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

[JDGRUEN]

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.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you posted ... I was just giving an American point of view as to a reason why the problems in the far south of Thailand are not news in places like the USA... which I think was the premise of this thread... ... "No One's Talking About"... no one is talking about it in America for the reasons I posted...

[Arkady]

Since I started becoming interested in Thailand and its news, I have been continually shocked at how reports of shootings and bombings in the south seem to occupy a secondary spot in the news. It's as if what happens in the south is unimportant to the rest of Thaialnd.

It claims

" In the past, we were a country, the Sultanate of Pattani"

Not true thery were a part of it as they have been a part of many kingdoms.

Z

The Sultanate of Pattani which included most of the 3 southernmost Thai provinces of some districts of present day Songkla Province of did in fact go back a long way and pre-dated British rule in Malaya. What is more to the point is that the British should never have separated Pattani from Kedah, Tregganu, Kelantan and Perlis in the 1909 Anglo-Siam treaty after seeing the disastrous effects of Siamese rule in all five of the Northern Malay states. Unfortunately they only cared about their own interests and continuing instability in Pattani by itself under Siamese rule was not was not viewed as a serious threat, as would have been the case if Siam had been allowed to retain all five states, while the Siamese needed it as a face saver. So Pattani and its unfortunate Malay inhabitants was thrown to them as a crumb. No consideration was given to the wishes or welfare of the people of Pattani. If given a vote, they would have overwhelmingly have voted to become part of British Malaya along with the other four states. The British left the local sultans in place and only bothered with matters of defence, security and trade. British colonial officials in Malaya were also all obliged to pass exams in Malay and many spoke a Chinese or Indian dialect too, whereas Thai officials hardly ever spoke Malay and tried to impose the Thai language on the Malays, as they still do today in the three Southern provinces.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Scott
Deleted quote edited out

[SinCityGr8One]

War? What War? It is labeled as an issue in Thailand's Southern Provinces . It is always reported in the Thai Media as problems with separatists or insurgents in the deep south. One word to describe the groups involved, however that is NEVER used is "Terrorists". Imagine that! The rest of the World labels the bombings, murders, be headings and assassinations carried out by groups such as those located in Thailand Southern provinces as "Terrorists". Nooooooo Not Thailand! CANNOT use the "T" word as it will scare away the Tourists and their Money. Cannot do that! Lets just sugar coat it. If the "T" word is not used, perhaps the Tourists will not be able to connect the dots and come to a conclusion that Terrorists activities can happen anywhere and Thailand is not immune. After all, Thailand is still the Land of Smiles.

[JDGRUEN]

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

Yes - exactly - and it is a world wide pattern of aggression - establish - grow - sow discontent - expand using violence. Also as you stated - Muslim separatist extremists kill Muslim teachers in the contested south of Thailand - that is - those Muslim teachers who teach in Thai Government Public Schools. The extremist reasoning is that such Muslim teachers have chosen to endorse and support the Thai Government by teaching in a government school. Thus they have to be made an example.

[khunPer]

Much of the problem is economic in nature. Malay Muslims in the Deep South see that the neighbouring states in Malaysia that have similar demographics and large Muslim majorities are significantly more prosperous and assume that the reason for this is that are systematically neglected by the Siamese government in Bangkok.

They also note that local Malay Muslims in the Malaysian states can have important positions like state governor and police chief, whereas all key jobs in the Deep South are held by Thai Chinese transferred from elsewhere on short tours of duty as if in an occupied country.

Finally, whereas Malaysia's official language is Malay or Bahasa Malaysia and business between the various races tends to be done in English which is neutral, their Malay dialect is virtually outlawed in Thailand and, in fact, was outlawed by the military dictator, Sarit, who made it a criminal offence to speak Malay. They are insulted further by the Thai insistence on referring to the Malay language as Jawi which is in fact the Arabic style script in use in the South. The Chaturon report commissioned by the Thaksin government in addition to recommending limited local autonomy, also recommended that Malay should be given the status as a second language that could be used in government offices. However, establishment worthies including Gen Prem claimed this was treasonous. Of course, making Malay a second language would introduce difficulties for the policy of transferring monoglot Thais from elsewhere. Francophones in Belgium faced similar difficulties in the 60s when it became compulsory for civil servants to pass exams in Flemish and French.

Malaysia doesn't want these provinces for obvious reasons and they are clearly economically unviable as an independent nation, not to mention the security threat that might pose to both Thailand and Malaysia. The solution is clearly some form of local autonomy, elevation of the status of Malay to an official language and the pumping in of investment by the Thai government to raise the standard of living. Stability would then pave for the way for foreign investment and the development of a tourist industry. However, this is not much different from the policies advocated by Chaturon and the bigoted official Thai mindset needs to make considerable advances to see the solution for what it is and stop labeling it as treason against the constitutionally sanctified indivisibility of the Kingdom. It is not.

The problem arises from the three southern provinces never was a ‘natural part’ of the Thai nation. They were finally included in the nation some 100 years ago – the 1909 Treaty of the Borders with Britain and France – compromise for loss of land, mainly in the east to French Indochina (Cambodia, Laos & Vietnam). However, in the years before, the Siam southern border was drawn even a bit further south on maps from 1887-1909. I believe to remember, the southern area originally were a kind of independent sultanate and later taxable tributaries. The revolts began back in 1902, mainly caused by new taxes.

But so well described by Arkady, the problem may not be easily solved, like a voting for independence or the area to be incorporated in Malaysia – which for Westerners may seem like the right solution. Furthermore, the Thais may ‘loose face’ if the three southern provinces are lost now.

You're absolutely right that the 3 southernmost provinces are not a natural part of Thailand but France was not a party to the treaty which was the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909. An earlier treaty, the 1826 Burney Treaty between Siam and the East India Company, had recognised Siamese suzerainty over Kedah as well as Pattani but things went very badly for them and after dealing with armed Malay uprisings for 20 years the Siamese abandoned both Malay states. By the late 19th century the Siamese made a come back and with British support took over all the Northern Malay States: Pattani, Kedah, Trengannu, Kelantan and Perlis which were recognised as Siamese by the British in 1902. These states were not particularly important to British trade at the time and the British liked the idea of keeping Siam as an independent buffer against France, as long it maintained its trade and extraterritorial judicial rights with Siam. The only reason that the British took four of the Northern Malay states back under the Anglo-Siam treaty was that far from becoming an effective buffer zone, as they had hoped, armed insurrection against Siamese rule was creating a security threat to the British Empire because the Malays were threatening to bring in German military help to rid them of the hated Siamese colonists. Under the treaty Pattani, the northernmost state was left to the Siamese as a face saver. Armed insurrection against Siamese rule continues to this day.

So you can see that Siamese fear of loss of face was the original cause of the problem and still is today. However, an honest review of the history makes it absolutely clear to anyone who is not mentally retarded that imposing hated Siamese rule and culture has not worked for 100 years and will be still not working in another 100 years, if they don’t come up with a more thoughtful solution.

I am impressed over your historical knowledge about the Malay colonization.

My source is A History of Thailand from Cambridge Universal Press (2005), and it states, that the there were secret agreements between France and Britain about the Siam borders, a number of treaties between 1902 and 1909. France wished Siam as a protectorate, which Britain blocked. Siam lost quite big areas to French Indochina and yes, the British wished Siam as a buffer between French and British colonial interests. May be a bit off topic to dive further into – my point was just to say, that the southern provinces were not a natural part of Siam and are not a natural part of Thailand.

According to the same source, the revolts began due to taxations – but loosing face may well have been more important to Siam a hundred years ago, than loosing tax.

I think we fully agree in the point of view and that it may be very difficult to find a solution.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted. I think we can do without anti-Islam bashing and posts about the Holy land and the Crusades.

[sunshine51]

its sad that the British press raised this issue. Dont blame Buddhist or Muslims for this... blame the politicians that redrew the border after WW2 The part of the south of Thailand was Malaysia before

It's never been part of Malaysia. It became part of Thailand before Malaysia existed.

Thailand used to extend all the way down to just above Alor Setar in Malaysia...just

some sip satang trivia for those interested.

Thailand is named Siam on this chart and in yellow....a chart by the Scottish Geographical

Magazine...1886.

Edited January 2, 2013 by sunshine51

[OzMick]

Despite questionable facts, such as the number of deaths, it is a good thing to see at least an article written by the foreign press. It would be great to see more of such articles and articles that represent the Pattani separatist's background issues and point of view. Something that the Thais squash and ignore.

The way that this "Thai south" thing will come to an end will be after more and more journalists break the truth. When the non-Thais in the southern provinces establish a visible presence in world media things will start to change. Thais will lose their grip and control. Eventually, the Thais will just "walk out." No other choice really.

Maybe, just maybe.

However, in that case there might be a hefty price to be paid by muslims in the rest of Thailand.

Maybe, just maybe.

There is a steady change in the muslim/buddhist mix as you move north along the peninsula towards Ranong, so the question arises that if the southern provinces are allowed to secede, what is to stop the conflict moving further north? A partition scenario similar to the Indian sub-continent is a really scary possibility.

[hhfarang]

Well, it seems (from Wikipedia) that a certain western country is mainly responsible for this border dispute through it's colonialism and treaties over the last two centuries.

"The border between Thailand or Siam and the sultanates of the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia today) has varied throughout history according to the influence the kingdom over the sultanates. The southern part of Siam has always been populated by Malays and traditional Malay sultanates of Kedah (of which Perlis was part), Kelantan, Pattani (which consist of the areas of Singgora, Yala, Ligor and Setul) and Terengganu came under Siamese suzerainty in the 19th century. The Malay states to immediately to the south, namely Perak and Pahang were independent sultanates until the British started asserting influence over them in the late 1800s. The frontier between the states were largely vague and not well defined.

In 1785, the British obtained the island of Penang from the Sultan of Kedah. The channel between the island and the mainland of Peninsula Malaysia became the border between British territory and Kedah, and therefore Siamese, territory.

On 6 May 1869, Great Britain and Siam signed an agreement known as the Bangkok Treaty of 1869 where Siam ceded a piece of territory on the mainland opposite Penang to Great Britain. The territory became known as Province Wellesley (known as Seberang Perai today). The treaty also defined the border between British and Siamese territory and this border remains the boundary line between Penang and Kedah today, although both are now constituent states of Malaysia.

On 9 July 1909, Great Britain and Siam signed another agreement in Bangkok. Known as the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, the agreement ceded the states of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu to Great Britain while Pattani remained in Siamese hands. The treaty, in one of its four annexes, defined the border between British and Siamese territories. This border ultimately became today's border between Malaysia and Thailand.

Thailand regained control of the Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu during World War II when the Japanese handed them over to the kingdom, thus moving the Malay States-Siamese border southwards again. However, the states were returned to the British at the end of the war.^[6]"

[simple1]

Despite questionable facts, such as the number of deaths, it is a good thing to see at least an article written by the foreign press. It would be great to see more of such articles and articles that represent the Pattani separatist's background issues and point of view. Something that the Thais squash and ignore.

The way that this "Thai south" thing will come to an end will be after more and more journalists break the truth. When the non-Thais in the southern provinces establish a visible presence in world media things will start to change. Thais will lose their grip and control. Eventually, the Thais will just "walk out." No other choice really.

Maybe, just maybe.

However, in that case there might be a hefty price to be paid by muslims in the rest of Thailand.

Maybe, just maybe.

There is a steady change in the muslim/buddhist mix as you move north along the peninsula towards Ranong, so the question arises that if the southern provinces are allowed to secede, what is to stop the conflict moving further north? A partition scenario similar to the Indian sub-continent is a really scary possibility.

There is not a single Muslim political party (don't exist) representing Muslims in Thailand & demanding partition. The Deep South is fractured amongst many separatist groups. During the Indian independence struggle there was a Muslim political party that claimed to represent the majority of Muslims, All Indian Muslim party, who argued for a separate Muslim state. The separation of India and the creation of Pakistan was created by two UK Acts of Parliament.

A partition scenario similar to the Indian sub-continent ? No way the Thai government agreeing to a partition based upon religious lines.

[OzMick]

Despite questionable facts, such as the number of deaths, it is a good thing to see at least an article written by the foreign press. It would be great to see more of such articles and articles that represent the Pattani separatist's background issues and point of view. Something that the Thais squash and ignore.

The way that this "Thai south" thing will come to an end will be after more and more journalists break the truth. When the non-Thais in the southern provinces establish a visible presence in world media things will start to change. Thais will lose their grip and control. Eventually, the Thais will just "walk out." No other choice really.

Maybe, just maybe.

However, in that case there might be a hefty price to be paid by muslims in the rest of Thailand.

Maybe, just maybe.

There is a steady change in the muslim/buddhist mix as you move north along the peninsula towards Ranong, so the question arises that if the southern provinces are allowed to secede, what is to stop the conflict moving further north? A partition scenario similar to the Indian sub-continent is a really scary possibility.

There is not a single Muslim political party (don't exist) representing Muslims in Thailand & demanding partition. The Deep South is fractured amongst many separatist groups. During the Indian independence struggle there was a Muslim political party that claimed to represent the majority of Muslims, All Indian Muslim party, who argued for a separate Muslim state. The separation of India and the creation of Pakistan was created by two UK Acts of Parliament.

A partition scenario similar to the Indian sub-continent ? No way the Thai government agreeing to a partition based upon religious lines.

The racial/religious lines are pretty fixed - I see very few Malay buddhists, or "thai" muslims - but I do see a mosque in every village as I travel south from Ranong. The aim of the separatists is secession, but I see no reason to believe that 3 provinces are their total goal.

[Arkady]

Well, it seems (from Wikipedia) that a certain western country is mainly responsible for this border dispute through it's colonialism and treaties over the last two centuries.

"The border between Thailand or Siam and the sultanates of the Malay Peninsula (Peninsular Malaysia today) has varied throughout history according to the influence the kingdom over the sultanates. The southern part of Siam has always been populated by Malays and traditional Malay sultanates of Kedah (of which Perlis was part), Kelantan, Pattani (which consist of the areas of Singgora, Yala, Ligor and Setul) and Terengganu came under Siamese suzerainty in the 19th century. The Malay states to immediately to the south, namely Perak and Pahang were independent sultanates until the British started asserting influence over them in the late 1800s. The frontier between the states were largely vague and not well defined.

In 1785, the British obtained the island of Penang from the Sultan of Kedah. The channel between the island and the mainland of Peninsula Malaysia became the border between British territory and Kedah, and therefore Siamese, territory.

On 6 May 1869, Great Britain and Siam signed an agreement known as the Bangkok Treaty of 1869 where Siam ceded a piece of territory on the mainland opposite Penang to Great Britain. The territory became known as Province Wellesley (known as Seberang Perai today). The treaty also defined the border between British and Siamese territory and this border remains the boundary line between Penang and Kedah today, although both are now constituent states of Malaysia.

On 9 July 1909, Great Britain and Siam signed another agreement in Bangkok. Known as the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, the agreement ceded the states of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu to Great Britain while Pattani remained in Siamese hands. The treaty, in one of its four annexes, defined the border between British and Siamese territories. This border ultimately became today's border between Malaysia and Thailand.

Thailand regained control of the Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu during World War II when the Japanese handed them over to the kingdom, thus moving the Malay States-Siamese border southwards again. However, the states were returned to the British at the end of the war.^[6]"

The supreme irony is that Britain would have done every one a favour by the grabbing the whole lot in 1909 and not leaving Pattani in Siamese hands as a sop. Although European colonialism is not PC today, the Malays were reasonably happy with with British rule in what became the Unfederated Malay States which retained their sultans and were fairly loosely controlled by the British through British "advisors" who had real power they could use if the sultan got above himself. British administrators all over Malaya spoke Malay and respected Muslim customs.

Siamese colonialism in the Malay states is a much uglier beast but has been regarded as more PC because they aren't European. They have applied the cooker cutter nationalist approach that has succeeded very well in unifying as Thai diverse peoples that previously regarded themselves as Chinese, Lao or Khmer and now happily regard themselves as Thai and have adopted the Thai language with open arms. They just can't understand why this has failed to work with the Malay Muslims over the last 100 years. They plan to keep trying for at least another 100 years.

[Arkady]

I discussed this thread this morning with Mrs Arkady over breakfast and her initial reaction was this is a painful subject for Thais and, even if I am right, it is better not to discuss it openly because that might encourage the insurgents and make them kill more innocent people. She is very sympathetic towards the Thai conscript soldiers who are forced to go to the South to fight the government's war and often get killed or maimed over a dispute they don't understand or care much about. She is a regular donor to soldiers' charities. After she had calmed down, she asked how it would help to understand the history of the region. I gave as an example the Thai approach in WW2 in the Thai occupied territories of trying to force Malays to learn Thai through tax penalties and interfering with their religious customs by cancelling the right to polygamous marriage as a way to help understand why the Malays hated Thai rule. She was quite shocked to learn that this had happened and it made her think. Gradually she started to agreed that the recommendations of the Chaturon Commission for limited autonomy and recognition of Malay as a second official language might actually be a good thing.

When I had finished breakfast I opened the English language papers and found an article quoting Thaksin's cousin, Suraphong, who also happens to be Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Suraphong was suggesting that foreigners should not openly the discuss the troubles in the Deep South because that might encourage the militants to kill more people. His ministry would be doing its best to provide foreigners with the correct information about Thailand's successes in the Deep South (over the last 100 years?) and they will then presumably be extremely contented and will no longer feel the need to discuss Thailand's secret internal affair openly. It seems to me that foreign commentators need to redouble their efforts to discuss the problem openly and research the history of the region. That is the only way to counter the brainwashing administered to the entire Thai Buddhist population that allows the tragedy to be swept under the carpet.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Arkady

[seabassskin]

The good news is that the atheists are winning. Polytheism is dead, only one more god to go.

Yeah right...then we will have to contend with the likes of Stalin, Pol Pot,Mao etc

All glorious atheists.....

....by the way...I've never met an atheist that respects human life...if anything ,the opposite.

1) Neither Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao ever did anything in the name of atheism. That's an old, predictable and fallacious argument.

2) I don't think I've ever said this about a comment without having any evidence but I am going to call your second claim complete and utter bulls**t.

3) There are lots of things in this world that have caused conflict and other evils. By no means are they all related to religion (and indeed in many or most cases where they ostensibly are, the religion in question is merely a vehicle by which vested interests justify themselves and rally support). It is an obvious fact that many evils have been committed by people who were atheists. What is also a fact is that, while some evil acts have been committed because of the religious beliefs of the perpetrator, we have no evidence whatsoever that someone has done some great evil BECAUSE they were atheists.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I was just going to hit the reply button when I read this reply. Very well said. Atheism is the position that something is not supported by evidence and therfore is not true. This does not lead to mass murder. Stalin and the other non theists did their terrible deeds for totally different reasons.

[EyesWideOpen]

About four years ago I did a motorcycle trip with a friend through south Thailand. We went to Songkla , Narathiwat , and Yala. The place was a complete war zone. I was absolutely blown away. Sandbagged machine gun emplacements, concertina wire , and endless check points.

I felt like I had stepped into the twilight zone. The government here keeps trying to paint the situation as some sort of minor insurgency which was clearly not correct. Stopped for lunch in Yala, but did not have the balls to spend the night there..... :-)

When I got back my Thai friends asked me where I had been. When I told them, they were sure I was either lying, or completely crazy.

It appears to me Thailand has three choices.

1. Deport or kill every Muslim and replace them with Thai Buddhists....... Not easy to do...

2. Fight a forever war there at a cost of more thousands of lives and billions of baht..... Also not easy to do...

3. Just cede the are back to Malaysia and walk away. ...... Painful and serious loss of face...

[simple1]

I discussed this thread this morning with Mrs Arkady over breakfast and her initial reaction was this is a painful subject for Thais and, even if I am right, it is better not to discuss it openly because that might encourage the insurgents and make them kill more innocent people. She is very sympathetic towards the Thai conscript soldiers who are forced to go to the South to fight the government's war and often get killed or maimed over a dispute they don't understand or care much about. She is a regular donor to soldiers' charities. After she had calmed down, she asked how it would help to understand the history of the region. I gave as an example the Thai approach in WW2 in the Thai occupied territories of trying to force Malays to learn Thai through tax penalties and interfering with their religious customs by cancelling the right to polygamous marriage as a way to help understand why the Malays hated Thai rule. She was quite shocked to learn that this had happened and it made her think. Gradually she started to agreed that the recommendations of the Chaturon Commission for limited autonomy and recognition of Malay as a second official language might actually be a good thing.

When I had finished breakfast I opened the English language papers and found an article quoting Thaksin's cousin, Suraphong, who also happens to be Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Suraphong was suggesting that foreigners should not openly the discuss the troubles in the Deep South because that might encourage the militants to kill more people. His ministry would be doing its best to provide foreigners with the correct information about Thailand's successes in the Deep South (over the last 100 years?) and they will then presumably be extremely contented and will no longer feel the need to discuss Thailand's secret internal affair openly. It seems to me that foreign commentators need to redouble their efforts to discuss the problem openly and research the history of the region. That is the only way to counter the brainwashing administered to the entire Thai Buddhist population that allows the tragedy to be swept under the carpet.

You mention Malay as a second language. Like in Canada where French is a second language.

There it tends to drive the two sides apart. Every so often Quebec tries to get out of the country and become a country of their own, the only difference there is Quebecker's are descendents of French and the rest of Canada is descendants from all over the world.

Where as here in Thailand we have a religion based on forcing the rest of the world to convert to there beliefs against a largely peace loving religion.

It is in fact not really a religion but a set of principals based on being a better person.

Yes there are those who do not live up to those principals but never the less they are there.

Just like the other religion has a book which tells them to kill the infidels. Problem with that is they are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer and wind up killing more of there own.

You keep on going on about the Muslims in the Deep South and linking the root cause of the ongoing conflict to Islamic extremism. Have you read any of the links provided within this topic and others regards the Deep South from analysts, including a Thai military officer who has studied the matter at a Strategic Defense academy, who specifically states this is not the case? FYI an excerpt from the Thai Colonel's study paper below. Source document at http://www.defence.g...d_Nurakkate.pdf

"There are three ways of understanding the underlying causes of the conflict in Southern Thailand. The first is to see it as an ethno‐nationalist conflict; the

second to see it as a religious conflict; and the third is to see it as having its roots in the region’s poverty and unemployment. This section argues that religion

and poverty have roles to play, they are not the main causes of the conflict. It is instead the strong sense of Malay ethnic identity that is the strongest driver

behind the conflict"

Just maybe you have more knowledge than the professionals, so it would be good to read your thoroughly researched counter argument.

.

[whybother]

About four years ago I did a motorcycle trip with a friend through south Thailand. We went to Songkla , Narathiwat , and Yala. The place was a complete war zone. I was absolutely blown away. Sandbagged machine gun emplacements, concertina wire , and endless check points.

I felt like I had stepped into the twilight zone. The government here keeps trying to paint the situation as some sort of minor insurgency which was clearly not correct. Stopped for lunch in Yala, but did not have the balls to spend the night there..... :-)

When I got back my Thai friends asked me where I had been. When I told them, they were sure I was either lying, or completely crazy.

It appears to me Thailand has three choices.

1. Deport or kill every Muslim and replace them with Thai Buddhists....... Not easy to do...

2. Fight a forever war there at a cost of more thousands of lives and billions of baht..... Also not easy to do...

3. Just cede the are back to Malaysia and walk away. ...... Painful and serious loss of face...

It's a bit hard to cede it BACK to Malaysia, since they have never controlled it.

[EyesWideOpen]

It appears to me Thailand has three choices.

1. Deport or kill every Muslim and replace them with Thai Buddhists....... Not easy to do...

2. Fight a forever war there at a cost of more thousands of lives and billions of baht..... Also not easy to do...

3. Just cede the are back to Malaysia and walk away. ...... Painful and serious loss of face...

*Deleted quote edited out*

Thanks. Sometimes it is difficult to see genius. I have also often thought it would be clever of the Thai government to assign a person to read Thai Visa on a regular basis to see the farang point of view. Am sure it would be an eye opening experience for them.... Regarding the deep south, I was being a bit theatrical to make a point. Perhaps you could have picked up on that from idea 1...

The point being is that the government is going to have to make some tough choices on how to solve this dilemma. I for one am sad to see on a virtually daily basis, to see another soldier, monk, school teacher or child being killed. Pattani does NOT want to be a part of Thailand, and clearly do not accept their fate being decided by lines on a map by colonial masters many years ago.

On my travels through the area, I met some really nice people. They kept telling me to be careful as they were worried I would be hurt.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Scott

[EyesWideOpen]

About four years ago I did a motorcycle trip with a friend through south Thailand. We went to Songkla , Narathiwat , and Yala. The place was a complete war zone. I was absolutely blown away. Sandbagged machine gun emplacements, concertina wire , and endless check points.

I felt like I had stepped into the twilight zone. The government here keeps trying to paint the situation as some sort of minor insurgency which was clearly not correct. Stopped for lunch in Yala, but did not have the balls to spend the night there..... :-)

When I got back my Thai friends asked me where I had been. When I told them, they were sure I was either lying, or completely crazy.

It appears to me Thailand has three choices.

1. Deport or kill every Muslim and replace them with Thai Buddhists....... Not easy to do...

2. Fight a forever war there at a cost of more thousands of lives and billions of baht..... Also not easy to do...

3. Just cede the are back to Malaysia and walk away. ...... Painful and serious loss of face...

It's a bit hard to cede it BACK to Malaysia, since they have never controlled it.

It was a protectorate ceded to Thailand by the British. So clearly closer links to Malaysia than to Thailand.

Interesting information here from the Malaysian point of view.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/27712

It was a protectorate of Thailand, one of the sultanates ceded to Thailand by the British.

In 1909, Britain, which had taken over the states of the Pahang-Johor-Riau empire in the peninsula, acquired Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu as its protectorates. Siam and Britain had an agreement whereby in return for Britain acquiring the above four states, Siam was allowed to keep Patani.

[whybother]

It was a protectorate ceded to Thailand by the British. So clearly closer links to Malaysia than to Thailand.

Interesting information here from the Malaysian point of view.

http://www.malaysiak...m/letters/27712

It was a protectorate of Thailand, one of the sultanates ceded to Thailand by the British.

In 1909, Britain, which had taken over the states of the Pahang-Johor-Riau empire in the peninsula, acquired Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu as its protectorates. Siam and Britain had an agreement whereby in return for Britain acquiring the above four states, Siam was allowed to keep Patani.

By that definition, it should be neither Thailand's or Malaysia's.

IIRC, I read an article linked to earlier in the thread that Thailand (Siam) at one stage controlled most of the peninsula. And of course, the Khmer's controlled it at one stage too.

The problem with using the "but it was ours/theirs" argument is that "it was ours/theirs" at a particular point in time. Before that, it probably wasn't. When do you draw the line?

[EyesWideOpen]

It was a protectorate ceded to Thailand by the British. So clearly closer links to Malaysia than to Thailand.

Interesting information here from the Malaysian point of view.

http://www.malaysiak...m/letters/27712

It was a protectorate of Thailand, one of the sultanates ceded to Thailand by the British.

In 1909, Britain, which had taken over the states of the Pahang-Johor-Riau empire in the peninsula, acquired Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu as its protectorates. Siam and Britain had an agreement whereby in return for Britain acquiring the above four states, Siam was allowed to keep Patani.

By that definition, it should be neither Thailand's or Malaysia's.

IIRC, I read an article linked to earlier in the thread that Thailand (Siam) at one stage controlled most of the peninsula. And of course, the Khmer's controlled it at one stage too.

The problem with using the "but it was ours/theirs" argument is that "it was ours/theirs" at a particular point in time. Before that, it probably wasn't. When do you draw the line?

Agreed. The Malaysian point of view is interesting, as they feel it should be a separate country.

[hellodolly]

About four years ago I did a motorcycle trip with a friend through south Thailand. We went to Songkla , Narathiwat , and Yala. The place was a complete war zone. I was absolutely blown away. Sandbagged machine gun emplacements, concertina wire , and endless check points.

I felt like I had stepped into the twilight zone. The government here keeps trying to paint the situation as some sort of minor insurgency which was clearly not correct. Stopped for lunch in Yala, but did not have the balls to spend the night there..... :-)

When I got back my Thai friends asked me where I had been. When I told them, they were sure I was either lying, or completely crazy.

It appears to me Thailand has three choices.

1. Deport or kill every Muslim and replace them with Thai Buddhists....... Not easy to do...

2. Fight a forever war there at a cost of more thousands of lives and billions of baht..... Also not easy to do...

3. Just cede the are back to Malaysia and walk away. ...... Painful and serious loss of face...

Well number 3 will not work Malaysia won't take them.

[hellodolly]

I discussed this thread this morning with Mrs Arkady over breakfast and her initial reaction was this is a painful subject for Thais and, even if I am right, it is better not to discuss it openly because that might encourage the insurgents and make them kill more innocent people. She is very sympathetic towards the Thai conscript soldiers who are forced to go to the South to fight the government's war and often get killed or maimed over a dispute they don't understand or care much about. She is a regular donor to soldiers' charities. After she had calmed down, she asked how it would help to understand the history of the region. I gave as an example the Thai approach in WW2 in the Thai occupied territories of trying to force Malays to learn Thai through tax penalties and interfering with their religious customs by cancelling the right to polygamous marriage as a way to help understand why the Malays hated Thai rule. She was quite shocked to learn that this had happened and it made her think. Gradually she started to agreed that the recommendations of the Chaturon Commission for limited autonomy and recognition of Malay as a second official language might actually be a good thing.

When I had finished breakfast I opened the English language papers and found an article quoting Thaksin's cousin, Suraphong, who also happens to be Thailand's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Suraphong was suggesting that foreigners should not openly the discuss the troubles in the Deep South because that might encourage the militants to kill more people. His ministry would be doing its best to provide foreigners with the correct information about Thailand's successes in the Deep South (over the last 100 years?) and they will then presumably be extremely contented and will no longer feel the need to discuss Thailand's secret internal affair openly. It seems to me that foreign commentators need to redouble their efforts to discuss the problem openly and research the history of the region. That is the only way to counter the brainwashing administered to the entire Thai Buddhist population that allows the tragedy to be swept under the carpet.

You mention Malay as a second language. Like in Canada where French is a second language.

There it tends to drive the two sides apart. Every so often Quebec tries to get out of the country and become a country of their own, the only difference there is Quebecker's are descendents of French and the rest of Canada is descendants from all over the world.

Where as here in Thailand we have a religion based on forcing the rest of the world to convert to there beliefs against a largely peace loving religion.

It is in fact not really a religion but a set of principals based on being a better person.

Yes there are those who do not live up to those principals but never the less they are there.

Just like the other religion has a book which tells them to kill the infidels. Problem with that is they are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer and wind up killing more of there own.

You keep on going on about the Muslims in the Deep South and linking the root cause of the ongoing conflict to Islamic extremism. Have you read any of the links provided within this topic and others regards the Deep South from analysts, including a Thai military officer who has studied the matter at a Strategic Defense academy, who specifically states this is not the case? FYI an excerpt from the Thai Colonel's study paper below. Source document at http://www.defence.g...d_Nurakkate.pdf

"There are three ways of understanding the underlying causes of the conflict in Southern Thailand. The first is to see it as an ethno‐nationalist conflict; the

second to see it as a religious conflict; and the third is to see it as having its roots in the region’s poverty and unemployment. This section argues that religion

and poverty have roles to play, they are not the main causes of the conflict. It is instead the strong sense of Malay ethnic identity that is the strongest driver

behind the conflict"

Just maybe you have more knowledge than the professionals, so it would be good to read your thoroughly researched counter argument.

.

It is a accepted fact that the Muslim goal is to take over the world. the Koran tells them to kill the infidels. They have had there Imen on TV saying that is there goal. Now you want to say that in Thailand they are different.

I got as far as

"Disclaimer

This work is the sole opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent

the views of the Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies or the Department of

Defence. The Commonwealth of Australia will not be legally responsible in

contract, tort or otherwise, for any statement made in this publication."

It is an opinion not a statement of fact.

If it is economic where is there leader?

If it is political where is there leader?

[Steely Dan]

Hmmm, I'm amazed that some of the comments in this thread have been allowed to stand. It makes a refreshing change though when the truth is allowed to be stated openly and in spite of obfuscations, denials and misleading comparisons by some I sense a sea change in people being prepared to call the worst elements of Islamic extremism for what it is. The 'secret' war is not just confined to Thailand though, there seems to be a profound reluctance by most of the media to discuss Islamic supremacist ideology and scores can be murdered in it's name with barely a ripple in the press on a worldwide scale.

Here's to a change and if enough people wake up to the reality of this global threat then the more difficult it will be for governments to bury their heads in the sand. I must say that I've found just about all Muslims I've met in Thailand to be nice, friendly people, but it does seem to be a different case in the Southernmost three provinces, to answer why is the key to the whole thorny problem and if the Thai Buddhists are doing something wrong, why does it seem that every single civilization that borders a Muslim one have the same problem?

Edited January 2, 2013 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

@hellodolly. Thanks for your post above confirming you have not researched this topic. To assist try reading the content in the URLs below that again has been posted in previous topics on the Deep South that you appear not to have read.

http://www.openbriefing.org/thinktank/publications/prospects-for-peace-in-thailands-deep-south/

http://www.slideshare.net/ikhwanng/history-and-politics-of-the-muslims-in-thailand

[mccw]

Guys with the history arguments; you need to accept that certain behaviour is reprehensible and beyond excuse! Lines are drawn on maps- that's just the way it is. Lana kingdom isn't a war zone like the south; Scotland isn't northern island; South Africa isn't Zimbabwe (just yet); the people make a country or area what it is; they might have been down trodden and poor before but now they're living in like a hell.

What's the solution?

1)They will never give it away or independence.

2)they will not kill or kick out all the Muslims.

3) They WILL just let it continue to fester indefinitely. Tinkering with things like greater work opertunities, equality etc but the violence will not end until the locals choose to turn in/ against the Jihadis.

Maybe a degree of autonomy might help, but when you start on that slippery slope it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country. Maybe some redshirt or local thug mafia of another region will think to make a few bombing campaigns to gain a greater control over local funding etc or even succeed.

For the government do nothing except attempt to bolster security is best of the bad options.

[cdnvic]

Hmmm, I'm amazed that some of the comments in this thread have been allowed to stand

Your report button isn't broken.

[mccw]

I just say my experience, I took the over night bus up to the Malay side of the border and one student guy on the bus said hello and he want to help me waiting together, have some breakfast and get on the next bus 4 hours later; he delayed his own trip because he say someone might try to kidnap or kill me, no jokes deadly serious. Nice guy to put himself out like that. I was young and didn't really think about it would be dangerous but some of the people loitering about the bus station and streets were looking at me like I'm some white devil! Not like a surprise to see a falang look but a real burning Hatedred in the eyes.

To say this kind of attitude is cultural is nonsense; it is from the preaching of hate. Not too long ago hippies were traveling through Afghanistan and pakistan blazing hash and visiting ancient Buddhist sights , mosques and enjoying the tribal hospitality. Back in the day the Middle East was a culturally vibrant civilised place with music, theatre, dance etc. Since the power of the imams has come back to the fore it's all turned to shit basically. Look at what they are doing to the Sufi holy sights, they are a discrase, like a Nazi or worse, like the devils conspiricy to send the evil spirits up to make a hell on earth, this is what so many place has literally turned in to. Sick. Sad.

[TheGhostWithin]

I just say my experience, I took the over night bus up to the Malay side of the border and one student guy on the bus said hello and he want to help me waiting together, have some breakfast and get on the next bus 4 hours later; he delayed his own trip because he say someone might try to kidnap or kill me, no jokes deadly serious. Nice guy to put himself out like that. I was young and didn't really think about it would be dangerous but some of the people loitering about the bus station and streets were looking at me like I'm some white devil! Not like a surprise to see a falang look but a real burning Hatedred in the eyes.

To say this kind of attitude is cultural is nonsense; it is from the preaching of hate. Not too long ago hippies were traveling through Afghanistan and pakistan blazing hash and visiting ancient Buddhist sights , mosques and enjoying the tribal hospitality. Back in the day the Middle East was a culturally vibrant civilised place with music, theatre, dance etc. Since the power of the imams has come back to the fore it's all turned to shit basically. Look at what they are doing to the Sufi holy sights, they are a discrase, like a Nazi or worse, like the devils conspiricy to send the evil spirits up to make a hell on earth, this is what so many place has literally turned in to. Sick. Sad.

I speak Yawi at an intermediate level as well, and enjoy talking with the locals. Some of them are very nice. I do not speak to anyone in the Pakistan style dress, after I was attacked a few hours north of Kuala Lumpur a few years back when a Muslim tried to cut my throat in the middle of a Kuala Kubu Bahru market and stated he didn't want Christian Americans here, and that maybe I should not be there.

The problem I have picked up on these past years is that not everyone is a shooter, but the number of people willing to assist these people by offering them beds to sleep in, and to hide their weapons and other such issues is fairly high. When the person in Malaysia tried to cut my throat, the locals only watched from a distance, and only my Muslim and Kadazan friends came to my assistance. I am not culturally ignorant, and had a love for Malaysia at the time with full understanding that it was an Islamic state.

I can imagine how hard it could be as a Muslim (who tend to have close families) to refuse a family member shelter from the authorities, or refuse to hide weapons in the house until the time comes. Until Muslims start resisting the violence, nothing anyone else can do will matter and will have little effect.

[JeffreyWitty]

You so right.The only Americans with any knowledge of world issues are those who are widely travelled.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

Why is it that so many NON-Americans feel the need for Americans to be AWARE of world news?

Why not South Koreans? The majority of them also, like Americans, are unaware of the unrest in the Thai south. Why single out Americans?

Lets turn the tables here; Honestly, how knowledgable are you about the problems everyday South Koreans face stemming from the north? Unless you live or work in South Korea, as I do, I doubt you know anything about the situation. Are the issues facing South Korea less important than issues in Thailand?

And again, WHY should average citizens of ANY one country be forced to pay attention to problems occurring a world away?

I'd be willing to bet that to the average american, top issues of their lives are the issues that effect them directly! Like, how am I going to pay a debt, feed my kids, pay for fuel.

Wake up! It's natural for people of ANY other nation to only concern themselves with issues that only affect them directly.