Peace May Be Achieved If South Handed To Southerners: Thailand

[Renbe]

Since Malaysia seems to be rather supportive of the Muslim terrorists, why not give them all a one-way ticket and let them emigrate?

[Fozfromoz]

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

It's the usual anti-Muslim bigotry - -

Give them an inch and they will try to take a mile? Seriously? Oh, hang on - this is all part of the great Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world . . . which allows the rest of the world to do to Muslims pretty much anything they wish with precisely that excuse.

Coma? Yes, clearly

Sounds like anti rest of the world bigotry - -

[Denizen]

... and North handed to Northerners and East handed to Easterners and West handed to Westerners and Centre handed to Centrists and then each of the new states would be in conflict.

Just like Pakistan and India; Pakistan and Bangladesh; North and South Korea. I also cite the brewing conflict between China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Phillipines.

A Southern Muslim state would be poverty stricken and would be a handful of problems, not the least of which would be border incursions. There would also be the possibility of friction between a Southern State and Malaysia over borders, resources and islands.

Just creates more jobs for peacekeepers.

It would be more peaceful if Malaysia was not fomenting and financing the conflict.

Its all about oil, and possibly Fishing zones and Islands. If the South had no resources of value they would have had a separate state quickly. The Thai Buddhists would have been glad to see the back of this conflict.

[Denizen]

... and North handed to Northerners and East handed to Easterners and West handed to Westerners and Centre handed to Centrists and then each of the new states would be in conflict.

Just like Pakistan and India; Pakistan and Bangladesh; North and South Korea. I also cite the brewing conflict between China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Phillipines.

A Southern Muslim state would be poverty stricken and would be a handful of problems, not the least of which would be border incursions. There would also be the possibility of friction between a Southern State and Malaysia over borders, resources and islands.

Just creates more jobs for peacekeepers.

It would be more peaceful if Malaysia was not fomenting and financing the conflict.

Its all about oil, and possibly Fishing zones and Islands. If the South had no resources of value they would have had a separate state quickly. The Thai Buddhists would have been glad to see the back of this conflict.

PS. A major reason for Malaysia to foment such a conflict would be because they would be able to dominate a relationship with a small poverty stricken Southern state over resource and border issues whereas they are the minor and less militarily powerful party in negotiations with Thailand.

[jamhar]

"Appeasement has never worked, ask Neville Chamberlain"

Exactly mgs. as soon as i read the topic title, i head a faint voice in the distance. "we have peace in our time, we have peace in our time, we have........."

Very scary indeed.

[Locationthailand]

"... there is nothing the government can do about it as long as locals continue sympathising with the insurgents."

Time to target the locals, include heavy fines or jail terms, property seizure and censor the wailing (noise pollution). Then once there is a show of force then maybe someone will listen but the introduction of Islamic law verging on Sharia sensibilities is all part of the brainwashing and the party faithful at present are not allowed to express anything different. Of course we can always get some mercenaries who can infiltrate and take them down from within...

[jamhar]

This new editor is incredibly annoying.

[Publicus]

Keep in mind the southernmost and majority Muslim provinces of Thailand have throughout history been distant from the influences of civilization - civilization of any kind.

The five provinces are 800 km south of Bangkok.

The five are significantly distant from major points of civilization to their south, i.e,. Singapore, Kuala Lumpur.

The provinces are typically 90% Muslim, governed mostly by Buddhists who are directly connected to Bangkok. Many of my Buddhist friends there who are in the police, government etc have said to me that the cultures of the provinces are different [from Bangkok, Singapore, KL etc] in that the populations don't know much about civil law and normative civil order or behaviours, and that they couldn't care less.

In my own experience down there it became clear to me the populations of the five provinces often haven't any real rules, or many enforcable laws, or not much everyday morality. The thought of those people governing themselves is horrifying, however, it would be more peaceful to the 60 million other Thais than are the extant conditions, dating back to 2001 or so.

Trying to civilize them hasn't succeeded. So let them go. The attendant chatter about other areas of Thailand subsequently demanding independence or special autonomy are mostly hot air or imaginings, i.e., the kind of arguments that retentives trot out when certain other people who got put into a country want out and that they should absolutely never be allowed to leave or to become independent or essentially autonomous. However, other provinces seceding is not an issue in Thailand. No secessionist questions have qualified for the Thai ballot in any election I can think of or have researched. Concerns that, if the five southernmost, majority Muslim provinces are allowed to seceed or to gain special autonomy would lead to the quick distintegration of Thailand are not viable, nor do they have any efficacy.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Publicus

[simple1]

Since Malaysia seems to be rather supportive of the Muslim terrorists, why not give them all a one-way ticket and let them emigrate?

Perhaps you might like to provide further information to support your claim as Thailand and Malaysia recently signed security pacts regarding Deep South insurgency.

http://khabarsoutheastasia.com/en_GB/articles/apwi/articles/newsbriefs/2013/01/10/newsbrief-07

Also a Malaysian court has just charged two people for recruiting terrorists.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-charges-duo-terrorism-test-case-192438568.html

[h90]

Since Malaysia seems to be rather supportive of the Muslim terrorists, why not give them all a one-way ticket and let them emigrate?

What indicates that Malaysia is supportive of Muslim terrorists?

[khaowong1]

Just build a 20' wall across the place and tell them to have at it..

[Johpa]

Well there is a point to giving all regions more financial autonomy. All financial roads lead to Bangkok, the relative revenues generated in the regions to what is put back doesn't match.

And that could be said for the entire country as much of the profit generated in Thailand is taken offshore. One of the largest populations of Thais anywhere in the world is Los Angeles, all of whom started out by taking capital out of Thailand. Just about every new Thai restaurant outside of Thailand was started by taking funds out of Thailand. Thaksin is about the only person being hounded for taking his wealth out of the country. The CP group has invested more in China than in Thailand over the past 20 years, an outflow of capital. I can not even talk about the 40 tons of gold sold off in 2010, and that represented a very large net worth being taken out of the country. So the Muslims in the South are in no different a situation than anywhere else in the country, and may even be better off than the Laos in Isaan. Methinks the story is more connected to the Saudi supported Wahabi/Sulafi movement establishing a foothold in the south more than any economic issue. This is all just payback from the gem scandal. And there is no possible resolution when one side is proclaiming that "god is great".

[deon]

Possum you talk aload of crap A lot of the women go around with only their eyes visible, which gives them the opportunity to commit crimes, you tell me or show me one Muslim women who has commit crimes as you say and i can tell you , you will not,talk about talking edl kind of <deleted> get a brain .

Edited February 22, 2013 by deon

[notmyself]

Then what happens when they want to extend thier borders give them more of the country?

I can't seem to find any instance whatsoever where any demands like this were made, chooka. They neither have the wish nor the might to demand anything like this.

Let's keep it real.

Just off the bat.. Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Indonesia and Pakistan (in a way).

[Mosha]

Since Malaysia seems to be rather supportive of the Muslim terrorists, why not give them all a one-way ticket and let them emigrate?

Why not move the border to where it was? Siam was given that area in return for them dropping claims to the Malay Eastern Sultanates. Who were the aggressors then?

[simple1]

Then what happens when they want to extend thier borders give them more of the country?

I can't seem to find any instance whatsoever where any demands like this were made, chooka. They neither have the wish nor the might to demand anything like this.

Let's keep it real.

Just off the bat.. Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Indonesia and Pakistan (in a way).

The only country from your list where autonomy has been granted is Indonesia for the province of Aceh. To date their have been no "demands" to extend territory beyond that province

Edited February 23, 2013 by simple1

[coma]

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

It's the usual anti-Muslim bigotry - -

Give them an inch and they will try to take a mile? Seriously? Oh, hang on - this is all part of the great Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world . . . which allows the rest of the world to do to Muslims pretty much anything they wish with precisely that excuse.

Coma? Yes, clearly

Sounds like anti rest of the world bigotry - -

Clearly have not seen my posts in the World News section have we ?

Edited February 23, 2013 by coma

[Sing_Sling]

Then what happens when they want to extend thier borders give them more of the country?

I can't seem to find any instance whatsoever where any demands like this were made, chooka. They neither have the wish nor the might to demand anything like this.

Let's keep it real.

Just off the bat.. Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Indonesia and Pakistan (in a way).

Seeing as the topic is about the Muslims in southern Thailand your post makes absolutely zero sense and does show your one-eyed approach to this subject.

Go on, show me where any demands were made . . . Surely you can find one. Just one. Thai Muslims wish to annex Bangkok? Chanthaburi? Loei?

Go on, have a go.

[Sing_Sling]

Since Malaysia seems to be rather supportive of the Muslim terrorists, why not give them all a one-way ticket and let them emigrate?

Yet again I'd like to see where Malaysia has been 'rather supportive'. Added to which, why should the Thai Muslims leave THEIR traditional land?

I look forward to your examples

[Fozfromoz]

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

It's the usual anti-Muslim bigotry - -

Give them an inch and they will try to take a mile? Seriously? Oh, hang on - this is all part of the great Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world . . . which allows the rest of the world to do to Muslims pretty much anything they wish with precisely that excuse.

Coma? Yes, clearly

Sounds like anti rest of the world bigotry - -

Clearly have not seen my posts in the World News section have we ?

Sorry, you may have misread. My post was in response to SS not you.

I agree with what you say.

[notmyself]

Then what happens when they want to extend thier borders give them more of the country?

I can't seem to find any instance whatsoever where any demands like this were made, chooka. They neither have the wish nor the might to demand anything like this.

Let's keep it real.

Just off the bat.. Nigeria, Somalia, Mali, Indonesia and Pakistan (in a way).

The only country from your list where autonomy has been granted is Indonesia for the province of Aceh. To date their have been no "demands" to extend territory beyond that province

TV have STILL not sorted out their coding <deleted>

*more of the country?*

Oh. You have edited your post....

[Sing_Sling]

... and North handed to Northerners and East handed to Easterners and West handed to Westerners and Centre handed to Centrists and then each of the new states would be in conflict.

Just like Pakistan and India; Pakistan and Bangladesh; North and South Korea. I also cite the brewing conflict between China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Phillipines.

A Southern Muslim state would be poverty stricken and would be a handful of problems, not the least of which would be border incursions. There would also be the possibility of friction between a Southern State and Malaysia over borders, resources and islands.

Just creates more jobs for peacekeepers.

It would be more peaceful if Malaysia was not fomenting and financing the conflict.

Its all about oil, and possibly Fishing zones and Islands. If the South had no resources of value they would have had a separate state quickly. The Thai Buddhists would have been glad to see the back of this conflict.

PS. A major reason for Malaysia to foment such a conflict would be because they would be able to dominate a relationship with a small poverty stricken Southern state over resource and border issues whereas they are the minor and less militarily powerful party in negotiations with Thailand.

So now Malaysia is 'fomenting' such a conflict?

[Sing_Sling]

Just build a 20' wall across the place and tell them to have at it..

Have at what?

[Denizen]

... and North handed to Northerners and East handed to Easterners and West handed to Westerners and Centre handed to Centrists and then each of the new states would be in conflict.

Just like Pakistan and India; Pakistan and Bangladesh; North and South Korea. I also cite the brewing conflict between China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Phillipines.

A Southern Muslim state would be poverty stricken and would be a handful of problems, not the least of which would be border incursions. There would also be the possibility of friction between a Southern State and Malaysia over borders, resources and islands.

Just creates more jobs for peacekeepers.

It would be more peaceful if Malaysia was not fomenting and financing the conflict.

Its all about oil, and possibly Fishing zones and Islands. If the South had no resources of value they would have had a separate state quickly. The Thai Buddhists would have been glad to see the back of this conflict.

PS. A major reason for Malaysia to foment such a conflict would be because they would be able to dominate a relationship with a small poverty stricken Southern state over resource and border issues whereas they are the minor and less militarily powerful party in negotiations with Thailand.

So now Malaysia is 'fomenting' such a conflict?

The leaders of this insurrection are holed up in Malaysia and being supported by Malaysian radicals.

[F430murci]

Nah, they would just want to move North.

Edited February 23, 2013 by F430murci

[Pimay1]

Nah, they would just want to move North.

They are already up here in the Northeast.

[Sing_Sling]

... and North handed to Northerners and East handed to Easterners and West handed to Westerners and Centre handed to Centrists and then each of the new states would be in conflict.

Just like Pakistan and India; Pakistan and Bangladesh; North and South Korea. I also cite the brewing conflict between China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and Phillipines.

A Southern Muslim state would be poverty stricken and would be a handful of problems, not the least of which would be border incursions. There would also be the possibility of friction between a Southern State and Malaysia over borders, resources and islands.

Just creates more jobs for peacekeepers.

It would be more peaceful if Malaysia was not fomenting and financing the conflict.

Its all about oil, and possibly Fishing zones and Islands. If the South had no resources of value they would have had a separate state quickly. The Thai Buddhists would have been glad to see the back of this conflict.

PS. A major reason for Malaysia to foment such a conflict would be because they would be able to dominate a relationship with a small poverty stricken Southern state over resource and border issues whereas they are the minor and less militarily powerful party in negotiations with Thailand.

So now Malaysia is 'fomenting' such a conflict?

The leaders of this insurrection are holed up in Malaysia and being supported by Malaysian radicals.

I'm sure you have some sort of proof of this . . . shall I wait or just call you on bull right away?

[otherstuff1957]

The roots of this conflict lie both deep in the past and in very recent political decisions:

150 years ago the Malay peninsula was divided into about a dozen small sultanates. About 1/2 of them were controlled by the British and the other 1/2 were Siamese vassal states, as were Cambodia and Laos. A vassal state is not part of a country, but it pays tribute to that country and would have to obey any direct orders from the king. A vassal state retained its own ruling hierarchy, language and customs.

The British took direct control of more and more of the Malay peninsula until, by 1902, only the Pattani Sultanate remained outside of British control. The British made an agreement with the Siamese that the Siamese could keep Pattani if they abandoned all claims to the other sultanates. At this time, the Siamese changed the status of Pattani from an independent vassal kingdom to a part of the Siamese kingdom. Soldiers were sent into Pattani to enforce this decree and the Sultan of Pattani was taken to Bangkok in chains. The Siamese began a process of cultural assimilation that continues to this day.

Back in the 1980s, there was an insurgency in the south, that was very similar to the current insurgency, though not as violent and long-lasting. After a military solution was found to be ineffective, a committee was set up to find a way to end to the violence. Their recommendation was to change the local governments from being run by appointees from Bangkok to being run by locally elected people and to give the locals a greater say in their local governments. This approach was successful and the insurgency ended for about 10 or 15 years.

In the early 2000s, it was decided that locally elected leaders were incompatible with a "CEO style leadership" and the power of the local governments was reduced, with some locally elected leaders being replaced by appointed officials. This decision, combined will a rise in global Islamic fundamentalism, reignited the insurgency that continues to this day. The OP, though poorly written and lacking in background information, seems to imply that a similar solution - local autonomy - could work again today.

Edited February 23, 2013 by otherstuff1957

[Vigor Mortis]

No, it won't take three centuries to wipe them out because, by then, four-fold of their dependants will still be doing the same thing.

The insurgency is not a one-off conflict simply aimed at a creating a state where everybody lives happily ever after - they want the lot.

Look beyond tomorrow General .... way, way past it.

You appears to see into the future. Please elaborate.

[hellodolly]

Glad to see there is still stupid ideas on the subject. This thread is about as comical as the Governments constantly dumb idea parade.

Turn it over to the Muslims and then the two different factions will be fighting amongst them selves. The Sunni and the Shiites can't get along with each other.

Sorry about the spelling.