

[pukkagent]

It's hard to believe Muslims in Thailand shooting on other Muslims whilst prayering. Not even the most radical person would do that. There has to be some other explanation. It's all very sad and my condolances go out to the family. May they rest in peace.

[Samuian]

Why couldn't it be tit for tat retaliation by some secret Thai death squads? Granted they've never done anything so bold, but neither did the insurgents.

What could the victims possibly done to force fellow muslims to open fire in a mosque?

I'd love to think that it was the insurgents and they are getting desperate and completely separated from the rest of the muslim society, but there are no other signs of that, just this senseless mosque attack.

I had second thoughts, having the picture below in mind...

...this was once a army vehicle, 9 soldier injured...well "heaven" knows...

but then it could be retaliation aimed at people who "collaborate" with government forces!

It's all about smuggling, drugs, pangolins other wildlife, money...

[Plus]

There were two other incidents of shooting inside a mosque. Krue Sue massacre when the army went in and killed everyone inside, and recent Red attack on mosque in Bangkok during the riots.

I doubt locals would blame this current shooting on insurgents, unless there's a clear evidence of collaboration with the govt, and in situation like this it's the perception that counts, not facts.

[BigBikeBKK]

RIP victims of senseless violence. Seems there is no end in sight to the unrest in Thailand's deep south and no strategy to bring peace to these troubled provinces.

I've read that Thailand plans to increase security along the border with Malaysia as it's believed the insurgents cross the border easily and enjoy sanctuary and support on the Malay side of the border.

I've never been to Thailand's deep south, but just had a look at the map:

Roughly eyeballing it I'd guesstimate the border is about ~200km long? If Thailand really wanted to secure this border would it really be that difficult? They would also need military vessels patrolling the waters to prevent insurgents infiltrating Thailand by sea.

According to wiki, the border is 646.5 km long. Also, many areas of it are hilly jungle and thus difficult to secure. Golok River forms the easternmost portion of the border for 95 km and presents a different topographical challenge to securing in addition to the sea border of both coasts as you point out.

LOL- so much for my guesstimate Thank you very much Sriracha John for the geography lesson.

Edited June 9, 2009 by BigBikeBKK

[hammered]

Also a highly likely scenario, I was merely refuting the idea that it had to be a secret death squad since Muslims were not killing other Muslims in the South. The fact is, Muslims are killing Muslims in the South.

It would not have been the first time that attacks by pro government militias happened. If you read, for example, the International Crisis Group report 'Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries', this problem is clearly outlined, and one of the groups is named - Ruam Thai (available from this link: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5132&l=1 ).

This is also not just a clear 'Muslim vs. Buddhist' conflict scenario. There are Muslims that do fight on the side of the Thai government, both as paramilitary rangers, and in the village defense group 'Chor Lor Bor'.

Another complication is that many unrelated killings in the region are simply categorized as insurgency related, while in reality reasons are underworld business conflicts (drugs, illegal logging, smuggling), or the notoriously corrupt local politics.

It is though an unlikely scenario that insurgents have attacked a mosque directly in such a fashion. There is also no indication whatsoever that in Thailand a Sunni/Shia conflict exists as we know from Pakisthan. The vast majority of Muslims there are Sunni, some Wahabi, and only very few Shia.

Actually, the Muslims I know from the deep South are not in a different sect or anything like that, they just refused to join the insurgency and told me that they were given three choices, join the insurgency, not join and be killed or leave and live somewhere else.

I also know people who attempted to do business in the south (building roads specifically) and were forced to drop the contract and pull out, not because of any Muslim insurgency but because they were told to either pay a very large protection fee for their crew and their equipment or find their crew killed and their equipment destroyed.

Sure, it could also easily be militia, army, "mafia", or insurgents. As said, the situation is very unclear and it seems to me that for some members to assume its the army and to reject other equally plausible options is, well, quite a simplistic view of things in the South.

Many insurgent groups practice that kind of protection racket. They argue it shows loyalty and wuillingness to back the cause by those more well off. Some would call it base protection raketering. The IRA ran it pretty succesfully in N.Ireland, others to varying degrees.

This attack is interestingly timed. When was Abhisist in Malaysia?

[ubonjoe]

One more deleted and 2 replies to it also deleted.

[jayboy]

Sure, it could also easily be militia, army, "mafia", or insurgents. As said, the situation is very unclear and it seems to me that for some members to assume its the army and to reject other equally plausible options is, well, quite a simplistic view of things in the South.

But very few members have assumed the army is responsible.Far more have jumped the gun and assumed responsibility lies with Muslim insurgents.Though as previously noted all is speculation at this stage -to a lesser or greater extent informed-, my feeling is that miltias/vigilantes are the most likely perpetrators but I could of course be completely wrong.But my point now is these are not "equally plausible" options because there is a fair amount of history and context available.... and to suggest that they are equally plausible is, well....simplistic.

[justanothercybertosser]

Also a highly likely scenario, I was merely refuting the idea that it had to be a secret death squad since Muslims were not killing other Muslims in the South. The fact is, Muslims are killing Muslims in the South.

It would not have been the first time that attacks by pro government militias happened. If you read, for example, the International Crisis Group report 'Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries', this problem is clearly outlined, and one of the groups is named - Ruam Thai (available from this link: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5132&l=1 ).

This is also not just a clear 'Muslim vs. Buddhist' conflict scenario. There are Muslims that do fight on the side of the Thai government, both as paramilitary rangers, and in the village defense group 'Chor Lor Bor'.

Another complication is that many unrelated killings in the region are simply categorized as insurgency related, while in reality reasons are underworld business conflicts (drugs, illegal logging, smuggling), or the notoriously corrupt local politics.

It is though an unlikely scenario that insurgents have attacked a mosque directly in such a fashion. There is also no indication whatsoever that in Thailand a Sunni/Shia conflict exists as we know from Pakisthan. The vast majority of Muslims there are Sunni, some Wahabi, and only very few Shia.

Actually, the Muslims I know from the deep South are not in a different sect or anything like that, they just refused to join the insurgency and told me that they were given three choices, join the insurgency, not join and be killed or leave and live somewhere else.

I also know people who attempted to do business in the south (building roads specifically) and were forced to drop the contract and pull out, not because of any Muslim insurgency but because they were told to either pay a very large protection fee for their crew and their equipment or find their crew killed and their equipment destroyed.

Sure, it could also easily be militia, army, "mafia", or insurgents. As said, the situation is very unclear and it seems to me that for some members to assume its the army and to reject other equally plausible options is, well, quite a simplistic view of things in the South.

As i posted, there are Muslims that are fighting on the side of the government. Many Muslims in the paramilitary rangers have lost relatives to insurgent attacks, and have been therefore targeted by army recruiters specifically.

Nevertheless, such an open attack against a mosque by insurgents is highly unlikely. When they target fellow Muslims, then usually these are specific targets, community leaders that work for the government, government spies, members of village defense organizations, people who brake their rules such as rubber tapping on a friday, etc.

Unless this particular mosque and its Imam have been agitating openly against the insurgency, i have a hard time to believe that this attack was done by insurgents. A for me far more likely scenario is a revenge attack by one of the shadowy pro government militias, over which the army has very little control over.

I also do not believe that this was a direct army/government ordered hit squad. When the army does their own extrajudicial revenge killings, they are generally smarter than that, and wait until their targets are outside mosques or religious schools.

Many of the Buddhist villages there organize their own defense, with some support of the security forces. But there are other security arrangements organized and paid for by authorities over which the 4th army region command has no control over, and is partly not in favor either, but can't do anything about.

Things in the region are very complicated.

Edited June 9, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[hazz]

Unfortuantly the mess in the south has been a long time in the making and will be a long time in the fixing.

There has been a lot of distrust in this area of the government for a long time, and this is one of the reasons why despite being one of the poorest parts of thailand it has the highest attendance of private schools and many of these schools and the newer mosques have been helped with saudi charity money. With this money comes the obligation to take on saudi trained Imams and teachers who are Wahabi.

The Wahabi stance is that the koran is the word of god, perfect and can be the only source of the religion; other teaching of islam are just a distraction.

This is where the problems start. the koran, like all religious books, is contradictory chronologically earlier parts of the book are relatively peaceful and tolerant, whilst the later parts are very much the opposite; this has been keeping scholars busy for 1500 years.

The Wahabi have a simple answer Abrogation if you come across contradictory statements in the koran the chronologically most recent takes precedence. The saudi translation of the koran helpfully shows how almost every statement of peace and tolerance is abrogated by a later statement of the opposite.

If you read the final chapter of the koran you will see it is very explicit about what should happen to non-believers and heretics. This is what we are seeing from Morocco to the Philippines

If this mosque and imam were not Wahabi then its highly likely that the insurgents did the attack, look at events in the last week in somalia. If they were Wahabi, then its likely it was someone else

[justanothercybertosser]

If this mosque and imam were not Wahabi then its highly likely that the insurgents did the attack, look at events in the last week in somalia. If they were Wahabi, then its likely it was someone else

The problem with your argumentation here is, that the insurgency here in the south is not driven by Wahabi, but by traditionalist Malayu Sunni, and is to be classified as a orthodox-Islamic inspired separationist movement similar to GAM in Aceh.

[Scott]

Very sad. It would take a careful forensic investigation to determine who did it and unfortunately that doesn't happen. My thoughts go out to all the people in that region.

[Foggy Bottom]

Looking at the map posted on the first page of the thread, there is an interesting situation appears -

Look at the degree of road development on the Malaysian side of the border compared to the Thai side. It certainly seems, just from that, that development in the deep south has been repressed to a level far behind the Malaysian northern provinces - was that a concious military-led decision? Remember the southern Thai provinces were the main point of Japanese landings in December 1941 - maybe someone has a long memory and is fearful of such actions and rapid conquest again?

Regarding securing the border provinces - look again at the map - creating a roughly east-west demarcation line using the northernmost (western) section of the Thai-Malay border heading east to the Gulf of Thailand would place the troubled provinces into a "pocket". Provided the troubles were retained south of the hypothetical demarcation line, the actual central and southern border then becomes easier to police and secure. The problem lies in needing a US-Mexico style fence line, or East Germany - West Germany wall of the type used in the Cold War - I'm not convinced Thailand and Malaysia have the will of the resources to establish such a "fence" - afterall, they're not Israel.

The only solution to the South is meaningful and reconciliatory dialogue, but how do you reconcile with an adversary whose position is non-negotiable, and whose intent is to exterminate all who are not like-minded?

I'm still unclear of the purpose of the insurgency - I sometimes here the term "separatists" used, but to what good would seperatism be pursued? The three southern provinces are highly unlikely to be viable as an independent state, and it's extremely unlikely Malaysia would want them under their wing. It all seems to be too much like the lost vision of objectives that collapsed the "insurgency" in Northern Ireland, and like that province, it seems Southern Thailand is suffering from a proliferation of too many factions with discordant aims.

... Then again, I've not had my second coffee of the morning yet, so I'm not thinking clearly this early in the day.

[gbswales]

until people learn that "nationality" "race" "religion" "nationalism" "borders" and all these other man made words are totally unimportant there will always be wars and killing

until mankind learns that anger is a wasted emotion there will be killing

[hansnl]

Hate breeds hate.

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

Killing breeds more killing.

An eye for an eye, a life for a life.

No doubts about that.

The consequenses of this act will be grave, the fact who might have done it is insignificant.

Whoever did it, the non muslims will be blamed.

And the violence will get nastier.

As everywhere where Islam borders other religions.

Have a look at the map!

[AjarnChan]

Looking at the map posted on the first page of the thread, there is an interesting situation appears -

Look at the degree of road development on the Malaysian side of the border compared to the Thai side. It certainly seems, just from that, that development in the deep south has been repressed to a level far behind the Malaysian northern provinces - was that a concious military-led decision? Remember the southern Thai provinces were the main point of Japanese landings in December 1941 - maybe someone has a long memory and is fearful of such actions and rapid conquest again?

Regarding securing the border provinces - look again at the map - creating a roughly east-west demarcation line using the northernmost (western) section of the Thai-Malay border heading east to the Gulf of Thailand would place the troubled provinces into a "pocket". Provided the troubles were retained south of the hypothetical demarcation line, the actual central and southern border then becomes easier to police and secure. The problem lies in needing a US-Mexico style fence line, or East Germany - West Germany wall of the type used in the Cold War - I'm not convinced Thailand and Malaysia have the will of the resources to establish such a "fence" - afterall, they're not Israel.

The only solution to the South is meaningful and reconciliatory dialogue, but how do you reconcile with an adversary whose position is non-negotiable, and whose intent is to exterminate all who are not like-minded?

I'm still unclear of the purpose of the insurgency - I sometimes here the term "separatists" used, but to what good would seperatism be pursued? The three southern provinces are highly unlikely to be viable as an independent state, and it's extremely unlikely Malaysia would want them under their wing. It all seems to be too much like the lost vision of objectives that collapsed the "insurgency" in Northern Ireland, and like that province, it seems Southern Thailand is suffering from a proliferation of too many factions with discordant aims.

... Then again, I've not had my second coffee of the morning yet, so I'm not thinking clearly this early in the day.

re. "an East Germany - West Germany wall of the type used in the Cold War"

Actually the 'Wall' was in Berlin, and it was just a few miles long and frequently breached.

Having served in Northern Ireland I know from personal experience how difficult [perhaps impossible] it is to 'subdue' an entire region. The whole point of Guerilla/Terrorist tactics is that a small number of 'insurgents' can harrass and tie up legions of defenders. There are no easy solutions to such conflicts.

Without facts none of us has the right to pre-judge the cause of this horrid incident. Those posters who claim 'it must be the Army', or 'it must be another faction' are not doing anybody a service. Both possibilities exist.

What is a simple historical fact is that the region was NOT part of old Siam. It was independent, and so there will always be some 'locals' willing to create mayhem, and kill all who oppose them. From the little I know I believe that the 'rabble rousers' in many of these locations are NOT locals at all. I have been to some of the trouble spots, and seen Pakistanis, Arabs and other 'radicals' doing their utmost to create yet another 'front' in the war with the Infidels.

As somebody who has 12 years experience of Thailand I am personally quite alarmed at the influence that some Arabs are now exerting here. Surely all of you have seen the HUGE Mosques being built all around the country ? Whatever the long term agenda of 'ordinary decent people' on all sides, it is an inescapable fact that some Islamic groups seek World Domination, and the Conversion or Extermination of all 'non believers'.

[sriracha john]

Relatives look at the bodies of villagers after Monday's mosque attack by unknown gunmen at a mosque in southern Thailand's Narathiwat province, June 9, 2009. Thailand's Army Chief flew to the country's Muslim deep south a day after unknown gunmen killed 10 people in a mosque, the latest spasm of violence in a five-year-old insurgency.

REUTERS

[sriracha john]

Map of Thailand locating Cho-ai-rong district in the insurgency-torn south, where gunmen killed at least 12 people at a mosque.

AFP

[Jungian]

Furthermore, Buddhists have killed Buddhists, Buddhists have killed Muslims, and Muslims have killed Buddhists.

Although your statement is true and correct the difference is that Buddhists have never killed in the name of Buddhism or religion.

[wackysleet]

Furthermore, Buddhists have killed Buddhists, Buddhists have killed Muslims, and Muslims have killed Buddhists.

Although your statement is true and correct the difference is that Buddhists have never killed in the name of Buddhism or religion.

Jungian, is there really any difference whether someone kills in the name of religion or not, a death is still a death and people will still grieve.

[AjarnChan]

Furthermore, Buddhists have killed Buddhists, Buddhists have killed Muslims, and Muslims have killed Buddhists.

Although your statement is true and correct the difference is that Buddhists have never killed in the name of Buddhism or religion.

It may be a cliché to mention this. But Christians have proven over centuries [millennia] that they are willing to Die for what they believe in. The same willingness to give their lives goes for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and just about everyone else who follows an organised belief system; including 'ordinary decent Muslims'.

Only extremist Muslims can say 'I am willing to let you Die for what I believe in', and really mean it ;{

Before anybody accuses me of being anti Islam I would point out that many of my closest friends are Muslims, and my Son is married to one. So I can hardly be called 'racist', or intolerant.

Incidentally how many of you know that 'Islam' simply means submission, and a 'Muslim' is one who submits to God/Allah. A perfect doctrine for endless peace or endless war, depending on who is calling the shots.

[Plus]

What is a simple historical fact is that the region was NOT part of old Siam. It was independent...

The "old Siam" was not a country in the modern sense and various provinces didn't belong to it in the modern sense.

Regional lords simply paid tributes to Siamese King, that was all.

When upper Malaysian provinces were part of that "old Siam", there were very few actual Siamese on the ground there.

>>>

Perhaps the backlash is against more recent attempts to install "Thai" identity there, a concept that is only a few decades old.

[orangezeke]

Furthermore, Buddhists have killed Buddhists, Buddhists have killed Muslims, and Muslims have killed Buddhists.

Although your statement is true and correct the difference is that Buddhists have never killed in the name of Buddhism or religion.

It may be a cliché to mention this. But Christians have proven over centuries [millennia] that they are willing to Die for what they believe in. The same willingness to give their lives goes for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and just about everyone else who follows an organised belief system; including 'ordinary decent Muslims'.

Only extremist Muslims can say 'I am willing to let you Die for what I believe in', and really mean it ;{

Before anybody accuses me of being anti Islam I would point out that many of my closest friends are Muslims, and my Son is married to one. So I can hardly be called 'racist', or intolerant.

Incidentally how many of you know that 'Islam' simply means submission, and a 'Muslim' is one who submits to God/Allah. A perfect doctrine for endless peace or endless war, depending on who is calling the shots.

i don't think that is exactly right. sure christians have been willing to die for their beliefs, but they have been just as happy to kill for them too. the history of the catholic church reads like a horror story and the crusades, the reformation, the inquisition, the colonial period etc, all lends to the idea that chrisianity has plenty to answer for. i imagine plenty could be said about jewdaism, buddhism and the hindu belief system too.

it was only two weeks ago i was watching cnn coverage dealing with the lead up to the iraq war version 2. donald rumsfeld was sending security briefings to GWB with bible passages on the cover sheets !

as for the meaning of islam/muslim, you have given a false impression. 'submission' to a faith is required by most if not all religions. jesus said 'if you are not with me you are against me'.

comparing faith is no solution to this problem.

[hansnl]

Looking at the map posted on the first page of the thread, there is an interesting situation appears -

Look at the degree of road development on the Malaysian side of the border compared to the Thai side. It certainly seems, just from that, that development in the deep south has been repressed to a level far behind the Malaysian northern provinces - was that a concious military-led decision? Remember the southern Thai provinces were the main point of Japanese landings in December 1941 - maybe someone has a long memory and is fearful of such actions and rapid conquest again?

Regarding securing the border provinces - look again at the map - creating a roughly east-west demarcation line using the northernmost (western) section of the Thai-Malay border heading east to the Gulf of Thailand would place the troubled provinces into a "pocket". Provided the troubles were retained south of the hypothetical demarcation line, the actual central and southern border then becomes easier to police and secure. The problem lies in needing a US-Mexico style fence line, or East Germany - West Germany wall of the type used in the Cold War - I'm not convinced Thailand and Malaysia have the will of the resources to establish such a "fence" - afterall, they're not Israel.

The only solution to the South is meaningful and reconciliatory dialogue, but how do you reconcile with an adversary whose position is non-negotiable, and whose intent is to exterminate all who are not like-minded?

I'm still unclear of the purpose of the insurgency - I sometimes here the term "separatists" used, but to what good would seperatism be pursued? The three southern provinces are highly unlikely to be viable as an independent state, and it's extremely unlikely Malaysia would want them under their wing. It all seems to be too much like the lost vision of objectives that collapsed the "insurgency" in Northern Ireland, and like that province, it seems Southern Thailand is suffering from a proliferation of too many factions with discordant aims.

... Then again, I've not had my second coffee of the morning yet, so I'm not thinking clearly this early in the day.

re. "an East Germany - West Germany wall of the type used in the Cold War"

Actually the 'Wall' was in Berlin, and it was just a few miles long and frequently breached.

Having served in Northern Ireland I know from personal experience how difficult [perhaps impossible] it is to 'subdue' an entire region. The whole point of Guerilla/Terrorist tactics is that a small number of 'insurgents' can harrass and tie up legions of defenders. There are no easy solutions to such conflicts.

Without facts none of us has the right to pre-judge the cause of this horrid incident. Those posters who claim 'it must be the Army', or 'it must be another faction' are not doing anybody a service. Both possibilities exist.

What is a simple historical fact is that the region was NOT part of old Siam. It was independent, and so there will always be some 'locals' willing to create mayhem, and kill all who oppose them. From the little I know I believe that the 'rabble rousers' in many of these locations are NOT locals at all. I have been to some of the trouble spots, and seen Pakistanis, Arabs and other 'radicals' doing their utmost to create yet another 'front' in the war with the Infidels.

As somebody who has 12 years experience of Thailand I am personally quite alarmed at the influence that some Arabs are now exerting here. Surely all of you have seen the HUGE Mosques being built all around the country ? Whatever the long term agenda of 'ordinary decent people' on all sides, it is an inescapable fact that some Islamic groups seek World Domination, and the Conversion or Extermination of all 'non believers'.

Quite so.

Spied by friends in NL on a rather seedy website in Holland, run by rather unsavoury Moroccans, a plan to organise a demonstration at the Thai Embassy against the atrocities and cruelty by the Thai army and police against peaceful people from Islam

Where did I hear rhetoric like this before?

[Samuian]

RIP victims of senseless violence. Seems there is no end in sight to the unrest in Thailand's deep south and no strategy to bring peace to these troubled provinces.

I've read that Thailand plans to increase security along the border with Malaysia as it's believed the insurgents cross the border easily and enjoy sanctuary and support on the Malay side of the border.

I've never been to Thailand's deep south, but just had a look at the map:

Roughly eyeballing it I'd guesstimate the border is about ~200km long? If Thailand really wanted to secure this border would it really be that difficult? They would also need military vessels patrolling the waters to prevent insurgents infiltrating Thailand by sea. But all in all, it's not an impossible task and Thailand certainly has enough troops secure the border. How many more innocents have to die before decisive action is taken to end this 'insurgency'?

I see, that you never been "down South" the Area bordering Kedar State in Malaysia, center left or to the west is very mountainous forested, rather thinly populated, which makes it very difficult to "control" - it is the same problem as anywhere else with "Guerrilla Gangs....as they have no insignia, uniform or else to be identified.... now THAT is the problem...the people killed could easily be the ones responsible for the bomb attacks... but then as it has been observed and written here - itdoesn't make sense - cause if it was retaliation by the army... more violence would flare up - I think the officialversion is probably not too far off the truth, someone isn't interested in peace as a solution!

Drugs and Smuggel of all kind of goods is BIG Business down there Hat Yai's markets are prospering through it and there is quite a number of people involved... money, money, money.... are the words this tragedy is written in...