We should be talking about separatists, not Muslims; that they happen to be Muslims is largely incidental (though some of the 'terrorists' will make the most of it). Similarly, the targets are not targets because they're Buddhists, but because they're considered to be on the Government side.(and the Government makes the most of that because it suits them to portray the problem as a largely religious one.)

I wonder what percentage of those killed by these "separtists" are Buddhist and what percentage are Muslim?

I think that's a misleading question. Of course the majority of those killed are Buddhists, because the Buddhists are Thai-speakers and perceived at least to be on the Government side. The primary divide is political; since it happens to coincide with the religious (and ethnic) divide, the separatists proclaim their devotion to Islam because it gains them support from Islamists in other parts of the world. And they hate Muslims who do not follow their political agenda, such as the Sec.-General of ASEAN (whose name I cannot for the life of me remember).

I disagree that it is a misleading question. I doubt that ALL Thai Muslims want to separate fron Thailand as it's hard to get 100% of any population to agree on anything. Southern Thailand has a large Muslim population and if about half are for staying a part of Thailand then they should be targets as well. But if it turns out that 95% of those targeted by the separatists (who just so happen to be Muslim) are Buddhists, then obviously religion plays a big part in it. Especially when you take into consideration the difficulty Muslims have co-existing with other religions all around the world AND the fact that Muslims in othe3r countries show no problem whatsoever in killing fellow Muslims.

Spurious argument. There's nothing obvious about your conclusion at all.

Firstly, you state percentages and fractions, without any of the supporting percentages and fractions..

Secondly religion doesn't play a part in it....ironically, because of the percentages that you didn't quote.

We should be talking about separatists, not Muslims; that they happen to be Muslims is largely incidental (though some of the 'terrorists' will make the most of it). Similarly, the targets are not targets because they're Buddhists, but because they're considered to be on the Government side.(and the Government makes the most of that because it suits them to portray the problem as a largely religious one.)

I wonder what percentage of those killed by these "separtists" are Buddhist and what percentage are Muslim?

I think that's a misleading question. Of course the majority of those killed are Buddhists, because the Buddhists are Thai-speakers and perceived at least to be on the Government side. The primary divide is political; since it happens to coincide with the religious (and ethnic) divide, the separatists proclaim their devotion to Islam because it gains them support from Islamists in other parts of the world. And they hate Muslims who do not follow their political agenda, such as the Sec.-General of ASEAN (whose name I cannot for the life of me remember).

I disagree that it is a misleading question. I doubt that ALL Thai Muslims want to separate fron Thailand as it's hard to get 100% of any population to agree on anything. Southern Thailand has a large Muslim population and if about half are for staying a part of Thailand then they should be targets as well. But if it turns out that 95% of those targeted by the separatists (who just so happen to be Muslim) are Buddhists, then obviously religion plays a big part in it. Especially when you take into consideration the difficulty Muslims have co-existing with other religions all around the world AND the fact that Muslims in othe3r countries show no problem whatsoever in killing fellow Muslims.

Google is your friend koheesti, best to check before saying things like "if 95%"

just one of the man articles on Muslims killed in the deep South

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_622870.html

From january

Home > Breaking News > SE Asia > Story

Jan 11, 2011

Shootings in Thai south kill 4

Thai police officers inspect the body of a Thai Muslim villager shot by suspected separatist militants in Thailand's restive southern province of Narathiwat. -- PHOTO: AFP

YALA (Thailand) - SUSPECTED Islamic rebels have killed four people and wounded another two in gun attacks across the violent Thai south, police said on Tuesday.

Two Muslim men, aged 33 and 40, were killed on Monday in separate drive-by shootings in Narathiwat province, police said. The younger man was a security ranger on his way to guard a government building.

In Yala province on Tuesday a Muslim couple, aged 40 and 45, were shot dead in an ambush as they returned home from work on a rubber plantation. The husband was also a security volunteer.

Two men in their twenties were also seriously wounded on Monday in shooting attacks in the southern region, which has been plagued by a seven-year insurgency leaving more than 4,400 people dead, both Muslims and Buddhists.

Militants are thought to target fellow Muslims they deem 'traitors' to Islam. The armed forces working the south meanwhile are accused by rights activists of acting with impunity.

The government recently lifted emergency rule in a pocket of the troubled area as a test case for the rest of the Muslim-majority region. -- AFP

But there are many many more like this.

Google is your friend koheesti, best to check before saying things like "if 95%"

just one of the man articles on Muslims killed in the deep South

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_622870.html

From january

Home > Breaking News > SE Asia > Story

Jan 11, 2011

Shootings in Thai south kill 4

Thai police officers inspect the body of a Thai Muslim villager shot by suspected separatist militants in Thailand's restive southern province of Narathiwat. -- PHOTO: AFP

YALA (Thailand) - SUSPECTED Islamic rebels have killed four people and wounded another two in gun attacks across the violent Thai south, police said on Tuesday.

Two Muslim men, aged 33 and 40, were killed on Monday in separate drive-by shootings in Narathiwat province, police said. The younger man was a security ranger on his way to guard a government building.

In Yala province on Tuesday a Muslim couple, aged 40 and 45, were shot dead in an ambush as they returned home from work on a rubber plantation. The husband was also a security volunteer.

Two men in their twenties were also seriously wounded on Monday in shooting attacks in the southern region, which has been plagued by a seven-year insurgency leaving more than 4,400 people dead, both Muslims and Buddhists.

Militants are thought to target fellow Muslims they deem 'traitors' to Islam. The armed forces working the south meanwhile are accused by rights activists of acting with impunity.

The government recently lifted emergency rule in a pocket of the troubled area as a test case for the rest of the Muslim-majority region. -- AFP

But there are many many more like this.

From March of this year

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/suspected-separatists-kill-three-in-thai-south/

PATTANI, Thailand, March 15 (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim separatists shot dead three Muslim men in Thailand's restive deep south on Tuesday, police said, the latest violence in the region bordering Malaysia.

The victims were sitting outside a car repair shop in Pattani province when a group of insurgents drove by in a car and opened fire on them, said Police Colonel Wasupol Baree.

"One of the men was a deputy village chief in charge of public safety in the area," he said. "We believe that was why he was targeted."

I could post more from over the years but I am sure that if you really wanted to you could just as easily find them as well.

So, do you realize that the Muslims in Thailand are (except for this small group terrorizing the rest) actually quite relaxed? And generally very tolerant? or would you say all Christians are crazy because you read about Waco? Seems to me that an understanding that cultural differences play a huge role in how people view religion is something that seems utterly lacking among a few here.

Why don't we look at a few numbers.

A Pew Research study in 2009 estimated there were 3,930,000 Muslims resident in Thailand at that time.

Pundits claim only a small percentage of Muslims are radical Islamists, with this figure ranging from 1% to 10%. Assuming the lower of the two estimates, 1% of 3,930,000 is 39,300. Let's take it even further and assume the ratio is actually 10% of the 1%, which would bring the number of potential terrorists down to 3,930. Hardly a small group.

The Islamic threat and plan to take over the world is an ever present danger. Regardless of any cultural differences people might have with Islam, to ignore it is entirely too dangerous.

Edit in: Forgot the links.

http://pewforum.org/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

I wonder what percentage of those killed by these "separtists" are Buddhist and what percentage are Muslim?

I think that's a misleading question. Of course the majority of those killed are Buddhists, because the Buddhists are Thai-speakers and perceived at least to be on the Government side. The primary divide is political; since it happens to coincide with the religious (and ethnic) divide, the separatists proclaim their devotion to Islam because it gains them support from Islamists in other parts of the world. And they hate Muslims who do not follow their political agenda, such as the Sec.-General of ASEAN (whose name I cannot for the life of me remember).

I disagree that it is a misleading question. I doubt that ALL Thai Muslims want to separate fron Thailand as it's hard to get 100% of any population to agree on anything. Southern Thailand has a large Muslim population and if about half are for staying a part of Thailand then they should be targets as well. But if it turns out that 95% of those targeted by the separatists (who just so happen to be Muslim) are Buddhists, then obviously religion plays a big part in it. Especially when you take into consideration the difficulty Muslims have co-existing with other religions all around the world AND the fact that Muslims in othe3r countries show no problem whatsoever in killing fellow Muslims.

Google is your friend koheesti, best to check before saying things like "if 95%"

Sigh.

I wrote "if it turns out that 95% of those targeted by the separtists". I DID NOT CLAIM the actual number was 95%. I've just been asking what the stats were.

In addition, just because a Muslim gets killed in the south it does not mean they were killed by other Muslims. In some cases even the articles you show say "suspected Islamic rebels" meaning they don't know who did it. In the other cases it doesn't say who was suspected. In both cases it very well could have been Buddhists getting some revenge.

Same thing with the Buddhists koheesti. But you are splitting hairs. seriously. I know people from this area. I have spoken with them. I know the experiences they have had. Can you say the same?

And chuckd, honestly. Did I say the separatists were not dangerous?? where did you get that notion from? Or are you yet another one of these people who do not read what it is written but simply fill it in based on your own ideas?

If so, then there really is no point in posting anything at all since you've got your mind made up already.

So, do you realize that the Muslims in Thailand are (except for this small group terrorizing the rest) actually quite relaxed? And generally very tolerant? or would you say all Christians are crazy because you read about Waco? Seems to me that an understanding that cultural differences play a huge role in how people view religion is something that seems utterly lacking among a few here.

Why don't we look at a few numbers.

A Pew Research study in 2009 estimated there were 3,930,000 Muslims resident in Thailand at that time.

Pundits claim only a small percentage of Muslims are radical Islamists, with this figure ranging from 1% to 10%. Assuming the lower of the two estimates, 1% of 3,930,000 is 39,300. Let's take it even further and assume the ratio is actually 10% of the 1%, which would bring the number of potential terrorists down to 3,930. Hardly a small group.

The Islamic threat and plan to take over the world is an ever present danger. Regardless of any cultural differences people might have with Islam, to ignore it is entirely too dangerous.

Edit in: Forgot the links.

http://pewforum.org/...Population.aspx

http://en.wikipedia....slim_population

Were the "pundits" talking about Thailand for their estimate of the radical Islamists ratio or are you proscribing global statistics to a localised population?

Nonetheless, 0.1% IS a small group.

"The" Islamic threat? An ever prsent danger? Too dangerous?

Same thing with the Buddhists koheesti. But you are splitting hairs. seriously. I know people from this area. I have spoken with them. I know the experiences they have had. Can you say the same?

As has been shown time and time again on this very forum, your experience is irrelevant. We have people here who have lived and worked in Iraq and Afghanistan but their opinions based on personal on-the-ground experience aren't as reliable as the opinions of writers from the Huffington Post. Sad, but that's the way it is around here.

Personally, I think personal experience is important. Although talking to someone from there isn't the same as actually living there yourself. I'm sure it's not difficult to find Thai Buddhists who think Muslims are the problem. Do you disagree?

So what is the separtists reasons if religion doesn't play into it?

If so, then there really is no point in posting anything at all since you've got your mind made up already.

Can't the same can be said about you?

Most of you seem so fixated on 'the Muslim threat' that you've forgotten your history. Historically the south of Thailand was part of the Malay region stretching from parts of Indonesia up the Malay peninsula and into Southern Thailand. There is a very fluid line of demarcation between the Malay south, and the Buddhists of most of peninsula Thailand. Not so long, historically, since Pattani was a Malay Muslim kingdom. What the real fuss in the south is about is this demarcation line. Of course the Islamists are taking advantage of it, but it's a much deeper thing than that.

SBK is quite right to point out that Muslims also are being targeted by the separatists. In an earlier post I mentioned Surin Pitsuwan (whose name I couldn't remember at the time) as a Thai Muslim who is hated by the Muslim Malay population of the south. There are of course plenty of less famous ones. In this kind of fluid demarcation line, it will never divide precisely between Muslims and Buddhists, though I think you would find few Buddhists in favour of separatism, simply because it is against their interests to be come part of Greater Malaysia.

Iraqi Muslim does not equal Thai Muslim any more than American Christian equals British Christian.

I don't even pretend to understand one of those crazy fundamentalist Baptists in the United States even though we are from the same country and ostensibly the same culture and religion. Why is it necessary to take all Muslims and lump them into one homogenous group when we all know that never applies to anyone anywhere?

And yes Koheesti, I live in a Muslim village. Albeit on a Buddhist island but 95% of my neighbors are Muslim. And no, none of them agree with the separatist movement and they do take in their relatives who must flee to escape the violence. And while I am sure there are Buddhists who think Muslims are the problem they are equally ignorant of the situation.

Why is it necessary to take all Muslims and lump them into one homogenous group when we all know that never applies to anyone anywhere?

Good point

I tend to think pidgeonholing is used by those that do not want to think outside the box for fear of the truths it may present.

Iraqi Muslim does not equal Thai Muslim any more than American Christian equals British Christian.

I don't even pretend to understand one of those crazy fundamentalist Baptists in the United States even though we are from the same country and ostensibly the same culture and religion. Why is it necessary to take all Muslims and lump them into one homogenous group when we all know that never applies to anyone anywhere?

No one has done that. My examples of Iraq and Afghanistan had zero to do with Muslims being there but about the insight gained from the experience of living there.

And yes Koheesti, I live in a Muslim village. Albeit on a Buddhist island but 95% of my neighbors are Muslim. And no, none of them agree with the separatist movement and they do take in their relatives who must flee to escape the violence. And while I am sure there are Buddhists who think Muslims are the problem they are equally ignorant of the situation.

Are you saying that Buddhists who thing Muslims are the problem are ignorant but Muslims who say they are not the problem aren't ignorant?

And yes Koheesti, I live in a Muslim village. Albeit on a Buddhist island but 95% of my neighbors are Muslim. And no, none of them agree with the separatist movement and they do take in their relatives who must flee to escape the violence. And while I am sure there are Buddhists who think Muslims are the problem they are equally ignorant of the situation.

Are you saying that Buddhists who thing Muslims are the problem are ignorant but Muslims who say they are not the problem aren't ignorant?

I don't speak for SBK, but I will answer......Yes, Buddhists who think "Muslims are the problem" are ignorant; just as ignorant as anybody else who generalises and ascribes the behaviour of a minority to the majority.

Google is your friend koheesti, best to check before saying things like "if 95%"

Iraqi Muslim does not equal Thai Muslim any more than American Christian equals British Christian.

I don't even pretend to understand one of those crazy fundamentalist Baptists in the United States even though we are from the same country and ostensibly the same culture and religion. Why is it necessary to take all Muslims and lump them into one homogenous group when we all know that never applies to anyone anywhere?

And yes Koheesti, I live in a Muslim village. Albeit on a Buddhist island but 95% of my neighbors are Muslim. And no, none of them agree with the separatist movement and they do take in their relatives who must flee to escape the violence. And while I am sure there are Buddhists who think Muslims are the problem they are equally ignorant of the situation.

There's that pesky unsubstantiated 95% figure again.

It is also interesting to note that NONE of them agree with the separatist movement.

I would be interested to know how your survey was conducted.

Um 20 plus years of living there? Speaking the language, socializing with my neighbors? going to weddings and funerals, visiting them, discussing politics with them? Do you really think I am so stupid that after over 20 years in one village I don't know the makeup or opinions of my neighbors? Wow. Cheers for that.

And once again. Did I say that?? Read again with an open mind. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as Harcourt. Oh wait a minute.

I said

Why is it necessary to take all Muslims and lump them into one homogenous group when we all know that never applies to anyone anywhere?

I've bolded it for you in case its not clear enough.

I have deleted one inflammatory and unnecessarily argumentative post.

If a poster is giving information about their personal life/experience, do not ask for a link, unless you want to get directed to his/her facebook page.

You have been told previously that my tolerance on this thread is about the same as a jihadist in a church.

Cool it. Be civil. (Please)

sbk - nothing personal. It's just when I brought up my conversations about Islam with my Muslim colleagues when I was living in the UAE, certain posters here would belittle them as reliable sources. I guess his poor behaviuor has rubbed off on me - sorry. I'm sure if he sticks his head in here he'll go off on how your little villager friends know nothing of what is happening down south. That they don't live anywhere near the troubles but he's sure they follow what's going on - and not because they just so happen to be Muslim and Muslims just so happen to make up most of the separatist movement which has nothing to do with being a separatist. Or he'll make a joke about fishermen. You never know, those Swiss financiers have a strange sense of humour sometimes.

Another post deleted. Please stay on the topic. The topic is not about other posters.

Another post discussing moderation has been deleted:

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy

Communist China also prohibits criticism.

If the hat fits...wear it.

Scott - you may have to get your red marker-pen out for me then - 'cos when I tell any of my personal experiences

I don't have a facebook identity to back it up!!

And Google probably can't back up your personal opinions or experiences, so I guess there won't be a link to provide. We'd just have to take your word for it.

Send in the drones on these hateful fanatics!

How is your hatred different from theirs?

Send in the drones on these hateful fanatics!

How is your hatred different from theirs?

It's not difficult to see the difference between Person A who hates the young boy and cuts his head off and Person B who hates people who cut off the head of a young boy.

Send in the drones on these hateful fanatics!

How is your hatred different from theirs?

It's not difficult to see the difference between Person A who hates the young boy and cuts his head off and Person B who hates people who cut off the head of a young boy.

Then a bit more difficult to see the effects of Person B's hatred?

Send in the drones on these hateful fanatics!

How is your hatred different from theirs?

It's not difficult to see the difference between Person A who hates the young boy and cuts his head off and Person B who hates people who cut off the head of a young boy.

Then a bit more difficult to see the effects of Person B's hatred?

No, not at all. The result of Person B's hatred is less crazy SOBs alive and chopping off the heads of young children... and that's a good thing.

No, not at all. The result of Person B's hatred is less crazy SOBs alive and chopping off the heads of young children... and that's a good thing.

Easy to justify Person B's hatred.

Easy to forget the 50 civilians that died along with the crazy SOB..

No, not at all. The result of Person B's hatred is less crazy SOBs alive and chopping off the heads of young children... and that's a good thing.

I see. So there appears to be "bad" hatred and "good" hatred. Both claiming justification in taking lives, or committing acts of murder. Shall we further assume then, employing murder as an overall end, or viable and appropriate solution, to resolving conflicts.

Rationalizing further, given the above premise, then "bad" hatred would lead to destructive, life-depleting acts. "Good" hatred would also lead to destructive, life-depleting acts. Then the question begs, does hatred ever lead to constructive, life-giving ends?

As a note, I appreciate your stepping in for UG, koheesti, but I put the question to UG and I hope he might shed some light on how his hatred would be different than the hatred of those perpetrators highlighted in the OP.