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

[dcutman]

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.

What are you talking about. The Americans offered help to Thailand in 2007.

[phetaroi]

Chooka:

No, my point was that there is no reason for American to be concerned with what is happening in Thailand's Deep South, when Thailand itself is not concerned about what is happening within its own borders. I would suggest that if you want to discuss Iraq or Afghanistan that you find other websites where the focus is on those countries.

[robblok]

The muslim guy, they are taught about Budism, but we are Muslim. Crazy, if you have so little faith in your own religion it must not be strong. Never knew that Budism was a subject on Thai schools.

Mind you not all Muslims are like this but there are some real crazy brainwashed types around. Abuse of power and such, yes i can understand that you fight against that, but not by targeting innocents. But fighting purely for religion when Buddhism isnt even promoted that much is crazy. Its been hundreds of years since they were an own state, give it up live in the present.

Fight it an other way, political like normal people do, even those Irish gave up.

Couple things:

1) Buddhism is taught in Thai schools.

2) If you don't think Buddhism is promoted much in Thailand, you are not thinking clearly.

3) If someone doesn't believe in a religion, I don't think it odd that I'd not want that religion taught to my child - especially if I was a devout believer in a religion that was inherently mutually exclusive with another religion. If that religion would be the very fundamental basis of my culture and way of life, that would be quite natural.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I am an Atheist, i would not want any religion taught to my children (if i had any) But i knew of many of other atheists that had kids on a christian school because it was the only option at that time. At home they would explain why they did not believe in religion to their kids. The kids were of course never forced to go into temples.

Are Thai kids forced to go to tempels and pray or not ? Or is it just education about the religion ?

Were you born into an atheist family ?

Actually dad was christian but did not do much with religion. I was send to a public school not the christian one closer by.

I do believe the world would be better of without religion. Though im sure we would find other reasons to kill each other.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Pimay1]

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.

What are you talking about. The Americans offered help to Thailand in 2007.

Sure they did but that would not be supportive of his post.

[Rimmer]

Off topic post removed

[SteeleJoe]

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

Edited January 1, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Hoho. As though millions of lives haven't been wasted through religious conflict. Accusing atheists of not respecting human life, when religious conflict has taken millions really does take the biscuit as a comparison.

Is there any such thing as an atheistic conflict?

[chooka]

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...usually they detest humans...

May I introduce myself?

[SteeleJoe]

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.

Hoho. As though millions of lives haven't been wasted through religious conflict. Accusing atheists of not respecting human life, when religious conflict has taken millions really does take the biscuit as a comparison.

Is there any such thing as an atheistic conflict?

You're doing almost the same thing he is. The existence of conflicts based on religion doesn't prove anything about atheism or atheists. (Which is why statistical battles over totalitarian despots vs religious movements etc are pointless evenn if one could prove which group was responsible for a larger number of misdeeds).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Pimay1]

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.

Hoho. As though millions of lives haven't been wasted through religious conflict. Accusing atheists of not respecting human life, when religious conflict has taken millions really does take the biscuit as a comparison.

Is there any such thing as an atheistic conflict?

Nice try Thai at Heart but no cigar. You know full well he was not speaking about an atheistic conflict.

[whybother]

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...usually they detest humans...

And those three have caused all the wars in the last 5000 years?

How many atheists have you actually met? None?

[BradinAsia]

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

If you want to talk about 1,400 years, I'd say Christians (the U.S.) and Catholics (the Roman Empire)

slaughtered a lot more than the Muslims ever have.

[SteeleJoe]

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

If you want to talk about 1,400 years, I'd say Christians (the U.S.) and Catholics (the Roman Empire)

slaughtered a lot more than the Muslims ever have.

Are seriously going to cite only the US out of all the nations of the last 1,400 years? Some of you people blow my mind. Your bigotry leads to astonishingly ignorant commentary and viewpoints.

Classic.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Arkady]

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.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Arkady

[simple1]

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 sympathies with the rebels and the media is largely content to sweep the atrocities of the security forces under the carpet, while highlighting attacks against Buddhists.

Good summary, but also hundreds of thousands killed, in the local population, as you said, by a very brutal campaign of suppression by the French. Approx 18,000 French deaths. It's a shame governments in power do not learn, thousands killed and injured, massive amount of monies spent and eventually the insurgents/rebels are granted what they wanted in the first place when the will to carry on is dissipated.

Edited January 1, 2013 by simple1

[LoZth]

It's not only the American news programs that doesn't cover Thailand. The BBC news site from the UK gives very little news about what's happening in Thailand either, but if you want to know about India, Pakistan or China just click the Asia button!

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Hoho. As though millions of lives haven't been wasted through religious conflict. Accusing atheists of not respecting human life, when religious conflict has taken millions really does take the biscuit as a comparison.

Is there any such thing as an atheistic conflict?

You're doing almost the same thing he is. The existence of conflicts based on religion doesn't prove anything about atheism or atheists. (Which is why statistical battles over totalitarian despots vs religious movements etc are pointless evenn if one could prove which group was responsible for a larger number of misdeeds).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well i think you are comparing apples and oranges. the motivation of a despot is not driven in the majority due to being an atheist, however, there are myriad examples of atrocities committed on the basis of religion. Would stalin or pol pot not have committed his crimes if he was not an atheist?

Just because some despots may have been atheists, does not prove the hypothesis. However, when you wage war or commit atrocities on the basis of a religious separation you surely prove the hypothesis.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[simple1]

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.

Well said, excellent review & breath of fresh, rather than the never ending bigoted ill informed posts

Edited January 1, 2013 by simple1

[Time Traveller]

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...

You so right.The only Americans with any knowledge of world issues are those who are widely travelled.the rest of them are fed a diet of ilinformed nonsense and the majority are too lazy to use the internet to educate themselves beyond websites which enforce their narrow minded view of life outside their county or state.

Sent from my LG-P350 using Thaivisa Connect App

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?

Why is it important to "educate" themselves? Why should Americans care? . They get blamed when they interfere and blamed when they don't. Best just close their eyes to everything. This really is Thailand's own problem to solve.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Time Traveller

[SteeleJoe]

It's not only the American news programs that doesn't cover Thailand. The BBC news site from the UK gives very little news about what's happening in Thailand either, but if you want to know about India, Pakistan or China just click the Asia button!

Like it or not: Pakistan and China? Nuclear armed and (for that and other huge reasons) and hugely significant in geopolitical terms.

3 provinces in Thailand? Not so much.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[gatorsoft]

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...usually they detest humans...

I've known several atheists that had tremendous respect for human life. You might want to research secular humanist on the web. Your isolation from human loving atheists should not color your view of all atheists. And I think maybe OzMick was making a bit of a joke.

[SteeleJoe]

You're doing almost the same thing he is. The existence of conflicts based on religion doesn't prove anything about atheism or atheists. (Which is why statistical battles over totalitarian despots vs religious movements etc are pointless evenn if one could prove which group was responsible for a larger number of misdeeds).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well i think you are comparing apples and oranges. the motivation of a despot is not driven in the majority due to being an atheist, however, there are myriad examples of atrocities committed on the basis of religion.

Just because some despots may have been atheists, does not prove the hypothesis. However, when you wage war or commit atrocities on the basis of a religious separation you surely prove the hypothesis.

Say what?! Clearly you did not read my posts.

Which hypothesis are you referring to that has been "proven"? Where is my specious comparison? Before you answer, and I still hope you do, allow me to quote myself with what I posted before you said essentially the same thing in your last post:

"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."

Again: you pointing out the obvious fact that wars have been fought over (ostensible) religious causes does nothing to disprove the claim that mass murders have been as a result of atheism. You give credence to his lame argument by offering the same kind in return.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited January 1, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[PoodMaiDai]

I figured Chalerm would have put an end to the southern violence by now. His impeccable track record of doing what he says is going to be tarnished.

[Thai at Heart]

You're doing almost the same thing he is. The existence of conflicts based on religion doesn't prove anything about atheism or atheists. (Which is why statistical battles over totalitarian despots vs religious movements etc are pointless evenn if one could prove which group was responsible for a larger number of misdeeds).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well i think you are comparing apples and oranges. the motivation of a despot is not driven in the majority due to being an atheist, however, there are myriad examples of atrocities committed on the basis of religion.

Just because some despots may have been atheists, does not prove the hypothesis. However, when you wage war or commit atrocities on the basis of a religious separation you surely prove the hypothesis.

Say what?! Clearly you did not read my posts.

Which hypothesis are you referring to that has been "proven"? Where is my specious comparison? Before you answer, and I still hope you do, allow me to quote myself with what I posted before you said essentially the same thing in your last post:

"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."

Again: you pointing out the obvious fact that wars have been fought over (ostensible) religious causes does nothing to disprove the claim that mass murders have been as a result of atheism. You give credence to his lame argument by offering the same kind in return.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

The original posts got pulled in two. The contention was that atheists are in some way disproportionately responsible for atrocities.

My contention was that through history, modern and ancient, war has be waged and atrocity committed in the name of religion, killing millions more than modern atheistic despots.

[theajarn]

WHOA. Now THERE'S a chilling point that I never thought of (end part of the story).

This is what I like about western news writing. They really set the scene for the story. In this case though, you'd think "ah yeah, it's those insurgents at it again..." but the end statement by the guy who lost his father ... something that would NEVER be reported in Thai-controlled-news -- makes you pause. And think.

Oh, God forbid Thais allow that kind of writing in mainstream news!

[phantomfiddler]

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of percentages between budhist and muslim deaths in this conflict. Without having any knowledge of this ratio, I would bet a case of beer that the muslims are the aggressors. I remember some 45 years ago, the first time I ever heard of this "faith", reading on an almost weekly basis about whole schoolbuses full of children having their throats slit by muslim extremists in Algeria. What bravery !

[SteeleJoe]

You're doing almost the same thing he is. The existence of conflicts based on religion doesn't prove anything about atheism or atheists. (Which is why statistical battles over totalitarian despots vs religious movements etc are pointless evenn if one could prove which group was responsible for a larger number of misdeeds).

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well i think you are comparing apples and oranges. the motivation of a despot is not driven in the majority due to being an atheist, however, there are myriad examples of atrocities committed on the basis of religion.

Just because some despots may have been atheists, does not prove the hypothesis. However, when you wage war or commit atrocities on the basis of a religious separation you surely prove the hypothesis.

Say what?! Clearly you did not read my posts.

Which hypothesis are you referring to that has been "proven"? Where is my specious comparison? Before you answer, and I still hope you do, allow me to quote myself with what I posted before you said essentially the same thing in your last post:

"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."

Again: you pointing out the obvious fact that wars have been fought over (ostensible) religious causes does nothing to disprove the claim that mass murders have been as a result of atheism. You give credence to his lame argument by offering the same kind in return.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

The original posts got pulled in two. The contention was that atheists are in some way disproportionately responsible for atrocities.

My contention was that through history, modern and ancient, war has be waged and atrocity committed in the name of religion, killing millions more than modern atheistic despots.

Not sure what you mean. My post was there in its entirety.

1) I don't know that you can state that with assurance as such statistics would be hard to ascertain as would the real extent to which a given conflict was about religion as opposed to politics and other vested interests (territory, resources, extension of power etc).

2) The fact that modern depots who have been responsible for the deaths of millions were also atheists is a correlation not at all proven as causation (or even indicated as being such). By comparing the two - even in order to say that atheists come out better by comparison - is to grant legitimacy to a completely fallacious argument that you are attempting to dismiss.

"Accusing atheists of not respecting human life, when religious conflict has taken millions really does take the biscuit as a comparison."

The fact that religious conflict has taken millions does ZERO to prove or dispute that atheists don't respect human life.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[IrishIvan]

The solution is quite simple, let every child on the planet have access to Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If it stops one insane lunatic blowing themselves up or shooting up a school then its done its job hasent it?

[IrishIvan]

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...usually they detest humans...

I've known several atheists that had tremendous respect for human life. You might want to research secular humanist on the web. Your isolation from human loving atheists should not color your view of all atheists. And I think maybe OzMick was making a bit of a joke.

seriously you cant be using a computer and have access to the internet and believe there is some magical man in the sky??

[simple1]

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of percentages between budhist and muslim deaths in this conflict. Without having any knowledge of this ratio, I would bet a case of beer that the muslims are the aggressors. I remember some 45 years ago, the first time I ever heard of this "faith", reading on an almost weekly basis about whole schoolbuses full of children having their throats slit by muslim extremists in Algeria. What bravery !

Statistics show that 58.95 percent (2,417 individuals) of the deceased were Muslims, while 38.02 percent (1,559 persons) were Buddhists. Among the injured, 59.82 percent (3,894 persons) were Buddhists, while 32.17 percent (2,094 persons) were Muslims (Srisompob Jitpiromsri (2011). Source info at:

http://www.academia.edu/1197313/Thai_Buddhists-Muslims_Customs_in_Dialogue_for_Peaceful_Co-existence_in_the_Southern_Thailand

,