Acceptance of Muslims in Thai South 'will cut violent attacks'

[CBR250]

"Bombs, guns, knives, machetes or whatever is used to kill those of another faith in the name of your own is evil. However to say only one religion kills in the name of god is wrong."

True but of all the people killed in the name of god today, vast majority were in the name of the pagan moon god Allah. Besides it's dishonest to act like all religions have the same teachings about violence. Islam, Christianity (as taught by Jesus, not co-opted by some), and Buddhism (as taught by Buddha, not co-opted by some) have radically different teachings regarding violence. The latter two teach to turn the other cheek, while the former gives plenty of examples of merciless violence being used to "defend" the religion. Problem is it implies that all non-Muslims (or even, as interpreted by many, Muslims who aren't the right kind of Muslims) have rejected the will of Allah and whose lives are therefore worth less. That to my mind is the view of a scumbag, and is at the core of the terroristic jihads all across the planet.

Ah, you left out the Jews. I don't know why, it seems pretty obvious that they should be included given two of the other religions (Christianity and Islam) are so closely connected. The Jewish God is a pretty violent old supernatural being, who instructs Jews at various historical junctures to kill "every man, woman, child, suckling, oxen and living thing" (eg Samuel 15).

I could never work out why s/he's such a "jealous God" (Exodus, self-diagnosed). If you are the only God (as Jaweh claims to be), the one who created the universe, surely you have no competition to be jealous of. Still, it is not for me to question the logic and wisdom of omniscient and omnipotent beings. Sorry, off track. Just trying to point out that among the violent religions you left out the precursors of Christianity, the Jews.

The Old Testament is full of many exhortations by God to slew this and smite that. So, the Holy Book of the Jews and the first half of the Holy Book of the Christians isn't about turning the other cheek at all. It encourages wholesale slaughter.

Oddly enough, the holy book of Islam, the Quaran (or Koran or whatever you want to call it), is a very close cousin of the Old Testament. So no surprise that it is also full of smiting and slewing and slaying and generally making mayhem, especially with non-believers. (Jeesh! Why feel threatened by a few gold statues? Cannot work that one out, either)

But I agree 100% with you about Buddha. There is nothing in Buddhist scripture that orders, encourages, allows or justifies the killing of another living being. So, good on you, Buddha. You can't co-opt Buddha to justify even spitting at someone, so please leave him out of discussions on violence. Stick to the Catholics (Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahama bomber who killed 168 people was a Catholic), Protestants (Ian Paisley, as the Irish will know, was a devout Protestant. Not the nicest guy to have to dinner). The Branch Davidians (a Christian sect) at Waco, Texas, triggered a firefight that left about 80 people dead.

Why are people so keen to forget our home bred villains, murderers, terrorists and assorted ratbags, and want to throw blame for all of the evil in the world at someone - anyone - who isn't like us? About as logical as that Christian God, who one minute wants "an eye for an eye", and then the next minute wants you to turn the other cheek!

[northernjohn]

Is it all going this way? Thailand do you really want this??

http://www.examiner.com/article/muslims-demand-breakaway-islamic-nation-norway-or-another-9-11-threatened

http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-next-country-taken-sharia-law/

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/09/26/120366.html

when is enough enough??

Oz

Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

You are right they are not the majority., But the last time I looked the majority was letting them have their way. While they may be a minority it does not take a majority to do harm. look at the PTP they were a minority 48% and what did they do for Thailand.

What other religion are you referring to that is actively creating terrorism all over the world today. You are not dumb enough to try to take us back hundreds of years to the Catholic crusades are you. Have a look at them. They are very similar to what Islam is doing to the world today.

[northernjohn]

There is nothing different with the thai south muslims they blame everyone but themselves but their agenda is the same as every other Muslim in every other country they emigrate to, and that is to spread the word of Allah.

iSLAM is a threat to the world and slowly people are waking up to it, what is happening in Iraq and Syria will happen in every country once they get there numbers up

Not often you see somebody with this ladies guts and common-sense, she sums it up very well. The 'moderates' are not the problem, Muslims in general are not, the problem is, unfortunately, Islam itself which never has been so far a religion of peace. That's not a 'bigoted view' but historical fact.

Thank you. A very precise perspective on Islam.

The Muslim women in the typical we count no one else does stood there and announced to a panel of four that there was 8 million Muslims in the states less than 3% why where they not represented on a panel discussing the death of four Americans at the hands of Muslims.

I was told and am not sure if it is right but this lady lends a lot of credence to it that once the Muslim Population reaches 5% of the population they start demanding far more say in the government than the 5%. They will even try Shari law at one point.

[CBR250]

Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

You are right they are not the majority., But the last time I looked the majority was letting them have their way. While they may be a minority it does not take a majority to do harm. look at the PTP they were a minority 48% and what did they do for Thailand.

I agree with NorthernJohn. You don't need a majority, all you need is a few loud-mouthed charismatic ratbags who can convince or compel people of limited intellect to follow their hateful ravings and you have instant terrorism.

I guess this is what happened when Lt William Calley led Company C into My Lai, Vietnam, in 1968. The US Infantry men then proceeded to murder children and infants, women and the elderly. Before mutilating and dismembering the corpses of the young women they gang-raped. About 500 civilians in all. And only Calley was ever convicted. He served 3.5 years under house arrest. The rest of Company C just walked away scot free. A fine example of western justice.

Hate is a dreadful thing, a terrible, destructive force that strips humanity from the victims and perpetrators. Yet many people - even some here on TV - seem enthusiastic about encouraging even more of it in the world! Terrorism doesn't need a majority - just willing accomplices.

[katana]

Why aren't British Muslims condemning the maniacs killing in the name of Islam? From a leading Muslim voice, a troubling question...
By Dr Taj Hargey 15/08/14 Daily Mail
The Muslims mistakenly parading themselves as jihadists 'defending' Islam are plumbing new depths of horror in their vicious campaign to impose a 7th-century Islamic tyranny across large swathes of Iraq and Syria.
Indiscriminate slaughter, public beheadings and systematic starvation are all features of their murderous campaign, propped up by pernicious propaganda that inspires awe in their followers and fear in their victims.
What is particularly disturbing is the support given to the militants by many deluded British Muslims. It has been estimated that more than 500 young British men have gone to fight in the Syrian civil war.
Many of them are now moving across to Iraq to become volunteers in the Islamic State movement, which aims to resurrect a medieval-style caliphate in the region.
Only this week Reyaad Khan, a 20-year-old from Cardiff who is now a member of the Islamic State, declared on Twitter that he is preparing for 'martyrdom'. Khan boasted, in the macabre language of the jihadi lunatics, that he had 'executed many prisoners' and had witnessed 'the longest decapitation ever. And we made sure the knife was sharp.'
Alongside several other Britons, Khan has also appeared in an extremist recruitment video, urging other British Muslims to join their fanatical cause — though for entirely dubious theological reasons.
As well as fighting 3,000 miles away, the jihadists have made their presence felt at home. Yesterday, several brainwashed acolytes of the infamous radical Anjem Choudary handed out incendiary leaflets to shoppers in London's Oxford Street in blind support of the Islamic State, while last weekend the black flag of jihadi fundamentalism was flown on the main gate at the entrance to a housing estate in Tower Hamlets.
What is terribly worrying is that, in the face of the IS atrocities, and extremist British Muslims' involvement in jihadism, mainstream Muslims here have remained largely silent at what is happening in Iraq today.
ctd here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2725475/Why-aren-t-British-Muslims-condemning-maniacs-killing-Islam-From-leading-Muslim-voice-troubling-question.html

[squarethecircle]

"I guess this is what happened when Lt William Calley led Company C into My Lai, Vietnam, in 1968. The US Infantry men then proceeded to murder children and infants, women and the elderly. Before mutilating and dismembering the corpses of the young women they gang-raped. About 500 civilians in all. And only Calley was ever convicted. He served 3.5 years under house arrest. The rest of Company C just walked away scot free. A fine example of western justice."

But the difference is: this was an isolated incident in that it was not part of a systematic policy or doctrine. Certainly a war crime but AFAIK not part of a systematic policy, and also not a "fine example of western justice", but in fact an example of a failure of the justice system, which (note the blindfold on the lady of liberty, representing the fact that justice should be meted out without respect to who is involved). The worldwide jihad IS part of a systematic doctrine so your example and conclusion is faulty.

[Geordie59]

Respect must work both ways.

[Thai at Heart]

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

The intolerance, divisiveness and violence of Islam is not 'propaganda' it's the truth. Are you claiming that the terrorists in the south are not all Muslim? Of course they are not the majority, terrorists never are, but that does not make them or the ideology which motivates them any more acceptable. You just cannot talk to these people, they never give 'respect' back and see tolerance as weakness, some people need to wake up.

Nonsense. Islam has its extremists like all religions, true, but they do not represent Islam, only a twisted version of it.

You condemn Islam as a whole and judge all those who follow it as being guilty of intolerance. In effect you are preaching an equally narrow minded viewpoint.

Any argument that uses the phrase "these people" is never going to seek acceptance, only further division.

Well, the world isn't particularly fearful of armed christian extremist terrorists are they. Moslem extremists may not represent a majority of Moslems there are far too many of them and in many cases they receive the tacit approval of the apparently peaceful majority.

The peaceful majority of Muslims are not priding themselves on snitching on their extremist brethren very often are they.

[sustento]

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

The intolerance, divisiveness and violence of Islam is not 'propaganda' it's the truth. Are you claiming that the terrorists in the south are not all Muslim? Of course they are not the majority, terrorists never are, but that does not make them or the ideology which motivates them any more acceptable. You just cannot talk to these people, they never give 'respect' back and see tolerance as weakness, some people need to wake up.

Nonsense. Islam has its extremists like all religions, true, but they do not represent Islam, only a twisted version of it.

You condemn Islam as a whole and judge all those who follow it as being guilty of intolerance. In effect you are preaching an equally narrow minded viewpoint.

Any argument that uses the phrase "these people" is never going to seek acceptance, only further division.

Well, the world isn't particularly fearful of armed christian extremist terrorists are they. Moslem extremists may not represent a majority of Moslems there are far too many of them and in many cases they receive the tacit approval of the apparently peaceful majority.

The peaceful majority of Muslims are not priding themselves on snitching on their extremist brethren very often are they.

You talk as though Muslims are one great homogeneous gang who all know each other personally.

How would the peaceful majority of Muslims be able to snitch on those who are terrorists?

Do the terrorists give advance notice to the moderates when they're about to blow something up?

Did the London Bombers tell the guy who runs my local corner shop that they were off down to London to cause mayhem?

[squarethecircle]

"Do the terrorists give advance notice to the moderates when they're about to blow something up?

Did the London Bombers tell the guy who runs my local corner shop that they were off down to London to cause mayhem?"

No, but judging by the Nation article it sounds like the moderates are insisting if they are "accepted" it will cause the terrorists to back off. Seems bogus to me:

(1) If there really is this huge gap between the moderates and the terrorists - which I believe is somewhat accurate, and backed up by the quote from the Yala man in the article whose father was shot but who insists they locals don't know who exactly is behind the violence - then the focus should be going after the terrorists with appropriate force (and to my mind these are acts of war so a military - ie: shoot to kill - rather than judicial response is justified).

(2) If there's not this huge gap between the moderates and the terrorists, and accommodating or "accepting" the moderates will effect the behavior of the terrorists, as the Nation article suggests, what does that tell us?

[Bluespunk]

@JesseFrank

You said:

There is a big difference between a war in the name of religion and people walking around all over the planet and blowing up innocent and unsuspecting civilians.

Me:

Really? Not seeing that at all.

Murder in the name of god is wrong, no matter what the religion, what the method, what the cause.

No one has the right to take another life in the name of faith. Nothing can justify that.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

The intolerance, divisiveness and violence of Islam is not 'propaganda' it's the truth. Are you claiming that the terrorists in the south are not all Muslim? Of course they are not the majority, terrorists never are, but that does not make them or the ideology which motivates them any more acceptable. You just cannot talk to these people, they never give 'respect' back and see tolerance as weakness, some people need to wake up.

Nonsense. Islam has its extremists like all religions, true, but they do not represent Islam, only a twisted version of it.

You condemn Islam as a whole and judge all those who follow it as being guilty of intolerance. In effect you are preaching an equally narrow minded viewpoint.

Any argument that uses the phrase "these people" is never going to seek acceptance, only further division.

Well, the world isn't particularly fearful of armed christian extremist terrorists are they. Moslem extremists may not represent a majority of Moslems there are far too many of them and in many cases they receive the tacit approval of the apparently peaceful majority.

The peaceful majority of Muslims are not priding themselves on snitching on their extremist brethren very often are they.

There are parts of the world where people do fear Christian extremists. Mostly in Africa these days (CAR, Uganda for example), but Europe had its own problems not 20 years ago in the former Yugoslavia. Hate fuelled murder and atrocities by these extremists was as bad as anything going on now.

Not all Muslims support violence. As for snitching, how do you think terror cells are exposed? Have to be some in the communities informing. As for others, believe it or not, terror cells work in secrecy, most probably don't know who these scum are.

Secretly approve? Same thing that I heard all my childhood about the Irish and the IRA. That wasn't true then and it isn't true for Muslims now.

[happytobehere2014]

Having served in the British military l try very hard to always see both sides. Unfortunately l have witnessed first hand what a bomb blast does and that smell of cooked flesh and cordite will stay with me for ever. One thing l know for sure, no matter which side you are from, it is the innocent who suffer the most; the ordinary people who get caught-up in these conflicts in the name of religion.

l would say Thailand is a very hospitable country in general; obviously when tourism makes up 25% of your GDP then it pays to be this way, but l think there is acceptance by most Thai's of other religions. l think people in this country are more concerned with living and being healthy than worrying about the conflict in the South.

l think it is a sad situation that will not be easily resolved, both sides have deep-seated beliefs that go back many years ............. but for sure, the innocents will keep on dying.

[Bluespunk]

"Do the terrorists give advance notice to the moderates when they're about to blow something up?

Did the London Bombers tell the guy who runs my local corner shop that they were off down to London to cause mayhem?"

No, but judging by the Nation article it sounds like the moderates are insisting if they are "accepted" it will cause the terrorists to back off. Seems bogus to me:

(1) If there really is this huge gap between the moderates and the terrorists - which I believe is somewhat accurate, and backed up by the quote from the Yala man in the article whose father was shot but who insists they locals don't know who exactly is behind the violence - then the focus should be going after the terrorists with appropriate force (and to my mind these are acts of war so a military - ie: shoot to kill - rather than judicial response is justified).

(2) If there's not this huge gap between the moderates and the terrorists, and accommodating or "accepting" the moderates will effect the behavior of the terrorists, as the Nation article suggests, what does that tell us?

The OP calls for acceptance, tolerance and co-existence.

The conflict in the south is based on long standing grievances that were greatly ameliorated by the political system and limited autonomy set up after the last time this conflict flared up. The withdrawal of these led to a series of protests that culminated in a great many deaths, due to the draconian responses of the authorities. Tak Bai incident or massacre as some call it.

This led directly to what is happening now, the terrorist scum draw support from what happened, not from all but enough. They are winning the propaganda war and will continue to do so unless there is some sort of settlement or a return to the status quo.

The conflict is not about religion, though that is part of it, but perceived chauvinism, regional autonomy, cultural repression (language, faith, traditions) and discriminatory practices. Not all these perceived injustices might be correct, none justify violence, but the grievances are there. They need to be addressed if the terrorist scum are to be defeated.

As for the terrorists. On that we agree. Go after them by all means. I have no sympathy for them. You reap what you sow, live by the sword........etc. if they were all to be killed tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear or criticise those responsible. I wouldn't give a toss to be honest.

[notmyself]

If it is going to be claimed that a few often unelected individuals who voice opposition represent the majority then it carries with it that a few so called extremists also represent the majority. The only logical way out of this dilemma is to dispel both and look at what is left. Pring a couple of cartoons and the entire Islamic world goes nuts with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets, burning buildings etc. but when a teacher gets shot for doing their job or a young girl gets acid thrown on her face the silence is deafening.

[Bluespunk]

If it is going to be claimed that a few often unelected individuals who voice opposition represent the majority then it carries with it that a few so called extremists also represent the majority. The only logical way out of this dilemma is to dispel both and look at what is left. Pring a couple of cartoons and the entire Islamic world goes nuts with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets, burning buildings etc. but when a teacher gets shot for doing their job or a young girl gets acid thrown on her face the silence is deafening.

Acid attacks happen in a number of different countries where bigoted attitudes towards women and their role in society exist. They are not religiously based. They are frequently protested.

[happytobehere2014]

If it is going to be claimed that a few often unelected individuals who voice opposition represent the majority then it carries with it that a few so called extremists also represent the majority. The only logical way out of this dilemma is to dispel both and look at what is left. Pring a couple of cartoons and the entire Islamic world goes nuts with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets, burning buildings etc. but when a teacher gets shot for doing their job or a young girl gets acid thrown on her face the silence is deafening.

Acid attacks happen in a number of different countries where bigoted attitudes towards women and their role in society exist. They are not religiously based. They are frequently protested.

The last 2 replys from Bluespunk make some very valid points. Look back into history and you will see that every religion has been responsible for death and sorrow at some point. The average person in the Gaza strip has no connection to Hamas, yet the continue to die in huge numbers. l do not think it is correct to fire rockets into lsrael or bomb innocent civillians in return; both sides have their points of view and it is the same in the South of Thailand, until they sit down and thrash out their differences the status- quo will continue and people will keep dying.

My brother-in-law is stationed down there at the moment, he opted for an extra year because they are offered a financial incentive to do so. He has no bad feelings against any other religion or anyone, despite losing guys in his unit; he is there simply to help pay for my mother-in-laws house. l pray he comes back in one piece.

[behonset]

this country is run by the Chinese (Thai Chinese). This ruling class of Ethnic Chinese do NOT respect even the Thais. Every Thai Chinese that I know speak ill of the 'dark skinned' Thais. So how can you expect them to respect the muslims?? If you notice the problems in the South started to get worse as the economic and political might of the Chinese increased. Today we see the plight of the ethnic Thais getting worse also. And the general well being of non ethnic Chinese in Thailand as a whole decreasing rapidly as the Thai Chinese gain more and more control of this country.

[squarethecircle]

"this country is run by the Chinese (Thai Chinese)."

That's something else I've been thinking of. There is rampant and striking anti-Chinese sentiment among Malays in Malaysia (and among Thais, and Burmans, and Vietnamese that I've talked with), and I don't doubt for a second this had something to do with MH370.

What is curious to me is how the Saudis and Pakistanis will come to terms with PRC. I read in an online Chinese newspaper that younger military leaders in Pakistan are openly assisting Uighur militants/freedom fighters/terrorists to train in NW Pakistan, and that whole western area of China is going to be like the deep South of Thailand over the next 10-20 years if I'm predicting right. They seem to harbor deep hatred for US for operating in Muslim lands, so I wonder if the same "policy" will carry over to PRC and its naughty behavior. Then again there were a bunch of bomb attacks against those Thai-Chinese businesses in Yala.

But reading of the deaths of all these soldiers makes my heart hurt.

Edited August 16, 2014 by squarethecircle

[The Deerhunter]

The trick is to give them a genuine feeling of self worth and inclusion in Thai national pride:::::: Without encourging them that they have the thin edge of the wedge in the door & next step self rule & Sharia law!

[simple1]

The trick is to give them a genuine feeling of self worth and inclusion in Thai national pride:::::: Without encourging them that they have the thin edge of the wedge in the door & next step self rule & Sharia law!

Sharia law for civil matters has been in place from 1946 in the deep South provinces

[Jimbolai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion."

Problem with the article is it is completely one-sided. There's a veritable killing spree against Thai civilians, soldiers, police, totally out of line with any supposed non-acceptance of Southern Muslims. From what I can make out there are plenty of villains on both sides but Thais are in their rights to protect their people and their land, what about the soldiers' and police's rights? And for Christ's sake the Islamophobia charge is ridiculous, there is good reason to fear Islam in its full-blown form.

Any one believes this article believes in the tooth fairy.

[Jimbolai]

Thank God those loud church bells have all but stopped ringing.

They are being replaced by karaoke via loud speakers starting at 430am throughout the day.

If you don't like it you are a racist..

Edited August 16, 2014 by Jimbolai

[spidermike007]

Is this really news? Ever since Thailand took over control of the five southern provinces where all the strife takes place, over a century ago, from what I understand, the people there have been treated like second class citizens. This is a large part of the problem. The genius minds in charge of resolving this problem are just now figuring this one out? The population there is mostly ethnic Malay, and Muslim. How could you possibly come up with a solution without taking that into account? Are these guys truly this simple minded, or do these pronouncement by the newspapers just make them seem that way?

[i claudius]

The day I see Muslims marching through the streets against Muslim terrorists just like the Irish women did against the I.r.a ,then that is the day I will believe that they do not all have the same agenda ,I will not be holding my breath,it will never happen

[Thai at Heart]

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

The intolerance, divisiveness and violence of Islam is not 'propaganda' it's the truth. Are you claiming that the terrorists in the south are not all Muslim? Of course they are not the majority, terrorists never are, but that does not make them or the ideology which motivates them any more acceptable. You just cannot talk to these people, they never give 'respect' back and see tolerance as weakness, some people need to wake up.

Nonsense. Islam has its extremists like all religions, true, but they do not represent Islam, only a twisted version of it.

You condemn Islam as a whole and judge all those who follow it as being guilty of intolerance. In effect you are preaching an equally narrow minded viewpoint.

Any argument that uses the phrase "these people" is never going to seek acceptance, only further division.

Well, the world isn't particularly fearful of armed christian extremist terrorists are they. Moslem extremists may not represent a majority of Moslems there are far too many of them and in many cases they receive the tacit approval of the apparently peaceful majority.

The peaceful majority of Muslims are not priding themselves on snitching on their extremist brethren very often are they.

You talk as though Muslims are one great homogeneous gang who all know each other personally.

How would the peaceful majority of Muslims be able to snitch on those who are terrorists?

Do the terrorists give advance notice to the moderates when they're about to blow something up?

Did the London Bombers tell the guy who runs my local corner shop that they were off down to London to cause mayhem?

OK, let's take extremists preaching in mosques. How many of them were reportrd to the authorities?

Just look at this bloke from cardiff. He as radicalized 100 yards from where I work. Parents knew, friends knew. Then he pops up on TV and then parents come forward to say.

Oh, he as such a nice boy, all of a sudden he changed when he started going to that place. The attempt in the schools in Birmingham. Are u saying this was planned by telepathy? That no one outside the group knew.

I knew Thais keep themselves out of each others business, but strewth are u telling me people don't talk to each other ever or observe one another in the Muslim faith.

The Muslim community knows who is up to what and where in their community in the UK.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

"Nothing to do with the article, which is calling for tolerance, acceptance and co-existence. All your links do is promote division, misleading examples and islamaphobic propaganda.

Yes there are religious extremists but they are not the majority, nor are they exclusive to one religion.

The intolerance, divisiveness and violence of Islam is not 'propaganda' it's the truth. Are you claiming that the terrorists in the south are not all Muslim? Of course they are not the majority, terrorists never are, but that does not make them or the ideology which motivates them any more acceptable. You just cannot talk to these people, they never give 'respect' back and see tolerance as weakness, some people need to wake up.

Nonsense. Islam has its extremists like all religions, true, but they do not represent Islam, only a twisted version of it.

You condemn Islam as a whole and judge all those who follow it as being guilty of intolerance. In effect you are preaching an equally narrow minded viewpoint.

Any argument that uses the phrase "these people" is never going to seek acceptance, only further division.

Well, the world isn't particularly fearful of armed christian extremist terrorists are they. Moslem extremists may not represent a majority of Moslems there are far too many of them and in many cases they receive the tacit approval of the apparently peaceful majority.

The peaceful majority of Muslims are not priding themselves on snitching on their extremist brethren very often are they.

There are parts of the world where people do fear Christian extremists. Mostly in Africa these days (CAR, Uganda for example), but Europe had its own problems not 20 years ago in the former Yugoslavia. Hate fuelled murder and atrocities by these extremists was as bad as anything going on now.

Not all Muslims support violence. As for snitching, how do you think terror cells are exposed? Have to be some in the communities informing. As for others, believe it or not, terror cells work in secrecy, most probably don't know who these scum are.

Secretly approve? Same thing that I heard all my childhood about the Irish and the IRA. That wasn't true then and it isn't true for Muslims now.

There was an element of Irish society of apparently affluent higher side of society who supported the IRA.

I saw it at a Wales Ireland rugby match at a drinks do. One Englishman visitor had come to town and had a few too many. He went on a tirade about the IRA. The stony silence that went across the room among the Irish was incredibly eary.

Fortunately one Irishman moved the conversation away from politics and someone gave the Londoner an orangr juice.

[Bluespunk]

@That At Heart

Me

Secretly approve? Same thing that I heard all my childhood about the Irish and the IRA. That wasn't true then and it isn't true for Muslims now.

You replied:

There was an element of Irish society of apparently affluent higher side of society who supported the IRA.

I saw it at a Wales Ireland rugby match at a drinks do. One Englishman visitor had come to town and had a few too many. He went on a tirade about the IRA. The stony silence that went across the room among the Irish was incredibly eary.

Fortunately one Irishman moved the conversation away from politics and someone gave the Londoner an orangr juice.

Me:

My parents are both Irish. They always made it very clear that they had no sympathy whatsoever for the IRA. They may have supported a united Ireland, but I never heard them or any family member voice support for violence.

Mind we were dirt poor.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Bluespunk

[happytobehere2014]

@That At Heart

Me

Secretly approve? Same thing that I heard all my childhood about the Irish and the IRA. That wasn't true then and it isn't true for Muslims now.

You replied:

There was an element of Irish society of apparently affluent higher side of society who supported the IRA.

I saw it at a Wales Ireland rugby match at a drinks do. One Englishman visitor had come to town and had a few too many. He went on a tirade about the IRA. The stony silence that went across the room among the Irish was incredibly eary.

Fortunately one Irishman moved the conversation away from politics and someone gave the Londoner an orangr juice.

Me:

My parents are both Irish. They always made it very clear that they had no sympathy whatsoever for the IRA. They may have supported a united Ireland, but I never heard them or any family member voice support for violence.

Mind we were dirt poor.

N. lreland and ETA in Spain should be used as a template for negotiations in these kind of conflicts; it proves 2 sides with almost insurmountable differences can come to an agreement. Everyone had an opinion on the IRA, without fully understanding what the British government did during the potato famine. l was in Belfast and witnessed first hand Loyalist hit squads roam the streets aided by the British government. l think both sides got to a point where everyone was sick of the killing and momentum built to push for peace.

Maybe here in Thailand with all the other problems going on, the conflict in the South can get pushed to one side. During which time, how many more people have to die ? l think the next government will have to try and sit down and negotiate, because until yesterday l no idea that 6,000 had been killed, 10,000 injured. These are figures nobody can ignore.

[simple1]

@That At Heart

Me

Secretly approve? Same thing that I heard all my childhood about the Irish and the IRA. That wasn't true then and it isn't true for Muslims now.

You replied:

There was an element of Irish society of apparently affluent higher side of society who supported the IRA.

I saw it at a Wales Ireland rugby match at a drinks do. One Englishman visitor had come to town and had a few too many. He went on a tirade about the IRA. The stony silence that went across the room among the Irish was incredibly eary.

Fortunately one Irishman moved the conversation away from politics and someone gave the Londoner an orangr juice.

Me:

My parents are both Irish. They always made it very clear that they had no sympathy whatsoever for the IRA. They may have supported a united Ireland, but I never heard them or any family member voice support for violence.

Mind we were dirt poor.

N. lreland and ETA in Spain should be used as a template for negotiations in these kind of conflicts; it proves 2 sides with almost insurmountable differences can come to an agreement. Everyone had an opinion on the IRA, without fully understanding what the British government did during the potato famine. l was in Belfast and witnessed first hand Loyalist hit squads roam the streets aided by the British government. l think both sides got to a point where everyone was sick of the killing and momentum built to push for peace.

Maybe here in Thailand with all the other problems going on, the conflict in the South can get pushed to one side. During which time, how many more people have to die ? l think the next government will have to try and sit down and negotiate, because until yesterday l no idea that 6,000 had been killed, 10,000 injured. These are figures nobody can ignore.

Cannot compare to the likes of ETA, IRA or indeed to Indo or Philippines. In the deep South there are nine different insurgency groups without unified command or political leadership. Additionally the Thai military are not beholden to the Thai political leadership for conflict resolution. Thai military have flatly refused to even consider any form of provincial self governance. For the moment does not appear to be any way forward to cease hostilities.