There's A Secret War In Thailand No One's Talking About

[oldsailor35]

Just because previous "so called" christians such as Hitler made war, does not mean that all christians did. Get real !

The EXACT same thing can be said about muslims. How many millions of muslims are there in the world and what percentage of them actually engages in such activity?

How hard is it to understand that if Islam actually meant "war on infidels" you would not be able to sleep at night? Can you begin to imagine the scale of the conflict?

You do not seem to understand. I am saying that although not all muslims are asking for death to infidels, their religious leaders do preach this constantly. I go to the muslim village here on Samui and am perfectly safe, the people are ok ! but what will it be like when they become completely under the control of their mullahs ?

[simple1]

I dunno how long people on this thread have been interested in Thailand to know what it was like "before" the insurgency. My mother's family is from the South, and Buddhist. When I was young (in the 1980's and 1990's) I would go down and visit the South. There was never this hatred between Buddhist and Mulsim. The two got along, and it wasn't really much of a conflict kind of issue. The Muslim children went to school with the Buddhist children. They lived side by side and coexisted.

I think that both Muslims and Buddhists in the South want to return to peaceful coexistion. Both Buddhists and Muslims are dying in this mess, and for nothing.

No, I don't think the Muslims want to "unite" with Malaysia. The Southern part of Thailand is actually doing a lucrative business from Tourists/visitors from Malaysia who come to Thailand precisely because they can get things or do things they can't in Malaysia.

No I don't think that the Muslims really want to be an independent autonomous state. If that ever happened, they would just be cut off from the economic resources of the rest of Thailand.

No, the Thai government will not "give up" the Southern Provinces. First is the issue of National Pride. They're not going to give up territory. Secondly, there are huge natural gas reserves down there which they're not going to give up.

Have to agree with you with the mantra of "nation, religion and king" says it all. But you don't believe at some point in time Deep South will have an autonomy similar to Aceh, except agreeing to implementation of sharia law.

Edited January 1, 2013 by simple1

[SteeleJoe]

As far as this situation not being talked about... at least in the U.S. the lack of news coverage is mostly due to 'myopia' of our news media... We have nothing in the U.S. that covers international news like the BBC... American news producers want to SELL - get advertising money - try to prosper or just stay afloat. By in large the American population is not interested in what goes on around the world... Most people I run into think Thailand is Taiwan... It is a combination of disinterest, ignorance (mostly willful) and a money focused news media - that only sells what the public will sit still to hear - most of it fluff...

Yes, you're right. Americans don't care much about the news in Pattani and Naritahwat and Yala. But why should Americans care about those places? It's almost exactly half a world away. And why should it be any more on our minds than the problems in 55 countries in Africa, or 47 other countries in Asia, or 24 countries in the Middle East, or 47 countries in Europe, or 7 countries in Central America, or 12 countries in South America.

And why exactly should Americans care about Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala IF THAILAND ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT?

And so what about how good the BBC is...and I admit it is. Has the coverage by the BBC made a dimes worth of difference in the situation in Pattani, Narithawat, or Yala? NO!

Forget about America being myopic. The central Thais are myopic about their own country. They never gave a dam_n about the Hill Tribe people. They cared little about the poverty in Issan (hence the Red Shirts)...and many Thais from Bangkok can't even effectively communicate with the Thai-Lao people of Issan. And they certainly don't care anything about the Muslims of Southern Thailand. America has nothing to do with it. It's a Thai problem. And Thailand just doesn't care.

"Why should Americans care about these places half a world away" Errrrrrr but why then are the usually the first to move in , expand and inflate conflicts in those countries "half a world away" ???

There's a basic flaw within your premise - but I think I will not join you in turning this thread into a discussion of US foreign policy (or a US bashing session).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Briggsy]

That's a fair analogy, Arkady.

2 differences are

1) Algeria was a colony. Thailand considers the Deep South to be part of an inviolate Thailand (that's another debate).

2) The French government and public may have had deep concerns about the indiscriminate killings and torture by govt forces and militias. The Thai govt., army and public don't.

[oldsailor35]

As far as this situation not being talked about... at least in the U.S. the lack of news coverage is mostly due to 'myopia' of our news media... We have nothing in the U.S. that covers international news like the BBC... American news producers want to SELL - get advertising money - try to prosper or just stay afloat. By in large the American population is not interested in what goes on around the world... Most people I run into think Thailand is Taiwan... It is a combination of disinterest, ignorance (mostly willful) and a money focused news media - that only sells what the public will sit still to hear - most of it fluff...

Yes, you're right. Americans don't care much about the news in Pattani and Naritahwat and Yala. But why should Americans care about those places? It's almost exactly half a world away. And why should it be any more on our minds than the problems in 55 countries in Africa, or 47 other countries in Asia, or 24 countries in the Middle East, or 47 countries in Europe, or 7 countries in Central America, or 12 countries in South America.

And why exactly should Americans care about Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala IF THAILAND ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT?

And so what about how good the BBC is...and I admit it is. Has the coverage by the BBC made a dimes worth of difference in the situation in Pattani, Narithawat, or Yala? NO!

Forget about America being myopic. The central Thais are myopic about their own country. They never gave a dam_n about the Hill Tribe people. They cared little about the poverty in Issan (hence the Red Shirts)...and many Thais from Bangkok can't even effectively communicate with the Thai-Lao people of Issan. And they certainly don't care anything about the Muslims of Southern Thailand. America has nothing to do with it. It's a Thai problem. And Thailand just doesn't care.

"Why should Americans care about these places half a world away" Errrrrrr but why then are the usually the first to move in , expand and inflate conflicts in those countries "half a world away" ???

Stop and think about what you are saying. How is America involved in Thailand's deep South? How has America inflated that conflict? If we got involved we'd be blamed. If we don't get involved, we are blamed. Thailand's Deep South is not America's issue.

Look again, i did not say that America is involved in the deep south conflict . However i am saying that, and probably against the wishes of majority of its citizens, that governments of the USA have a bad reputation for meddling in other countries affairs.

Edited January 1, 2013 by oldsailor35

[oldsailor35]

There is little room for reasonable doubt that the girl was murdered by one of the government death squads that roam the South carrying out revenge attacks. How else could the killers pass through army check points heavily armed?

The situation in the Deep South is very similar to Algeria in the 50s where France tried to hang on to its colony against a faceless enemy comprising hundreds of tiny independent insurgent cells that knew very little about each other but were passionately united by a common goal. The French strategy of trying to defeat the enemy through superior military might and unrestrained torture and brutality ended in dismal failure. Captured FNL revealed very little before their deaths in the French torture chambers because they knew very little. They were immediately replaced by highly motivated new recruits eager for vengeance and freedom from the foreign colonial yolk. Does this all sound familiar?

The RTA do have a reputation from the past of this kind of behaviour.

[phetaroi]

Look again, i did not say that America is involved in the deep south conflict . However i am saying that, and probably against the wishes of majority of its citizens, that the USA have a bad reputation for meddling in other countries affairs.

That's not the topic of this thread.

I'll be happy to join you in bashing some things that America has done. But not in this thread.

[Arkady]

I dunno how long people on this thread have been interested in Thailand to know what it was like "before" the insurgency. My mother's family is from the South, and Buddhist. When I was young (in the 1980's and 1990's) I would go down and visit the South. There was never this hatred between Buddhist and Mulsim. The two got along, and it wasn't really much of a conflict kind of issue. The Muslim children went to school with the Buddhist children. They lived side by side and coexisted.

I think that both Muslims and Buddhists in the South want to return to peaceful coexistion. Both Buddhists and Muslims are dying in this mess, and for nothing.

No, I don't think the Muslims want to "unite" with Malaysia. The Southern part of Thailand is actually doing a lucrative business from Tourists/visitors from Malaysia who come to Thailand precisely because they can get things or do things they can't in Malaysia.

No I don't think that the Muslims really want to be an independent autonomous state. If that ever happened, they would just be cut off from the economic resources of the rest of Thailand.

No, the Thai government will not "give up" the Southern Provinces. First is the issue of National Pride. They're not going to give up territory. Secondly, there are huge natural gas reserves down there which they're not going to give up.

The situation did improve in the 80s after Prem, a Southerner himself, set up the Southern Border Command insisting on a high proportion of officers who were from the South and letting them serve their entire careers there. It was corrupt and took commissions from smuggling and other criminal activities but it engaged with local leaders and kept the peace reasonably well for many years. However, if you go back earlier than that, things were extremely ugly in the South under the various Thai military dictatorships that attempted to impose their will through brute force using a similar approach to Thaksin when he decided to scrap the Southern Border Command and set the South ablaze. In the 70s the army was alleged to have boiled Southern muslims alive in oil drums. If you search on the Internet you can find a revealing article on the Deep South from The Straits Times in the late 40s before it became a mouth piece of The People's Action Party. A British Straits Times reporter travelled through the area interviewing muslim villagers and recorded horrific accounts of killings, torture and disappearances openly perpetrated by the Thai security forces. Plus ça change.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Arkady

[sunshine51]

There is little room for reasonable doubt that the girl was murdered by one of the government death squads that roam the South carrying out revenge attacks. How else could the killers pass through army check points heavily armed?

The situation in the Deep South is very similar to Algeria in the 50s where France tried to hang on to its colony against a faceless enemy comprising hundreds of tiny independent insurgent cells that knew very little about each other but were passionately united by a common goal. The French strategy of trying to defeat the enemy through superior military might and unrestrained torture and brutality ended in dismal failure. Captured FNL revealed very little before their deaths in the French torture chambers because they knew very little. They were immediately replaced by highly motivated new recruits eager for vengeance and freedom from the foreign colonial yolk. Does this all sound familiar?

Good words Arkady +1...ditto on your post #107.

Edited January 1, 2013 by sunshine51

[submaniac]

I dunno how long people on this thread have been interested in Thailand to know what it was like "before" the insurgency. My mother's family is from the South, and Buddhist. When I was young (in the 1980's and 1990's) I would go down and visit the South. There was never this hatred between Buddhist and Mulsim. The two got along, and it wasn't really much of a conflict kind of issue. The Muslim children went to school with the Buddhist children. They lived side by side and coexisted.

I think that both Muslims and Buddhists in the South want to return to peaceful coexistion. Both Buddhists and Muslims are dying in this mess, and for nothing.

No, I don't think the Muslims want to "unite" with Malaysia. The Southern part of Thailand is actually doing a lucrative business from Tourists/visitors from Malaysia who come to Thailand precisely because they can get things or do things they can't in Malaysia.

No I don't think that the Muslims really want to be an independent autonomous state. If that ever happened, they would just be cut off from the economic resources of the rest of Thailand.

No, the Thai government will not "give up" the Southern Provinces. First is the issue of National Pride. They're not going to give up territory. Secondly, there are huge natural gas reserves down there which they're not going to give up.

Have to agree with you with the mantra of "nation, religion and king" says it all. But you don't believe at some point in time Deep South will have an autonomy similar to Aceh, except agreeing to implementation of sharia law.

If you ask me, and I guess you are, my opinion is that I think even fairly devout Muslims aren't too keen on imposing Sharia law. You know how Thailand gets alot of tourists from Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, that have religious morality police. And you know how when they arrive in Thailand, ummm...they don't have to adhere to the strict rules of their home country. You know how the Malaysians come to Southern Thailand and they can drink and do "other stuff" that they can't back in Malaysia? It's kind of like that.

I believe the majority of Muslims are more moderate and are willing to try and span the bridge between Islamic teachings and the 21st century. However, when it comes to imposition of Islamic law, those Muslims who are more strict in their interpretation are the ones who enforce it upon the more moderate muslims. This coupled with the fact that Islamic law is a bit amorphous (like Hadith) which makes it more difficult to know what a good Muslim can and cannot do.

[SteeleJoe]

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Well, that was very indulgent of you (though in fact it wasn't a request, merely a suggestion - it made no difference to me whether you did it or not). I have reviewed the posts and I can say that again, you have take something out of context and failed to understand my point (or I have failed to communicate it well enough): He spoke of his refusal or inability to be friends with anyone who was Muslim but did nt have a similar issue with Christians.

My response was that such a stance was somewhat mystifying to me and I pointed out why: "I find the Christian position only marginally (though significantly) more acceptable: my wife and children, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world - no matter how good and decent or what they do for the betterment of their community or the world - are all condemned to an eternity of agony and suffering" This is intolerable to me as a belief and I am somewhat mystified that this would present no apparent problem for the poster in question - especially given that there is very little chance that he will be killed for being a kaffir so he is (understandably) objecting to Islam based on principle.

Nothing about intolerance? Perhaps that was a mistake on my understating -- but he didn't deny it. Instead he justified it (unnecessarily and with points unrelated to anything I said).

I didn't say I didn't want to be quoted, did I? (Context) I simply said I preferred not to be taken out of context. But thank you for your suggestion and your efforts to enlighten me.

[Thai at Heart]

I dunno how long people on this thread have been interested in Thailand to know what it was like "before" the insurgency. My mother's family is from the South, and Buddhist. When I was young (in the 1980's and 1990's) I would go down and visit the South. There was never this hatred between Buddhist and Mulsim. The two got along, and it wasn't really much of a conflict kind of issue. The Muslim children went to school with the Buddhist children. They lived side by side and coexisted.

I think that both Muslims and Buddhists in the South want to return to peaceful coexistion. Both Buddhists and Muslims are dying in this mess, and for nothing.

No, I don't think the Muslims want to "unite" with Malaysia. The Southern part of Thailand is actually doing a lucrative business from Tourists/visitors from Malaysia who come to Thailand precisely because they can get things or do things they can't in Malaysia.

No I don't think that the Muslims really want to be an independent autonomous state. If that ever happened, they would just be cut off from the economic resources of the rest of Thailand.

No, the Thai government will not "give up" the Southern Provinces. First is the issue of National Pride. They're not going to give up territory. Secondly, there are huge natural gas reserves down there which they're not going to give up.

So when did it start and why? Religious fundamentalism gone mad or because Malaysia is a way to get drugs produced in Burma out of Thailand and hence its a "drugs war" thing? Something must have changed if people used to live together in harmony 10 or 20 years ago. What?

I have a feeling it started when it was pronounced that if people didn't vote a certain way they wouldn't be considered a priority for government funding to their region.

The south was always a region that Thai governments focused on for development. The last 10 years, that has moved too isaan and the north.

[saroq]

I post this for information purposes... http://www.cfr.org/t...thailand/p12531

I don't have sympathy for the Muslims in this situation even though they have been the indigenous people of that area for a very long time (this is fairly unique) I am not sympathetic primarily because of the cultural attitude they display that 'we can kill you and it is okay - but if you kill back - we are outraged... This enraged illogical craziness is going on in Gaza, the West Bank, in Western Burma, in a dozen countries in Africa, in India, China, much of Western Europe, Russia, the U.K. and many other places. Not all these countries have gratuitous violence going on - but the strategy is much the same. Establish a presence, increase the numbers, become outraged at every 'slight' that comes about as done by a non believer, insist on isolation from the greater community, insist on their own laws, etc. Then scream out that everyone else is the problem.

After the Muslim riots in Sydney, Australia I read an article from a Muslim intellectual / commentator in which he reflected upon his fellow Muslim's behavior, their attitude and the way they were perceived by the broader community. I wish I could find the exact quote but it went something along the lines of Muslims have to take a hard look at themselves and ask themselves if they have anything other than anger and outrage to add to the social dialogue. Unfortunately the most vocal members of that community seem to have the intellectual level of a petulant teenager who didn't get what he wanted. While I feel for their situation in the South and can understand their feelings of not being treated with respect for their religious views I wonder what chance a non-Muslim has of being treated fairly or of having equal rights in any Muslim country?

[gatorsoft]

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Steeljoe: I have done exactly as you requested and reread both the post you were responding to and your post, repeatedly. My post was quite relevant. I suggest you follow your own advice and review the posts. The poster quite clearly states nothing about intolerance to the Muslims. He expresses a frustration that Muslims cannot consider him a friend since he is a non-believer. If you don't want to be quoted, you should consider not posting. I was simply attempting to clear up your mystification.

Well, that was very indulgent of you (though in fact it wasn't a request, merely a suggestion - it made no difference to me whether you did it or not). I have reviewed the posts and I can say that again, you have take something out of context and failed to understand my point (or I have failed to communicate it well enough): He spoke of his refusal or inability to be friends with anyone who was Muslim but did nt have a similar issue with Christians.

My response was that such a stance was somewhat mystifying to me and I pointed out why: "I find the Christian position only marginally (though significantly) more acceptable: my wife and children, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world - no matter how good and decent or what they do for the betterment of their community or the world - are all condemned to an eternity of agony and suffering" This is intolerable to me as a belief and I am somewhat mystified that this would present no apparent problem for the poster in question - especially given that there is very little chance that he will be killed for being a kaffir so he is (understandably) objecting to Islam based on principle.

Nothing about intolerance? Perhaps that was a mistake on my understating -- but he didn't deny it. Instead he justified it (unnecessarily and with points unrelated to anything I said).

I didn't say I didn't want to be quoted, did I? (Context) I simply said I preferred not to be taken out of context. But thank you for your suggestion and your efforts to enlighten me.

I agree with your thoughts on Christianity and consider that there probably are Christians that refuse to be friends with non-Christians. I think that the difference is that the Christian religion leans more toward conversion and "enlightenment" and the Muslim religion leans more towards extermination. On the other hand, I have Muslim friends and they have never indicated to me that cannot be friends with an "infidel".

[JoaoFPG]

Just because previous "so called" christians such as Hitler made war, does not mean that all christians did. Get real !

The EXACT same thing can be said about muslims. How many millions of muslims are there in the world and what percentage of them actually engages in such activity?

How hard is it to understand that if Islam actually meant "war on infidels" you would not be able to sleep at night? Can you begin to imagine the scale of the conflict?

You do not seem to understand. I am saying that although not all muslims are asking for death to infidels, their religious leaders do preach this constantly. I go to the muslim village here on Samui and am perfectly safe, the people are ok ! but what will it be like when they become completely under the control of their mullahs ?

"Their leaders" do not preach this constantly. A select few do. You grossly overestimate their influence, as anyone can tell by looking at the state of the world. We can only fathom a mobilization of the islamic world against the west in the most paranoid of scenarios.

[SteeleJoe]

How hard is it to understand that if Islam actually meant "war on infidels" you would not be able to sleep at night? Can you begin to imagine the scale of the conflict?

Indeed. I have nothing but anger and contempt for Islamist Jihadis and truth be told I struggle (successfully) against some degree of outright contempt for believers in general. I've been studying Islamist radicalism for nearly 40 years and one thing I can say with assurance about people like Osama bin Laden or al Zakarwi et al -- they would LOVE it of we all start believing that Islam as a whole was at war with the rest of the world.

[ozziebloke]

Unfortunately, more and more conflicts around the world have that common denominator.......muslim.

Need I say more?

Put radicall in front and your more accurate

[dcutman]

I am not disagreeing, but do you think the Americans are the only ones lazy to educate themselves on world issues? Or are the only ones with a narrow minded views what goes on outside their own countries?

And why exactly are Americans supposed to know so much more about Thailand than Thais are expected to know about America. I've -- literally -- had Thais ask me if the streets in American were really paved with gold, if every American behaves like Rambo, and, "Do you have AIDS?" "No, of course not." "Oh, I thought every American had AIDS."

I dont know dude! Why are you asking me. GEEZ did I miss something?

[me313]

In some political quarters, described as the forgotten war, has Thailand ask for assistance, yet ?? Have they asked the UN, that toothless tiger for help?? Me thinks not. End of sob story.

Don't you mean the United Nations, the "toothless tiger"? The US soldiers shoot first and ask questions later, just like the police in the US.

[saroq]

Here're "peaceful' guys in London. They all look very friendly and open minded to me.....

I wonder if I'd be allowed to walk around the streets of London with signs saying behead all non-Christians or Saudi your 9/11 is coming? To allow this religious attitude of intolerance to gain a standing in either the political or social aspects of society would be a huge mistake.

[phetaroi]

I am not disagreeing, but do you think the Americans are the only ones lazy to educate themselves on world issues? Or are the only ones with a narrow minded views what goes on outside their own countries?

And why exactly are Americans supposed to know so much more about Thailand than Thais are expected to know about America. I've -- literally -- had Thais ask me if the streets in American were really paved with gold, if every American behaves like Rambo, and, "Do you have AIDS?" "No, of course not." "Oh, I thought every American had AIDS."

I dont know dude! Why are you asking me. GEEZ did I miss something?

In a clumsy way I was agreeing with you.

[TeeKay]

sec·u·lar (sky-lr)

adj.

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.

2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.

3. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order.

[rubl]

Muslims... Bringing peace by slaughtering people for 1400 years!

To be fair Christians have had similar attitudes for many years.

[chooka]

As far as this situation not being talked about... at least in the U.S. the lack of news coverage is mostly due to 'myopia' of our news media... We have nothing in the U.S. that covers international news like the BBC... American news producers want to SELL - get advertising money - try to prosper or just stay afloat. By in large the American population is not interested in what goes on around the world... Most people I run into think Thailand is Taiwan... It is a combination of disinterest, ignorance (mostly willful) and a money focused news media - that only sells what the public will sit still to hear - most of it fluff...

Yes, you're right. Americans don't care much about the news in Pattani and Naritahwat and Yala. But why should Americans care about those places? It's almost exactly half a world away. And why should it be any more on our minds than the problems in 55 countries in Africa, or 47 other countries in Asia, or 24 countries in the Middle East, or 47 countries in Europe, or 7 countries in Central America, or 12 countries in South America.

And why exactly should Americans care about Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala IF THAILAND ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT?

And so what about how good the BBC is...and I admit it is. Has the coverage by the BBC made a dimes worth of difference in the situation in Pattani, Narithawat, or Yala? NO!

Forget about America being myopic. The central Thais are myopic about their own country. They never gave a dam_n about the Hill Tribe people. They cared little about the poverty in Issan (hence the Red Shirts)...and many Thais from Bangkok can't even effectively communicate with the Thai-Lao people of Issan. And they certainly don't care anything about the Muslims of Southern Thailand. America has nothing to do with it. It's a Thai problem. And Thailand just doesn't care.

Tell that to those in Iraq and Afganistan who they actually really cared for. Why did they care so much for these people? oh natural resources to be plundered. They care when there is a gain to be made, Thailand has nothing to be gained so they don't care and don't want to hear about unless someone accidently strikes oil and then it will be we are on our way to help you with your problem in the south because we love you. Edited January 1, 2013 by chooka

[phetaroi]

As far as this situation not being talked about... at least in the U.S. the lack of news coverage is mostly due to 'myopia' of our news media... We have nothing in the U.S. that covers international news like the BBC... American news producers want to SELL - get advertising money - try to prosper or just stay afloat. By in large the American population is not interested in what goes on around the world... Most people I run into think Thailand is Taiwan... It is a combination of disinterest, ignorance (mostly willful) and a money focused news media - that only sells what the public will sit still to hear - most of it fluff...

Yes, you're right. Americans don't care much about the news in Pattani and Naritahwat and Yala. But why should Americans care about those places? It's almost exactly half a world away. And why should it be any more on our minds than the problems in 55 countries in Africa, or 47 other countries in Asia, or 24 countries in the Middle East, or 47 countries in Europe, or 7 countries in Central America, or 12 countries in South America.

And why exactly should Americans care about Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala IF THAILAND ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT?

And so what about how good the BBC is...and I admit it is. Has the coverage by the BBC made a dimes worth of difference in the situation in Pattani, Narithawat, or Yala? NO!

Forget about America being myopic. The central Thais are myopic about their own country. They never gave a dam_n about the Hill Tribe people. They cared little about the poverty in Issan (hence the Red Shirts)...and many Thais from Bangkok can't even effectively communicate with the Thai-Lao people of Issan. And they certainly don't care anything about the Muslims of Southern Thailand. America has nothing to do with it. It's a Thai problem. And Thailand just doesn't care.

Tell that to those in Iraq and Afganistan who they actually really cared for. Why did they care so much for these people? oh natural resources to be plundered. They care when there is a gain to be made, Thailand has nothing to be gained so they don't care and don't want to hear about unless someone accidently strikes all and then it will be we are on our way to help you with your problem in the south because we love you.

The topic here is the Deep South of Thailand. The topic is not Iraq or Afghanistan. I may or may not agree with you on those topics. I'm talking about a Thai problem.

[TheGhostWithin]

In other parts of Thailand it seems that Muslims and Buddhists live side by side harmoniously. I read an article, I think in the Bangkok post, recently that interviewed teachers down there. One of them commented that this used to be the case in the south, and that this isn't really about religion at all; it's a war being instigated by drug smugglers who want to make it into a religious war to get the Thai authority out, but in reality it's just to make drug smuggling easier and most Muslims and Buddhists in the south really just want things to go back to harmonious life together. Plus, Muslim teachers have been killed as well - which seems to support what this teacher was saying.

Thoughts?

Muslim teachers are open game in public schools. The terrorists wish for sharia law (something like the Taliban had in Afghanistan, and what is now in place with Al Shabaab in Somalia. They wish for children to use the Koran as their main tool for learning, and that other education such as maths and science cime second, and must be approved by the Muslim powers that be. It is about power, control, and removing the option if choice from the entire population if the south.

And once they have the south, they will sadly start moving the violence north.

Sent from my GT-P7500 using Thaivisa Connect App

[chooka]

Muslims... Bringing peace by slaughtering people for 1400 years!

To be fair Christians have had similar attitudes for many years.

Didn't hear the Pope calling for a Holy war in his Christmas address, just wishing peace to all people including muslims.

[rubl]

Muslims... Bringing peace by slaughtering people for 1400 years!

To be fair Christians have had similar attitudes for many years.

Didn't hear the Pope calling for a Holy war in his Christmas address, just wishing peace to all people including muslims.

We grew over it after 1300 or 1400 years (start counting around 300 A.D.)

Edited January 1, 2013 by rubl

[chooka]

As far as this situation not being talked about... at least in the U.S. the lack of news coverage is mostly due to 'myopia' of our news media... We have nothing in the U.S. that covers international news like the BBC... American news producers want to SELL - get advertising money - try to prosper or just stay afloat. By in large the American population is not interested in what goes on around the world... Most people I run into think Thailand is Taiwan... It is a combination of disinterest, ignorance (mostly willful) and a money focused news media - that only sells what the public will sit still to hear - most of it fluff...

Yes, you're right. Americans don't care much about the news in Pattani and Naritahwat and Yala. But why should Americans care about those places? It's almost exactly half a world away. And why should it be any more on our minds than the problems in 55 countries in Africa, or 47 other countries in Asia, or 24 countries in the Middle East, or 47 countries in Europe, or 7 countries in Central America, or 12 countries in South America.

And why exactly should Americans care about Pattani, Narithawat, and Yala IF THAILAND ITSELF DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT?

And so what about how good the BBC is...and I admit it is. Has the coverage by the BBC made a dimes worth of difference in the situation in Pattani, Narithawat, or Yala? NO!

Forget about America being myopic. The central Thais are myopic about their own country. They never gave a dam_n about the Hill Tribe people. They cared little about the poverty in Issan (hence the Red Shirts)...and many Thais from Bangkok can't even effectively communicate with the Thai-Lao people of Issan. And they certainly don't care anything about the Muslims of Southern Thailand. America has nothing to do with it. It's a Thai problem. And Thailand just doesn't care.

Tell that to those in Iraq and Afganistan who they actually really cared for. Why did they care so much for these people? oh natural resources to be plundered. They care when there is a gain to be made, Thailand has nothing to be gained so they don't care and don't want to hear about unless someone accidently strikes all and then it will be we are on our way to help you with your problem in the south because we love you.

The topic here is the Deep South of Thailand. The topic is not Iraq or Afghanistan. I may or may not agree with you on those topics. I'm talking about a Thai problem.

Yes you were and I was saying, countries like the U.S could not care about the thai problem unless there is something to be gained. Until they can gain something they don't want to hear about it and it will forever be the secret war.

[Arkady]

That's a fair analogy, Arkady.

2 differences are

1) Algeria was a colony. Thailand considers the Deep South to be part of an inviolate Thailand (that's another debate).

2) The French government and public may have had deep concerns about the indiscriminate killings and torture by govt forces and militias. The Thai govt., army and public don't.

Point 1) is only partly correct because France also considered Algeria a part of metropolitan France. Administratively it was divided into three departments that elected deputies to sit in the French legislature. Problem was not so much that the majority wanted independence but that they resented the fact that to be considered French citizens and have a vote they had to made a declaration of acceptance of French universal law and not be subject to sharia and other local custom laws. Effectively that meant that most Muslims were disenfranchised. In Thailand at the time of the Algerian War voting rights were not important because the country was ruled by a series of military dictatorships. If you were to regularize the voting system in French Algeria and move the Deep South a couple of hundred kilometres away from the Thai mainland, the administrative differences would be much less.

Another important point is that the non-Muslim population of Algeria in the 50s was 14%. That is much higher than the non-M population of the Deep South which I believe is less than 5%, despite persistent efforts at colonisation by the government. Most French people at the time had deep sympathy for the whites in Algeria who had created a civilisation in the towns that made them look very much like France, whereas the countryside was almost exclusively Muslim.

Point 2) is quite correct and therein lies the big difference. France in the 50s not only had a swathe of socialist press but it also had a large and vocal communist party that sympathized with the FLN insurgents in Algeria. Thus, even though there was a great deal of sympathy for the pieds noirs colonists the brutality of the security forces from the Battle of Algiers on was persistently highlighted by left wing journalists and caused serious doubts in the minds of the French public. Thailand has no main stream political movement that sympathises with the rebels and the media is largely content to sweep the attrocities of the security forces under the carpet, while highlighting attacks against Buddhists.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Arkady