Bomb Attack Is Unlikely To Be The Last Of Its Kind: Thai Opinion

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Bomb attack is unlikely to be the last of its kind

The Nation April 4, 2012 1:00 am

Unless the government begins to understand the reasons behind the southern insurgency, we can expect to witness more such incidents

THAILAND: -- The dust is only just settling, and people in Hat Yai are showing their resilience in the wake of a deadly bomb attack over the weekend. The business community and ordinary working people in this vibrant southern city have decided to go ahead with plans to organise activities to celebrate the Songkran festival in the middle of the month. Although people are still horrified and outraged at this cowardly act by suspected Muslim insurgents, they have decided to stand together to show that such attacks by separatists or anyone else will not dampen their spirits - even though that was apparently what the attackers hoped to accomplish by carrying out this inhumane mission.

The blasts in Hat Yai were among the worst in the province because they reportedly involved a car bomb, and it appears that the attackers were aiming at severe destruction and loss of life, judging by the chosen location. The bombs in the city happened only hours after attacks in Yala, killing 14 people altogether and injuring several hundred more.

Nonetheless, people are doing their best to cope with this tragic situation. The Kingdom mourns for the victims and condemns the culprits behind these attacks.

Now, the question is whether security officials and those in positions of power and authority have done their best to protect innocent citizens and whether they can prevent similar attacks from happening again.

Top security officials seem not to be totally surprised by the weekend attacks. In fact, according to what Deputy Prime Minister General Yutthasak Sasiprapha - who is responsible for overseeing security affairs - was quoted as saying by the press, intelligence reports suggested the attacks were imminent. He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

Unfortunately, these "successful" security measures were not sufficient to prevent the horror blasts on Saturday, and 14 innocent people are dead as a result.

The suspected bombers are not complete strangers to the security officials. They are thought to have been involved in previous attacks in the deep South. In fact, their whereabouts should have been better monitored. Instead, they were able to walk into the underground car park of the Lee Gardens Plaza Hotel in Hat Yai before a car bomb exploded there.

In the aftermath of these attacks, security officials and people in charge can no longer be complacent. Security measures must be beefed up to prevent Malay-Muslim insurgents from exploiting loopholes to stage another attack. Security officials need to do better in ensuring that this kind of attack does not happen again.

This is easier said than done. The security authorities are always wary of imposing stringent new security measures because of the potential damage this could do to the tourism sector, which is a major source of foreign earnings for Thailand. But that attitude must be changed. Security measures must not be compromised when innocent lives are at stake. Ordinary people will not mind going through extra security measures if they reduce the risk or lethal attacks.

Following this weekend's incidents and the recent botched explosions in Bangkok by suspected Iranian terrorists, the security intelligence agencies must be overhauled. Information and any useful tips must be shared among these agencies to ensure the effective carrying out of intelligence operations.

The guilty parties must be brought to justice to set an example that the authorities will not tolerate this kind of barbarity. This attack is to be severely condemned. There is no excuse for Malay-Muslim separatists to take innocent lives in order to achieve their vague goals. This horrific act will be universally condemned by all decent people of whatever nationality or religion.

In the meanwhile, the authorities and decision-makers must start to fix the southern problem in a realistic manner by reaching out to marginalised people, understanding them and helping them to achieve sustainable development. Otherwise, no one can ever be convinced that this attack will be the last of its kind.

-- The Nation 2012-04-04

[patekatek]

I read an article a couple years ago written by a scholar from Singapore. He wrote that in order to reduce the spread of this type of violence one has to eradicate the teachers of hate. In other words, the radical Imams and clerics. These propagators of hate brainwash the young and uneducated to the extent that those who are willing to kill for Islam have the same level of love/committment as a mother for her child. They will die for that "child". In my humble opinion, short of handing over all the disputed territories to these animals, there will never be peace. Even if they got their territory back, they will continue with promoting their agenda because their neighbors are practicing Western World values. Thus the violence continues. Prisons are no answer for the guilty because they are nothing but recruiting grounds for terrorists. Complete and utter annihilation of the jihadists is the unachievable answer. Until then, just do your best to protect yourself and your family from the extremeist swine who perpetrate violance in the name of their so called god. I wish Thailand the best in their efforts to control this growing cancer in the south. And I wish the best for all the innocent and decent people living in these areas.

[AGareth2]

salient argument

[IMA_FARANG]

Alright, so call me a fool if you want to, but I think the "Problem" in the south of Thailand will be "solved" if and ONLY when:

1. A Muslim Thai person born there can have the same opportunity to attend a good university in Bangkok as a high-so Thai/Chinese Buddhist person born in Bangkok.

2. A Muslim politician born in, let's just say Hat Yai, can run as a political cabdidate for a area in Bangkok where he happens to live and work.

3. And an ordinary Muslim person living in, again let's just say Hat Yai, is treated exactly the same by the Thai army and police as a Buddhist Thai living there when they go through a security roadblock. That is to say, there's no difference in their treatment based upon their religion.

But we all know, that WON'T happen soon, will it?

Until it does the "security problem" isn't going away.

[redroo]

Handing them what ever they demand through violence

will not solve the problem.

Getting rid of those that brain wash them into acts of violence

will solve the problems of intergration into thailand and the rest of the world.

Religion's should always remain fantasies of god as they are.

This part of thailand is now thailand's land.

and not what it was " ones upon a time ".

[fredtitmus]

can anyone tell me the history of this,was the land taken off the malay muslims?

Whatever the history,the scum that killed the 14 innocent people are just gangsters,they are criminals hiding behind a cause.I agree to a certain extent with one of the posts above,find the cowardly extremist clerics who are poisoning the young,find the the gang members who continue to kill and maim.

When the perpatrators are caught and the dust has settled they must go into dialogue and keep talking,its the only way it will come to an end.You cant keep saying muslim this,muslim that,they are not to blame for everything,if you carry on with the hate it just gives the clerics more power and breeds more hate into the young muslims.It needs a thai version of the great john Hulme to sort things out in my opinion

[Skywalker69]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[americaninbangkok]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Young Skywalker: sense does not make The Nation reporting. Fear do not... cloudy all will stay.

[garrya]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, sounds really funny, successful government policy means more bombs ad death. They should really employ a person that is able to make speech.

[garrya]

Alright, so call me a fool if you want to, but I think the "Problem" in the south of Thailand will be "solved" if and ONLY when:

1. A Muslim Thai person born there can have the same opportunity to attend a good university in Bangkok as a high-so Thai/Chinese Buddhist person born in Bangkok.

2. A Muslim politician born in, let's just say Hat Yai, can run as a political cabdidate for a area in Bangkok where he happens to live and work.

3. And an ordinary Muslim person living in, again let's just say Hat Yai, is treated exactly the same by the Thai army and police as a Buddhist Thai living there when they go through a security roadblock. That is to say, there's no difference in their treatment based upon their religion.

But we all know, that WON'T happen soon, will it?

Until it does the "security problem" isn't going away.

This is TOTALLY wrong. I dont know where you get your ideas. I live in Hat Yai. I personally know muslims, as there are some in the missus acquaintence.

Brother-in-law is muslim too and doesn not seem to be barred from doing anything. Some are wealthy, kids can go to school. My mother-in-law lives in a village lead by muslim puu yai baan. Everybody has the same opportunity.

To be honest, no matter who you are. The money talks, and let`s face it, the muslims have money. I don`t know how they do it.

Why do you think there is a thorough check when they see a muslim???? If you were a thai soldier would you pay the same attention to a buddhist monk and a muslim guy with a pick-up truck?

Oh man.........

Edited April 4, 2012 by garrya

[Skywalker69]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, sounds really funny, successful government policy means more bombs ad death. They should really employ a person that is able to make speech.

You mean like the PM.?

[Crushdepth]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

He was referring to the government policy of pissing them off. Has proved very effective.

[garrya]

He also noted that the suspected insurgents had increased the level of their attacks because "the government's policy towards the South has been successful".

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, sounds really funny, successful government policy means more bombs ad death. They should really employ a person that is able to make speech.

You mean like the PM.?

Hm, I personally like her. Pretty, isnt she?

Anyway, making speech on behalf of the governemnt seems to be a tough job. Whoever does it, fails. It is amazing how much unable they are to come forward with a meaningful speech.

Edited April 4, 2012 by garrya

[otherstuff1957]

A bit of history: Malaysia was never a unified country in recent (the past 3 or 4 hundred years) history. Instead it was a group of independent sultanates. In the early 1800s most of those sultanates fell under the influence of a larger, more powerful country - some became British colonies, others became Siamese vassal states. At that time, the Siamese vassal states included Laos, Cambodia, the Shan plateau in Burma, part of peninsular Malaysia and Chiang Mai (which had its own king until about 1940).

These vassal states were not really part of Siam, instead, their rulers swore feality to the Siamese King, but ruled their own countries with minimal interference otherwise.

Over the next 100 years, the Siamese lost Cambodia, Laos and part of Northern Siam (west of the Mekong) to the French. They also lost most of their Malay fiefdoms to the British. In 1909 the British and the Siamese came to an agreement as to where the Siamese-Malay border would be. The Malay Sultanates of Pattani, Yala and Naratiwat became part of Siam and the rest became part of the British Malay Colony. By this time, Siam was adopting modern technology like steamships, railroads, etc.. and with the improvements in communications and transportation Bangkok was starting to exert centralized control over the provinces, rather than letting the governors or petty kings rule as they pleased. SO... the three new provinces suddenly found that their status had changed from being a vassal state to being a province of Siam. There was some resistance to this change and the Sultan of Pattani was taken to Bangkok in chains - though he was later released.

Edited April 4, 2012 by otherstuff1957

[bangon04]

A bit of history: Malaysia was never a unified country in recent (the past 3 or 4 hundred years) history. Instead it was a group of independent sultanates. In the early 1800s most of those sultanates fell under the influence of a larger, more powerful country - some became British colonies, others became Siamese vassal states. At that time, the Siamese vassal states included Laos, Cambodia, the Shan plateau in Burma, part of peninsular Malaysia and Chiang Mai (which had its own king until about 1940).

These vassal states were not really part of Siam, instead, their rulers swore feality to the Siamese King, but ruled their own countries with minimal interference otherwise.

Over the next 100 years, the Siamese lost Cambodia, Laos and part of Northern Siam (west of the Mekong) to the French. They also lost most of their Malay fiefdoms to the British. In 1909 the British and the Siamese came to an agreement as to where the Siamese-Malay border would be. The Malay Sultanates of Pattani, Yala and Naratiwat became part of Siam and the rest became part of the British Malay Colony. By this time, Siam was adopting modern technology like steamships, railroads, etc.. and with the improvements in communications and transportation Bangkok was starting to exert centralized control over the provinces, rather than letting the governors or petty kings rule as they pleased. SO... the three new provinces suddenly found that their status had changed from being a vassal state to being a province of Siam. There was some resistance to this change and the Sultan of Pattani was taken to Bangkok in chains - though he was later released.

doesn't sound like Islam has much to do with it, then.... more like turf wars using religion as an excuse.. sounds familiar...

[Jerrytheyoung]

A bit of history: Malaysia was never a unified country in recent (the past 3 or 4 hundred years) history. Instead it was a group of independent sultanates. In the early 1800s most of those sultanates fell under the influence of a larger, more powerful country - some became British colonies, others became Siamese vassal states. At that time, the Siamese vassal states included Laos, Cambodia, the Shan plateau in Burma, part of peninsular Malaysia and Chiang Mai (which had its own king until about 1940).

These vassal states were not really part of Siam, instead, their rulers swore feality to the Siamese King, but ruled their own countries with minimal interference otherwise.

Over the next 100 years, the Siamese lost Cambodia, Laos and part of Northern Siam (west of the Mekong) to the French. They also lost most of their Malay fiefdoms to the British. In 1909 the British and the Siamese came to an agreement as to where the Siamese-Malay border would be. The Malay Sultanates of Pattani, Yala and Naratiwat became part of Siam and the rest became part of the British Malay Colony. By this time, Siam was adopting modern technology like steamships, railroads, etc.. and with the improvements in communications and transportation Bangkok was starting to exert centralized control over the provinces, rather than letting the governors or petty kings rule as they pleased. SO... the three new provinces suddenly found that their status had changed from being a vassal state to being a province of Siam. There was some resistance to this change and the Sultan of Pattani was taken to Bangkok in chains - though he was later released.

doesn't sound like Islam has much to do with it, then.... more like turf wars using religion as an excuse.. sounds familiar...

yes, we should stay away from Religions. Because bringing religions in this affair is exactly what want the insurgents in order to enlarge their base and ïnternationalise the conflict. We have to be more mature and not amalgaming a majority of peaceful moslims with those insurgents. The conflict has historical roots due to the lost autonomy. It is a political issue not a religious one and the solution has to be found through discussions and dialog.

[folium]

A bit of history: Malaysia was never a unified country in recent (the past 3 or 4 hundred years) history. Instead it was a group of independent sultanates. In the early 1800s most of those sultanates fell under the influence of a larger, more powerful country - some became British colonies, others became Siamese vassal states. At that time, the Siamese vassal states included Laos, Cambodia, the Shan plateau in Burma, part of peninsular Malaysia and Chiang Mai (which had its own king until about 1940).

These vassal states were not really part of Siam, instead, their rulers swore feality to the Siamese King, but ruled their own countries with minimal interference otherwise.

Over the next 100 years, the Siamese lost Cambodia, Laos and part of Northern Siam (west of the Mekong) to the French. They also lost most of their Malay fiefdoms to the British. In 1909 the British and the Siamese came to an agreement as to where the Siamese-Malay border would be. The Malay Sultanates of Pattani, Yala and Naratiwat became part of Siam and the rest became part of the British Malay Colony. By this time, Siam was adopting modern technology like steamships, railroads, etc.. and with the improvements in communications and transportation Bangkok was starting to exert centralized control over the provinces, rather than letting the governors or petty kings rule as they pleased. SO... the three new provinces suddenly found that their status had changed from being a vassal state to being a province of Siam. There was some resistance to this change and the Sultan of Pattani was taken to Bangkok in chains - though he was later released.

doesn't sound like Islam has much to do with it, then.... more like turf wars using religion as an excuse.. sounds familiar...

yes, we should stay away from Religions. Because bringing religions in this affair is exactly what want the insurgents in order to enlarge their base and ïnternationalise the conflict. We have to be more mature and not amalgaming a majority of peaceful moslims with those insurgents. The conflict has historical roots due to the lost autonomy. It is a political issue not a religious one and the solution has to be found through discussions and dialog.

While your views will be unpopular in some quarters, they, plus the quick history lesson above, do put the situation far more in context than the overly simplistic "bad muslim" approach.

Sadly for an increasing number of people their agenda is quite simple. By reducing everything down to a muslim global threat it helps create the clash of civilizations that is only desired and sought after by extremists at both ends of the argument. The murderous Mr Breivik in Norway is just an extreme version of this warped mentality as he justified his slaughtering 77 of his fellow Norwegians by claiming that he was saving the country from muslim domination!

To reiterate the above post, a political solution is the only long term solution. Aceh in Indonesia is a good example of the fact that "even" muslims can come to a political settlement.