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

[Thai at Heart]

@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.

In conversation as I got older I was told several of the men present that day donated regularly to the IRA. That's what I was told at least.

Back to the Muslim issue. The community doesn't shop the extremists often enough for me. That's my opinion.

[squarethecircle]

"There are parts of the world where people do fear Christian extremists. Mostly in Africa these days (CAR, Uganda for example),"

Yeah but it's disingenuous to condemn "Christian extremists" in central Africa without noting the murderous campaigns directed against them, they're effectively on the border of the "Abode of Peace", as to the north the Muslims have taken over, and make it clear they consider expansion into the south of Africa their destiny. Again it's ironic you condemn "Christian extremists" for what is, in effect, self-defense, while defending Muslim extremists who can't make any such claims of self-defense: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims_(Uganda)

Also perhaps someone can bring up a successful case where a Muslim terrorist insurgency was successfully negotiated with. Seems like Israel tried to do that and the enemy just took advantage of the opportunity to mount more ferocious rocket attacks and bombings. Terrorists in S Thailand show no concern for the basic rights of Thais living there so Thai army is fully justified in not negotiating.

[Thaiready]

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.

The peaceful majority is irrelevant. Just read history about Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. It is the extremists that are the problem.

I agree, my point is that there are extremists of all faiths and political persuasions. To demonise just one is wrong.

If the shoe fits......seems it comes mostly in Islamic sizes

[gezginrocker]

As a Turkish national, who was born a Muslim, I find the term "Islamophobia" ridicilous. In today's world, any sane person would fear Islam. Now ISIS barbarians are near Turkey's border, and I'm scared as hell. This is not phobia, this is a real threat.

On the other hand, I think the violence going on deep south is because of imperialism. Imperialists draw borders with rulers, and this is the main cause of problems in places like Thai deep south or middle east.

It is obvious there was a mistreatment of Muslims in deep south. But their way of struggle is so wrong, killing civilians, beheadings, bombings etc. Because of all that crap, I'm not telling that I'm Turkish anymore when I'm abroad, because everyone including Thais hates Muslims today. And this is solely because of Islamic world, they don't comdemn Islamic extremism, and even support it. Even my government can't identify ISIS as terrorists because they symphathize with them. That is ridicilous.

[simple1]

"There are parts of the world where people do fear Christian extremists. Mostly in Africa these days (CAR, Uganda for example),"

Yeah but it's disingenuous to condemn "Christian extremists" in central Africa without noting the murderous campaigns directed against them, they're effectively on the border of the "Abode of Peace", as to the north the Muslims have taken over, and make it clear they consider expansion into the south of Africa their destiny. Again it's ironic you condemn "Christian extremists" for what is, in effect, self-defense, while defending Muslim extremists who can't make any such claims of self-defense: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims_(Uganda)

Also perhaps someone can bring up a successful case where a Muslim terrorist insurgency was successfully negotiated with. Seems like Israel tried to do that and the enemy just took advantage of the opportunity to mount more ferocious rocket attacks and bombings. Terrorists in S Thailand show no concern for the basic rights of Thais living there so Thai army is fully justified in not negotiating.

Have a read of the case studies at:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR291z1/RAND_RR291z1.pdf

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR469/RAND_RR469.pdf

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG964.pdf

[notmyself]

As a Turkish national, who was born a Muslim

You may have been born in a predominately Islamic country (with a secularish constitution) and been surrounded by followers of Islam but you were not born a Muslim.

[unrelated to your post]

Doesn't seem much real knowledge on the subject of the OP but the video below may help. All this 50 years ago stuff is long superseded and that has to do with the Caliphate. The video is about the promised land but it works equally well with this example as the land has previously been part of the Caliphate of Islam. East Timor is a perfect example as is Bali.

[squarethecircle]

"Have a read of the case studies at:

http://www.rand.org/...AND_RR291z1.pdf

http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_RR469.pdf

http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_MG964.pdf"

No clue what these have to do with a successful negotiation with an Islamic terrorist organization. The one about COIN in Afgh. outright says the Taliban are notoriously difficult to negotiate with - perhaps because it's not a top-down traditional military organization as large militaries like US are trained to fight. Phillippines was held as an example of a successful peaceful resolution but the terrorist attacks by S Phillippines insurgents continue there. I maintain it's still fully justified not to negotiate with any of the organizations associated with the violence down south as they have shown they do not respect the basic rights of Thai people down there.

[Bluespunk]

@Thaiready

You

If the shoe fits......seems it comes mostly in Islamic sizes

Me

Not exclusively.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

"There are parts of the world where people do fear Christian extremists. Mostly in Africa these days (CAR, Uganda for example),"

Yeah but it's disingenuous to condemn "Christian extremists" in central Africa without noting the murderous campaigns directed against them, they're effectively on the border of the "Abode of Peace", as to the north the Muslims have taken over, and make it clear they consider expansion into the south of Africa their destiny. Again it's ironic you condemn "Christian extremists" for what is, in effect, self-defense, while defending Muslim extremists who can't make any such claims of self-defense: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims_(Uganda)

Also perhaps someone can bring up a successful case where a Muslim terrorist insurgency was successfully negotiated with. Seems like Israel tried to do that and the enemy just took advantage of the opportunity to mount more ferocious rocket attacks and bombings. Terrorists in S Thailand show no concern for the basic rights of Thais living there so Thai army is fully justified in not negotiating.

Most religions have campaigns of hate waged against them or claim their faith is under attack. The scum who exploit this and resort to terror to further their twisted causes are all the same.

It doesn't matter what the justification is. All religions have those who murder in the name of their faith. There is no difference between them.

And none of them represent the majority.

[squarethecircle]

"It doesn't matter what the justification is. All religions have those who murder in the name of their faith. There is no difference between them."

Well how do you explain this piece then, which shows a picture of Jesus, YHWH, Buddha, and Ganesha fornicating:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

Would you accuse the authors of this piece of "Islamophobia" as they would certainly have to fear for their lives if they included the alleged prophet MHD among the pictures?

[Bluespunk]

"It doesn't matter what the justification is. All religions have those who murder in the name of their faith. There is no difference between them."

Well how do you explain this piece then, which shows a picture of Jesus, YHWH, Buddha, and Ganesha fornicating:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

Would you accuse the authors of this piece of "Islamophobia" as they would certainly have to fear for their lives if they included the alleged prophet MHD among the pictures?

How often do I have to say this? I do not support terrorism and violence in the name of god. I don't condone, support or defend it. I do not support any threats made to the cartoonists.

I do however maintain that you cannot judge a faith based on extremists.

The reaction of those who protested the perceived insult to Mohammed was, as far as I was concerned, ridiculous. However the vast majority of those protesting the insult to their faith are not terrorists or responsible for terrorism.

I think that whoever produced those cartoons are insensitive idiots at best and bigots at worst. I feel the same about anyone who insults anyone's faith. I am an atheist and have no belief in any god, however I do recognise others have their beliefs and are entitled to them. To insult their belief is pointless and offensive.

At times the cartoons you refer to verged into hate and bigotry. Deliberately so.

None of this justifies violence. Nothing does. However it is still only a minority that are responsible for terrorism.

[simple1]

"Have a read of the case studies at:

http://www.rand.org/...AND_RR291z1.pdf

http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_RR469.pdf

http://www.rand.org/.../RAND_MG964.pdf"

No clue what these have to do with a successful negotiation with an Islamic terrorist organization. The one about COIN in Afgh. outright says the Taliban are notoriously difficult to negotiate with - perhaps because it's not a top-down traditional military organization as large militaries like US are trained to fight. Phillippines was held as an example of a successful peaceful resolution but the terrorist attacks by S Phillippines insurgents continue there. I maintain it's still fully justified not to negotiate with any of the organizations associated with the violence down south as they have shown they do not respect the basic rights of Thai people down there.

The primary group in the Southern Phillipinnes, <deleted>, signed the pathway to peace agreement, but there are still some small groups who are active, so will be some ongoing issues. Still a lot better to get as far as it has after 40 years of conflict and around 150k deaths, ain't as though after all this time all killings/attacks will come to an immediate full stop.

I provided the Rand case analysis as they have identified commonalities on what to do / what not to do in dealing with insurgencies Islamic or otherwise. On the what not to do list, is to cease any attempts at dialogue and just focus on force solutions. However, Rand Corp analysis, whilst a bit out of date, for Southern Thailand at:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG846.pdf

[squarethecircle]

"The reaction of those who protested the perceived insult to Mohammed was, as far as I was concerned, ridiculous. However the vast majority of those protesting the insult to their faith are not terrorists or responsible for terrorism."

Well terrorism is use of violence to try to coerce civilians or governments for political purposes. The cartoon rioters (and related violence such as the murders/attempted murders of cartoonists in EU) certainly were making a point about the response that can be expected for perceived insults to MHD. So using terror to try to force people into a viewpoint, or scare them out of expressing a viewpoint, is not terrorism?

"I think that whoever produced those cartoons are insensitive idiots at best and bigots at worst."

Like drawing MHD with a bomb inside his turban? So I'm curious - do you think similar cartoonists depicting Catholic priests as child abusers are insensitive idiots and/or bigots? Seems to me in both cases they're making accurate points that need to be made, but the latter case did not result in murders or riots. Likewise there have been numerous protests at the Pope's public events pointing out that church's involvement in criminal activity (like the sexual abuse scandal), but no violence in response, and this seems fair enough to point out as there is a scandal. Likewise there is a scandal with terrorism in the Muslim world, so the corresponding protest would see people going to Mecca and holding up signs like some of those cartoons. What do you think the response would be if that were to happen?

Edited August 17, 2014 by squarethecircle

[Bluespunk]

"The reaction of those who protested the perceived insult to Mohammed was, as far as I was concerned, ridiculous. However the vast majority of those protesting the insult to their faith are not terrorists or responsible for terrorism."

Well terrorism is use of violence to try to coerce civilians or governments for political purposes. The cartoon rioters (and related violence such as the murders/attempted murders of cartoonists in EU) certainly were making a point about the response that can be expected for perceived insults to MHD. So using terror to try to force people into a viewpoint, or scare them out of expressing a viewpoint, is not terrorism?

"I think that whoever produced those cartoons are insensitive idiots at best and bigots at worst."

Like drawing MHD with a bomb inside his turban? So I'm curious - do you think similar cartoonists depicting Catholic priests as child abusers are insensitive idiots and/or bigots? Seems to me in both cases they're making accurate points that need to be made, but the latter case did not result in murders or riots. Likewise there have been numerous protests at the Pope's public events pointing out that church's involvement in criminal activity (like the sexual abuse scandal), but no violence in response, and this seems fair enough to point out as there is a scandal. Likewise there is a scandal with terrorism in the Muslim world, so the corresponding protest would see people going to Mecca and holding up signs like some of those cartoons. What do you think the response would be if that were to happen?

You clearly have decided all Muslims are terrorists or support all their actions. You will except no view except they are all guilty.

The points you express are now going round in circles. I've answered then once, I'm not doing so again.

Your views and attitudes towards Muslims are set in stone. It's pointless to respond any more. Religious intolerance or fear of another faith are destroying societies all over the world. Views that you hold do nothing to help. Quite the opposite in fact.

Therefore I'm replying to any more of your posts. I'm sure you will see this as a victory along the lines you feel I can't refute your points.

You're wrong about that as well.

[squarethecircle]

"Your views and attitudes towards Muslims are set in stone."

I would say the opposite; as a card-carrying heretic the Islamic view towards me is set in stone. Not that most Muslims would actually carry this out but the threat is real and I wonder if it's safe to criticize it online as in the future the threat of people actually enforcing the anti-blasphemy stipulation may come into full effect, as the death penalty for atheism has recently come into effect in countries like Bengali.

"It's pointless to respond any more. Religious intolerance or fear of another faith are destroying societies all over the world. Views that you hold do nothing to help. Quite the opposite in fact."

OK pulling the "only a bigot would criticize anything related to Islam" card, I see? And I fail to see why pointing out the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism makes one a bigot. Actually I held pretty much your views until spending time in Malaysia and S Thailand, most people are nice but the religion never went through a reformation or period of scientific enlightenment as did Xtianity and Judaism, so the old rules are still set in stone and in fact being enforced to a greater degree. Another reason why the OP is a ridiculous statement if the Thai constitution and the rights of Thai people are going to be upheld in southern provinces.

[JAG]

Well if it works I suppose it will free up more soldiers to concentrate on the real threats to Thailand.

Motor Cycle Taxi drivers and people flogging overpriced spring rolls on beaches!

[DeepInTheForest]

"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.

"... 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... "

(sigh... )

[DeepInTheForest]

"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.

Reading your account, one would never suspect that Muslisms are being used as target practice in places as far apart as Burma. Xinjiang, and Afghanistan, not to mention other parts of the globe.

There was Russian murder in Chechnya, which led to terrorist counteractions. And there are the invasions of the US in the Middle East, and its drone strikes, with their horrific and casually-referenced "collateral damage" in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/10/drone_strikes_map_shows_pakistan_drone_strikes.html

You might consider that many in the world are indeed fearful of armed christian extremist state-sponsored violence. That is not to say it is all one-sided. But to remain oblivious to the many actions taken against Muslim minorities around the globe, as well as any other that gets in the way of our world trading regime, is disingenuous.

[chongtak]

To cut to the chase, will the Muslims reciprocate, me thinks not, they have one aim , regardless of where or when, OZ has been told to expect 100 hundred years of trouble from this religious faith. I rest my case .

How do you know the aim of the majority of southern Muslims? Are you aware of things nobody know? Are you a fortune teller? Or just state your overgeneralized opinion? Rubbish.

[tominbkk]

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

I doubt it.

[tominbkk]

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

I doubt it.

[Thaiready]

Removal of the Muslims in the South is the only way you'll have Peace.

[notmyself]

As a Turkish national, who was born a Muslim

You may have been born in a predominately Islamic country (with a secularish constitution) and been surrounded by followers of Islam but you were not born a Muslim.

[unrelated to your post]

Doesn't seem much real knowledge on the subject of the OP but the video below may help. All this 50 years ago stuff is long superseded and that has to do with the Caliphate. The video is about the promised land but it works equally well with this example as the land has previously been part of the Caliphate of Islam. East Timor is a perfect example as is Bali.

Oops, forgot the video.

[simple1]

Removal of the Muslims in the South is the only way you'll have Peace.

How do you propose to 'remove' about 1.8 million people in breach of the Thai Constiution and traditional support from the highest institution in Thailand. Also don't think the remaining approx 5 million Thai Muslims would be very impressed.

http://www.thaiembassy.org/riyadh/th/organize/29025-Muslim-in-Thailand.html

[squarethecircle]

"How do you propose to 'remove' about 1.8 million people in breach of the Thai Constiution and traditional support from the highest institution in Thailand. Also don't think the remaining approx 5 million Thai Muslims would be very impressed."

Ah, the hypocrisy of Islam. They mount no protest against say, killing of Thai people in the south, but would rise up in arms if their own were treated in this manner.

[simple1]

"How do you propose to 'remove' about 1.8 million people in breach of the Thai Constiution and traditional support from the highest institution in Thailand. Also don't think the remaining approx 5 million Thai Muslims would be very impressed."

Ah, the hypocrisy of Islam. They mount no protest against say, killing of Thai people in the south, but would rise up in arms if their own were treated in this manner.

Did you publically protest when staying in the deep South?

Did you actually engage in conversation with the local Muslim community, what did they say to you about the insurgency.

Do you support ethnic cleansing?

Should the Thai Consitution be changed to remove protection for the Thai Muslim community etc etc

Rather than trite replies, have a conversation...

Edited August 18, 2014 by simple1

[doctorproc156]

Do you know a predominantly Muslim country that allows some power to minorities?

Malaysia and Indonesia does to a certain extent, they have secular constitutions and the 8 /10 of the richest businessmen in malaysia aren't muslims. But in practice the muslims have a lot of political power

[ozsamurai]

[squarethecircle]

"Did you publically protest when staying in the deep South?"

No I don't get involved in foreign countries' internal affairs. Also didn't give any public speeches about free thought and skeptical thinking.

"Did you actually engage in conversation with the local Muslim community, what did they say to you about the insurgency."

Most seemed generally friendly as, a few said they had no idea who was behind the bombing and said it was about money, a few (or quite a few) are fanatical just as in the case of Malaysia, yes the current Islamization of these countries is a case study in the worst side of religion. There are a good number of solid English speakers in the deep South, some Thai authorities and some local Muslims who have studied abroad in countries like Malaysia, Pakistan and the ME. Most of the latter I met seemed all right but that system of study abroad is already known to have been abused for bad purposes.

I never brought up the subject of the war except when explicitly asked, like "aren't you afraid of the bombs" (no)

"Do you support ethnic cleansing?"

Only ethnic cleansing I'm aware of is against the local Thais/"kaffirs", so the question should be "Do you support ethnic cleansing?"

"Should the Thai Consitution be changed to remove protection for the Thai Muslim community etc etc"

Should the Holy Book be modified so that it makes itself clear that it is one religion among many, it is not in the business of mortals to exact divine justice (such as killing infidels), etc.?