Britain didn't give the southernmost states to the thais.

[ultimate weapon]

I don't know why so many people here keep on saying this when it's plain obvious it's the thais that relinquished states further south from today's southernmost states that is states that constitute malaysia today to the british and they got to keep yala, pattani etc.

Seriously it shows an ignorance and a lack of reading skill.

Let's read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_1909

The Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 or Bangkok Treaty of 1909 was a treaty between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Siam signed on March 10, 1909, in Bangkok.^[1] Ratifications were exchanged in London on July 9, 1909.^[2]

The agreement effectively divided the northern Malay states into two parts. The area around modern Pattani (Malay: ڤتنا (Patani)), Narathiwat (Malay: منارة (Menara)), southernmost Songkhla (Malay: سيڠڬورا (Singgora)), Satun (Malay: مقيم ستل (Mukim Setul)) and Yala (Malay: جال (Jala)) remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah (Thai: ไทรบุรี (Saiburi)), Kelantan (Thai: กลันตัน (Kalantan)), Perlis (Thai: ปะลิส (Palit)) and Terengganu (Thai: ตรังกานู (Trangkanu)) which integrated the British sphere of influence as protectorates

Guys please read those 2 words that i have highlighted.

If something remains under the control of someone else it means that he has already controlled that something prior to it.

Relinquishing something means he's giving up control of the land to the other party.

What this means that thailand gave up a number of states to the brits in 1909.

Yet what is the popular intepretation of the southern states here?

Everytime you read about some bombing incident somebody will mention this treaty but misintepretate it.

That person will say brits gave the states of yala, satun, pattani etc to thailand when this isn't the case because thailand had already controlled that area for hundreds of years prior to this treaty. In fact this treaty meant that thailand gave up land instead of being given land. There's a big difference.

I don't know why people always say that this treaty was what caused those southern states to be under thai control. I guess it makes it easier to blame the thais rather than the terrorists. 1909 is already the early 20th century and taking over the land of the natives was becoming passe since many nations would declare independence just a number of years later in the mid 1900s.

The southernmost states have been under thai rule for a significant long amount of time and prior to 1909 they were obviously under thai rule that is they were a part of thailand.

I swear you will see someone mention this treaty and interpret it wrongly saying that the brits gave yala, satun, pattani to the thais in 1909 whenever a terrorist story shows up.

If you see that please show them this post and the link to the anglo siamese treaty in wiki and teach them how to read how to understand the words remain and to relinquish something.

[Stocky]

Well it did in that the Pattani states remained part of a primarily Buddhist country rather than becoming part of a primarily Muslim country.

[ultimate weapon]

The fact of the matter is that these southern states have been thai for a very long time not since the beginning of the 20th century.

[Seastallion]

Why the (historical) Malay names then?

Furthermore, I would suggest the Thai version of those place names are Thai versions of what Malays called them and the Malay names are not Malay versions of Thai names but the original names.

[grumbleweed]

While I bow to your obvious superior reading skills, perhaps you would care to enlighten the ignorant and illiterate amongst us, as to how exactly Thailand came to be in control of the disputed lands in the first place, or do you feel too uncomfortable going too far back in history.

[rajyindee]

"The southernmost states have been under thai rule for a significant long amount of time and prior to 1909 they were obviously under thai rule that is they were a part of thailand."

Sheesh! If you want to give folk a history lesson, in addition to getting your facts straight, you might at least try to get the country's name correct.

Didn't you post exactly the same information a couple of months ago?

Edited October 29, 2014 by rajyindee

[TPI]

Please read the history of the region! Thailand once controlled all of the Malay peninsular, including the island of singapore! They gave most of it up because it was too difficult to control.

Thailand (Siam) has been on the dirty end of the stick, land wise, for over a hundred years! The British and the French stole the land under one pretext or another....the French even stooped to "gunboat" diplomacy by putting a warship in the river opposite the palace and threatened to level it if the King didn't co-operate!!!

Why do you think that Rama V became such good friends with the Tzar? Everyone needs a good friend when you're being bullied!

[JusMe]

Aaah yes - another who thinks Wikipedia is the divine truth, not something written and/or edited by Thai oriented pseudo-historians.

Go ahead and try to make any correction, and see how fast it gets deleted.

Find sources other than Wiki, quote them with full reference, and then there might be something to discuss.

Edit: you might also like to differentiate between sovereignty and suzerainty.

Edited October 30, 2014 by JusMe

[ultimate weapon]

Why the (historical) Malay names then?

Furthermore, I would suggest the Thai version of those place names are Thai versions of what Malays called them and the Malay names are not Malay versions of Thai names but the original names.

You ever heard of lands being conquered? Here's another hint to you. If you go to australia, USA, canada etc they have places with very funny sounding names that obviously don't sound anglo at all but are lands from people of another culture. EG australia has a place called wogoglgo or something like that yet the point is those lands are still part of farang controlled areas and are not seperate sovereign states. This occurs the world over. Take the capital of turkey for example. Does it have another name or was it always instanbul? It used to be part of the holy roman empire but today it's under muslim rule. Do you think turkey should return those lands to greece? The fact of the matter is those southern states have been under thai rule for over 200 years and that is a long time.

While I bow to your obvious superior reading skills, perhaps you would care to enlighten the ignorant and illiterate amongst us, as to how exactly Thailand came to be in control of the disputed lands in the first place, or do you feel too uncomfortable going too far back in history.

Oh no problem. They came to be in control of them due to conquest. It's as simple as that. Take the western part of the country of turkey. How did it come to be part of the ottoman empire and then part of modern day turkey? Via conquest. If you cannot hold unto the lands then it won't be yours. Period. The fact of the matter is those malay lands just couldn't defend themselves against the siamese kingdom. Therefore they become a part of thailand. Do take note that occured many hundreds of years back. Your way of questioning me is like me asking you how do you think the europeans came to be in control of such a vast expanse of land in north america.

;b++){var>

[ultimate weapon]

Please read the history of the region! Thailand once controlled all of the Malay peninsular, including the island of singapore! They gave most of it up because it was too difficult to control.

Thailand (Siam) has been on the dirty end of the stick, land wise, for over a hundred years! The British and the French stole the land under one pretext or another....the French even stooped to "gunboat" diplomacy by putting a warship in the river opposite the palace and threatened to level it if the King didn't co-operate!!!




Cos of european interference. That's why they gave up the southern and middle portion of the malay states.

Aaah yes - another who thinks Wikipedia is the divine truth, not something written and/or edited by Thai oriented pseudo-historians.

Go ahead and try to make any correction, and see how fast it gets deleted.

Find sources other than Wiki, quote them with full reference, and then there might be something to discuss.


Edit: you might also like to differentiate between sovereignty and suzerainty.

So you mean to tell me the wiki article was actually written by some thai psuedo historian and the fact of the matter is it was the brits that gave the southern thai states to the thais in 1909? Do you have the evidence for this? Mind you there was an earlier treaty i think it's called the burney treaty which the uk respected the thais control over most of the malay peninsula. So that's false and written by some pro thai historian? Can you then show that the information i provided is false? Do you have any more "credible" links? Suffice to say no if not you would have posted them but still you needed to come up with some bs like questioning the credibility of wikipedia and trying to make it look like quoting from there isn't good enough. Mind you wikipedia is a good source unless it's on current topics which are likely to have mulitple intepretations and changing information. They still hold a lot of valuable information that is true in terms of science, technology and history. Also the staff working at wikipedia are all westerner people i don't think they have any thai staff. Do you mean to say that somehow the western staff was bias in favor of thai history rather than malay history and decided to falsely write that thailand had already subjugated the malay states for hundreds of years?

sovereignty and suzerainty have no relevance here because this is to dismiss the constant postings by some forum members who always claim the southern states was given to thailand by the british in 1909 when it was the thais that gave up some of their land to the british.

[grumbleweed]

The diiference between Istanbul and the disputed states of Southern Thialand is that you don't see too many Byzantineans demanding their land back

.

Thailand has colonized the southern states and supressed the people. While the UK granted independance to the countries it colonised (India, and a whole host of African countries) Thailand still lives in the past. Britain took control of the rest of Malaysia and allowed Thailand to keep the disputed states only as a sweetener. Eventually Malaysia fought for and won its rightful independence from the UK.

Similarly Loas was taken from Thailand by the French, who also abandoned colonialism and granted them independence. Even Russia has realized the error of their ways. Leaving Thailand firmly entombed in the colonial ways of the past Using your logic, Thailand should belong to Japan, afterall didn't they conquer Thailand? Or does Thai history differ once more from the facts.

And by the way: use wikipeadia as a source of information would get you laughed out of any university of note

[Stocky]

Thailand once controlled all of the Malay peninsular, including the island of Singapore!

No it didn't!

[ultimate weapon]

The diiference between Istanbul and the disputed states of Southern Thialand is that you don't see too many Byzantineans demanding their land back

.

Thailand has colonized the southern states and supressed the people. While the UK granted independance to the countries it colonised (India, and a whole host of African countries) Thailand still lives in the past. Britain took control of the rest of Malaysia and allowed Thailand to keep the disputed states only as a sweetener. Eventually Malaysia fought for and won its rightful independence from the UK.

Similarly Loas was taken from Thailand by the French, who also abandoned colonialism and granted them independence. Even Russia has realized the error of their ways. Leaving Thailand firmly entombed in the colonial ways of the past Using your logic, Thailand should belong to Japan, afterall didn't they conquer Thailand? Or does Thai history differ once more from the facts.

And by the way: use wikipeadia as a source of information would get you laughed out of any university of note

what a laugh you are. How do you know the byzantines whom aren't called that today don't want to be free again? Oh that's right they were all killed off and you don't know because you don't live there nor do you know their opinion you just made it up it's the same with the opinions of the people living in the southernmost states. The terrorists don't represent the people living there. Nobody even knows what they want exactly and where they even come from. They could have come from malaysia.

Also using russia as an example is so laughable. The russia that took over the black sea region of the ukraine. The russia that still refuses to grant independence to Chechnya. You really are a joke.

Also wikipedia is a good source of information. But in this case you're going out of topic. You're not even refuting the points i have made which is the siamese kingdom took over those malay states for a long time and britain didn't give it to them. Could you post from a more "legit" source then and prove me wrong? No you cannot because suffice to say i am correct here.

In your example of using thailand being under japan it's stupid because thailand didn't get occupied by japan at all but let's say that was the case then yes thailand would still be under japan. Want to know why they aren't under japanese rule today? Because japan lost the war and was forced to give up the land.

What a joke you are talking about things from a moralistic standpoint. You're trying to imply that the west gave up their colonies willingly because they suddenly realized the error of their ways and thought the people of those lands deserved their freedom. Wrong. The UK couldn't control their colonies anymore. They had to give it up. Now let's assume suppose they wanted to give them up willingly there wouldn't be a gandhi would there? He wouldn't need to come up to call for independence would he? Same as che guavara in the americas.

That's the problem with western people. Hypocrites. Forced to give up their colonies cos they just couldn't control them anymore due to WW2 and the natives fighting them so decides to "grant" them independence instead of just admitting the truth. Same as america's invastion of middle eastern nations on the pretext of giving the people freedom instead of admitting they want their oil or to control their banking system and to force them to adopt the petrol dollar system.

Anyway malaysia isn't a very good country. Take east malaysia for example. Do you know the citizens of sarawak and sabah who are different ethnic groups from the west malaysians suffer due to unequal treatment. Their lands resources are diverted to the western part. It's the same with indonesia. West papua is still under their control and the west papuans are totally different from indonesians in terms of culture, religion, genetics and even physical appearance because they look negro like.

At the end of the day those southern states of thailand have been occupied by the thais themselves and were not given to them by the brits and the brits actually took land from them.

[grumbleweed]

"That's the problem with western people. Hypocrites."

Educated hypocrites dear boy. Your debating skills are a joke. You may consider yourself educated, however the western hypocrites you so fondly refer to us as, would beg to differ.

I'm not going to enter into another argument concerning educated debates with someone of such obvious limited mental capacity as yourself. I will refrain from calling you a retard from fear of upsetting genuine retards.

Please come back when you've grown up.

[ultimate weapon]

"That's the problem with western people. Hypocrites."

Educated hypocrites dear boy. Your debating skills are a joke. You may consider yourself educated, however the western hypocrites you so fondly refer to us as, would beg to differ.

I'm not going to enter into another argument concerning educated debates with someone of such obvious limited mental capacity as yourself. I will refrain from calling you a retard from fear of upsetting genuine retards.

Please come back when you've grown up.

when one engages in personal insults it shows that he has lost the plot no comeback but doesn't have the balls to admit it.

Btw i love the way you use "educated hypocrites" which means that you admit you are one. Calling yourself educated doesn't make your hypocrisy any less fyi.

Also learn how to read the title of a thread. Did UK give those states to thailand?

[JusMe]

I'm not going to enter into another argument concerning educated debates with someone of such obvious limited mental capacity as yourself. I will refrain from calling you a retard from fear of upsetting genuine retards.

Please come back when you've grown up.

Agreed. I saw that a while back and figured there was little point in trying to add anything informative to the head that's blocked, i.e blockhead.

[rajyindee]

Also learn how to read the title of a thread. Did UK give those states to thailand?

Your claim in the OP was that prior to 1909 the southernmost provinces were part of Thailand. They weren't.

"The southernmost states have been under thai rule for a significant long amount of time and prior to 1909 they were obviously under thai rule that is they were a part of thailand"

By post 13, you were claiming they were "occupied" by Thailand. Make up your mind. That's the problem when you read Wiki and then ignore the references.

At the end of the day those southern states of thailand have been occupied by the thais themselves ...

Edited November 14, 2014 by rajyindee

[Amr]

Hi there, first of all, i was really pulled to this thread in a try to learn something new - History - but found that the discussion was diverted to personal insult which really demolished the goodness of such a thread but any way ... Wiki is not a reliable source of information when it comes to real hardcore history, you need to read heavyweight historian books to realy figure out what has happened back then. I once read about the south but this was when i was abroad in a business trip away from the thai censorship on such topics. So next time you talk about the south, please post the reference to what you are posting here L & G. And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation. Been living here in the south since 2000. You need to get closer to the southern people here and listen to their part of the story, your prospective about the south history and what has happened back then would diffenetly change. Sorry for my poor english skills.

[ultimate weapon]

Also learn how to read the title of a thread. Did UK give those states to thailand?

Your claim in the OP was that prior to 1909 the southernmost provinces were part of Thailand. They weren't.

"The southernmost states have been under thai rule for a significant long amount of time and prior to 1909 they were obviously under thai rule that is they were a part of thailand"

By post 13, you were claiming they were "occupied" by Thailand. Make up your mind. That's the problem when you read Wiki and then ignore the references.

At the end of the day those southern states of thailand have been occupied by the thais themselves ...

in post 13 i meant occupied in the early 1700s more than 200 years. of course thais were know as siamese back then so pls dont use some cheap bs technicality.

you mean to tell me prior to 1909 they were independent and not under thai/siamese rule?

proof pls and not from your ass.

[ultimate weapon]

Hi there, first of all, i was really pulled to this thread in a try to learn something new - History - but found that the discussion was diverted to personal insult which really demolished the goodness of such a thread but any way ... Wiki is not a reliable source of information when it comes to real hardcore history, you need to read heavyweight historian books to realy figure out what has happened back then. I once read about the south but this was when i was abroad in a business trip away from the thai censorship on such topics. So next time you talk about the south, please post the reference to what you are posting here L & G. And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation. Been living here in the south since 2000. You need to get closer to the southern people here and listen to their part of the story, your prospective about the south history and what has happened back then would diffenetly change. Sorry for my poor english skills.

can such history books be found online? Can a more "legit" website on this topic be linked here and its contents be posted?

You see someone earlier had mentioned the same thing.

Ok fine. Wiki isn't legit. Fine. So could you post the link to a more credible source and post the information there to counter what wiki has on this subject? That was what i asked. Nothing. He couldn't post a more credible source. All he did was rant wiki is fake. Wiki isn't credible BUT had no other source to disprove the information from wiki. I mean what a laugh riot that is. It's almost like a reflex action with these guys.

The minute someone posts something from wiki they'll just claim wiki isn't credible but they don't have any source to prove their point. Like they can simply make stuff up from their ass and prove that wikipedia information is wrong. It's actually quite disgusting.

It's in my OP. Hope you read my OP before commenting but i guess i'll need to repeat it again for like maybe the 20th time.

My post is the southernmost states of thailand have already been under thai control at that time they were called siam (cos some ppl want to take advantage of this technicality cos when i wrote thai rule i mean siam). This was before 1909. It's like more than 200 years since they have been under thai rule so they are thai.

The issue some people have is they want to spread misinformation that the british gave those states to the thais in 1909 which is fairly recent. They want to give the impression that it was due to western colonial mismanagement that a supposed free land was thus passed on for the siamese to control which is absolutely wrong. The land was already a part of siam. In fact the siamese gave up the middle half of present day malaysia to the british in 1909.

So can anyone prove that i am wrong that prior to 1909 the southern thais states were actually free. Comeon post from a more "credible" source.

I doubt it instead there will be more name calling, subjects changed talking about morality of "freedoms" that type of shtick or on nit picking like technicalities like calling siamese thais which doesn't change the argument at all.

[grumbleweed]

Hi there, first of all, i was really pulled to this thread in a try to learn something new - History - but found that the discussion was diverted to personal insult which really demolished the goodness of such a thread but any way ... Wiki is not a reliable source of information when it comes to real hardcore history, you need to read heavyweight historian books to realy figure out what has happened back then. I once read about the south but this was when i was abroad in a business trip away from the thai censorship on such topics. So next time you talk about the south, please post the reference to what you are posting here L & G. And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation. Been living here in the south since 2000. You need to get closer to the southern people here and listen to their part of the story, your prospective about the south history and what has happened back then would diffenetly change. Sorry for my poor english skills.

A little condescending aren't we? 555 as far as I am aware only 1 person on this thread is extoling the virtues of wiki. I agree with you 100% on this issue. but............

Instead of telling us what we should read, and where we should go, why not give us the benefit of your experiences, I, as a sympathizer of the southern people, would be interested to learn of your experiences and hear your opinions..

" And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation"

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point, Japan did a very good job of controlling Thailand in the second world war. Although forgive me if you are referring to earlier history

. "Sorry for my poor english skills." . For a non native speaker, your English is excellent, better than many native speakers. I had no problem understanding you

Kind regards

G

[grumbleweed]

Against my better judgement I will engage him one more time

I am not aware of anyone saying that Britain gave the southern states to Thailand.

What they did do was allow Thailand to keep them while taking the rest of Malaysia off them. This fact barely needs referencing because outside of Thailand it is common knowledge.

Maybe the problem lies in your wording. By replacing 'allowed to keep" witth "given" you are creating a straw man argument

If this is your only argument for denying The Southern states full autonomy, if that is what you are attempting, then you have a very poor case indeed.

Regards G

Edited November 17, 2014 by grumbleweed

[JusMe]

" And yes, Thailand never been invaded nor controlled by any other nation"

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point, Japan did a very good job of controlling Thailand in the second world war. Although forgive me if you are referring to earlier history

Pibunsongkhram and his government remained in full and complete control if Thailand during the time the Japanese were permitted to cross Thailand in order to invade Burma and Malaya. The police and all military remained completely armed and effective and independent - they were not controlled by the Japanese.

If you want to find a time when Thailand (Siam) was invaded, go back to the cross Asia wars between Burma, Siam, Khmer, and Vietnamese.

[A1Str8]

It didn't need to give it since it has never belonged to it in the first place.

[ultimate weapon]

Against my better judgement I will engage him one more time

I am not aware of anyone saying that Britain gave the southern states to Thailand.

What they did do was allow Thailand to keep them while taking the rest of Malaysia off them. This fact barely needs referencing because outside of Thailand it is common knowledge.

Maybe the problem lies in your wording. By replacing 'allowed to keep" witth "given" you are creating a straw man argument

If this is your only argument for denying The Southern states full autonomy, if that is what you are attempting, then you have a very poor case indeed.

Regards G

You see you actually agree with my argument.

Allow to keep them. This implies that thailand/siam already controlled those southern states.

The key issue here is the year 1902 that is often used wrongly. Alot of you claim hey somehow the UK was instrumental in giving siam those southern thai states but this isn't so. They already controlled them prior to that treaty.

[ultimate weapon]

Here's one more treaty. Read up on the burney treaty signed in the 1826. This treaty was the agreement between britain and siam to keep the 4 malay states in present day malaysia. This is important. This shows that the states of pattani, yala etc were already under siamese control before that that was why they were going further down south to control the 4 malay states in present day malaysia.

It was only in 1902 the anglo siamese treaty that caused the siamese to give up those 4 states but the issue at hand is never on the present day southern most thai states which were already effectively under siamese control before 1826.

You see the key issue here is people always posting about the anglo siamese treaty of 1902 and by that period of time the concept of nationhood was about to be formented not only in siam but other countries the world over. Once the west was forced to give up their colonies these countries gained their independence by forging on the modern day concept of nationhood.

This is a play on semantics. Nationhood. Perhaps say in the early 20th century the concept of nationhood could not really apply to lord know the majority of countries the world over. It couldn't even apply to certain european nations because if i am sure nations like italy, germany only formed their national boundaries pretty late compared to say countries like britain.

There is a problem with this. It just conveys a false impression to outsiders.

As you should know many modern countries today get their boundaries from their old kingdoms. One example russia. After the ussr broke up how are the boundaries of russia determined? From how their tsars ruled the land in the past. It's the same with china. During the qing dysnasty. Tibet is a part of the qing dynasty. Naturally tibet belongs to the modern republic of china.

Now back to the issue here. The southern most states were already under siamese rule even prior to 1826 the burney treaty was an agreement on the 4 present day malaysian states south of the 4 southern thai states which proves the 4 southern thai states of today were well a part of the siamese kingdom.

Then comes 1902 which is the anglo siamese treaty. The brits wanted the 4 malay states. The siamese agreed and hence the border was drawn that exists today between malaysia and thailand. Now use some common sense you mean that prior to 1902 the states of pattani, yala and the other 2 were independent and come 1902 they suddenly became a part of siam and later thailand? Of course not. They were already a part of the siamese kingdom prior to that in fact before 1826. Maybe at that period of time you couldn't call siam a nation in the modern context but that's just a play on words but it's very misleading. They were a part of the siamese kingdom for more than 100 years during the signing of the 1902 treaty now saying that they are officially a part of the nation of thailand that doesn't change anything does it?

[grumbleweed]

Against my better judgement I will engage him one more time

I am not aware of anyone saying that Britain gave the southern states to Thailand.

What they did do was allow Thailand to keep them while taking the rest of Malaysia off them. This fact barely needs referencing because outside of Thailand it is common knowledge.

Maybe the problem lies in your wording. By replacing 'allowed to keep" witth "given" you are creating a straw man argument

If this is your only argument for denying The Southern states full autonomy, if that is what you are attempting, then you have a very poor case indeed.

Regards G

You see you actually agree with my argument.

Allow to keep them. This implies that thailand/siam already controlled those southern states.

The key issue here is the year 1902 that is often used wrongly. Alot of you claim hey somehow the UK was instrumental in giving siam those southern thai states but this isn't so. They already controlled them prior to that treaty.

Agree with you? Only in the sense that Thailand occupied the southern states, although I dsipute the legailty of the occupation. YES! Thailand already occupied the land, no one disputes that, you are pulling arguments out of thin air, but in the opinion of many, it had done so illegally. This is where the crux of the matter lies.

No where have I read that the UK gave the states to Thailand which is the title of this thread. No one is saying the UK gave Thailand the states. It is a strawman argument created by you in what appears to be an attempt to justify the Thai occupation.

What you and I think is, or should be irrellavent. It should be left to the people of the occupied lands to have the final say: How do they feel? It is not easy to get their opinion because of the way the press is controlled. Essentially these people have no voice, they are simply labelled Muslim terrorists, when they could quite easily be termed as freedom fighters.

A determining factor of exactly when occpied lands become legitimate territory would be when the people have become totally assimilated. If this doesn't happen in over 200 years, it would be quite safe to assume that its not going to happen at all. One way to find out is to hold a referendum, or is Thailand too afraid of once again losing face on the international stage?

Regards G

Edited November 17, 2014 by grumbleweed

[IMA_FARANG]

I never said otherwise.

In fact that treaty in 1900 dropped all Thai claims in other areas of Malaysia as you correctly stated..

In return the British agreed to not contest the Thai claims to that area which are now those Thai Moslem

provinces.

The important part is that for a period the Thais allowed a parallel joint administrative system in which the Moslems were allowed a lot of autonomy in governmental authority by the Thais.

They were allowed separate Muslim schools, for example.

This kept those areas relatively peaceful.

In the 1930's,aThai military government with more Thai nationalist attitude began to remove those parallel administrative structures.

This hardening of the Thai nationalist attitude, was resented by the Moslem majority in those area.

This began the Moslem resentment of Thai control, which ultimately to the formation of a Moslem resistance to Thai control.

I am NOT saying they were right to resent the Thai control,I'm just saying that is how the problems began.

And I am certainly NOT ignoring the escalation of the problem from OUTSIDE, of the area in later times by non-residents from other Moslem areas.

(Indonesia and Malaysia come to mind here).

I'm just saying that with a more enlightened attitude, the problems could have possibly been eliminated already.

But that's just history.

The chance for a peaceful settlement went by, with both sides not taking that chance...... and what they have now is the result.

For both sides.

I guess everyone has topay the price for past mistakes.

[rajyindee]

in post 13 i meant occupied in the early 1700s more than 200 years. of course thais were know as siamese back then so pls dont use some cheap bs technicality.

you mean to tell me prior to 1909 they were independent and not under thai/siamese rule?

proof pls and not from your ass.

I mean exactly what I wrote. They were not part of Thailand, as you claimed. What's so difficult to understand?

You see the key issue here is people always posting about the anglo siamese treaty of 1902

People? Who, exactly? The only person who has mentioned it on this forum is your good self.

Edited November 17, 2014 by rajyindee

[ultimate weapon]

Against my better judgement I will engage him one more time

I am not aware of anyone saying that Britain gave the southern states to Thailand.

What they did do was allow Thailand to keep them while taking the rest of Malaysia off them. This fact barely needs referencing because outside of Thailand it is common knowledge.

Maybe the problem lies in your wording. By replacing 'allowed to keep" witth "given" you are creating a straw man argument

If this is your only argument for denying The Southern states full autonomy, if that is what you are attempting, then you have a very poor case indeed.

Regards G

You see you actually agree with my argument.

Allow to keep them. This implies that thailand/siam already controlled those southern states.

The key issue here is the year 1902 that is often used wrongly. Alot of you claim hey somehow the UK was instrumental in giving siam those southern thai states but this isn't so. They already controlled them prior to that treaty.

Agree with you? Only in the sense that Thailand occupied the southern states, although I dsipute the legailty of the occupation. YES! Thailand already occupied the land, no one disputes that, you are pulling arguments out of thin air, but in the opinion of many, it had done so illegally. This is where the crux of the matter lies.

No where have I read that the UK gave the states to Thailand which is the title of this thread. No one is saying the UK gave Thailand the states. It is a strawman argument created by you in what appears to be an attempt to justify the Thai occupation.

What you and I think is, or should be irrellavent. It should be left to the people of the occupied lands to have the final say: How do they feel? It is not easy to get their opinion because of the way the press is controlled. Essentially these people have no voice, they are simply labelled Muslim terrorists, when they could quite easily be termed as freedom fighters.

A determining factor of exactly when occpied lands become legitimate territory would be when the people have become totally assimilated. If this doesn't happen in over 200 years, it would be quite safe to assume that its not going to happen at all. One way to find out is to hold a referendum, or is Thailand too afraid of once again losing face on the international stage?

Regards G

Oh of course no one wants to have their lands occupied but it's a fact no?

Ask the native indians or the aboriginals about that.

My whole point is that it wasn't just in 1902 that the thais occupied those lands. Those lands already belonged to them more than a 100 years back that's why the burney treaty was signed regarding land further south.

The impression has all along been. Oh so those thais took over that land in 1902 prior to that it was free. No it was not. They were already a part of thailand aka siam.