How Many Innocent Bodies Die For 'face' Of A Few

[Gonzo the Face]

Sometimes one has to wonder at the 'pig-headed-ness' of certain people or groups of people

Here is a link to a Bangkok Post 'Breaking News' article of this morning.

Thoughts flash into my mind.

* Almost every day people are dying in Thailand's South, innocent people.

* The Big Cats, the top politicos, do nothing that may remove them from their comfy seats in Bkk

* The Interior Minister sez "The government will take care of it"

* The current program has not worked in the past 5 years, rather, it has made things worse.

* Government sez "My way or the Highway" [Obviously graduates of the George W Bush Univ.

School of Lower Education]

* To this government "FACE RULES", after all the dead are not close to me or mine

* Cudos to the good General, for wanting dialogue

* and to the Honorable [?] Minister ..... enough with your type diplomacy.....

"If you want to have peace, talk with your enemies not your friends"

http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=112678

OMHO Gonzo

[sriracha john]

Very good points all around, Gonzo... adding in The Nation's article on the issue:

Interior Minister condemns Army Chief's peace move

Political and Army hard-liners yesterday shot down an idea floated by Army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin to establish dialogue with key militants in the South, saying the government would not talk to separatists.

Interior Minister Kongsak Wantana said his government had no policy to negotiate with any movement. Making a veiled reference to the exiled Pattani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo), which had greeted the proposal for dialogue, Kongsak said those who have responded to Sonthi's idea have nothing to do with the situation in the South but are only seeking to raise their status. The Army chief had floated the idea last week to explore the possibility of talking to the head of the militants despite there being no clear idea of who was really behind the violence, which has killed some 1,400 people since the beginning of 2004.

Sonthi reaffirmed his idea yesterday, before departing to accompany HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn in the deep south, that negotiation and reconciliation are the priority for ending unrest in the region.

On Saturday, Sweden-based separatist group Pulo's foreign affairs chief Kasturi Mahkota said in a statement: "Pulo stands firmly by its principle that the Pattani issue can be solved through negotiations provided there is sincere commitment from the government in handling the problem-solving process."

Kongsak said violence in the deep south is a domestic affair with which an organisation based abroad should not be involved. "There will be no negotiations as we don't recognise [any separatists]," he told reporters.

Narathiwat provincial Governor Pracha Therat said holding negotiations would automatically mean recognising the separatist groups and that would open the chance for the exiled organisations to internationalise Thailand's domestic issue for their own political gain.

"We should not go that way as these groups want such recognition. The problems in the deep south are not all about the separatists ... there are many other factors involved," Pracha said.

The militants behind the unrest belong to many groups and they have different strategies and tactics, and the government cannot include all of them. He said the majority of the Muslim Malay local residents have never subscribed to separatism and are happy with Thailand. Only a small group was creating the troubles, he said.

A member of the now-defunct National Reconciliation Commission, Prasith Meksuwan, said the government should admit to the existence of separatists who have been created by historical factors.

- The Nation

----------------------------------

Meanwhile the death toll climbs higher and higher, surpassing the figures commonly given:

Death toll in South tops 1,700

Published on Sep 4, 2006

The death toll in the protracted deep-South insurgency has topped 1,700, according to a local scholar.

The increased use of explosives since mid-2005 had led to the rising body count, he said.

"Over the past 32 months, 1,730 people have lost their lives and 2,513 people have been injured.

"Altogether, 4,243 have been physically affected by the violence," Asst Prof Srisomphop Chitpiromsri said yesterday.

Srisomphop is deputy dean of the research and community development faculty of political science at Songkhla Nakarin University's Pattani campus.

- The Nation

[Scott]

The situation in the South is certainly a tragic one. Insurgencies tend to have a life of their own; there is little that can be done to stop it. It's really a no-win situation for the gov't. Gov't's that talk to them are accused of being weak, those that don't are accused of using strong-arm tactics. In fact nobody has ever had much luck in stopping these things once they get started. They tend to have a life of their own.

What does seem to work is time. Over a long enough period of time (I think the historical average is around 7 years), they tend to die out on their own.

The trick, and the mistake that was originally made, was letting it get started. Care, caution and respect could have prevented the mess. Now, unfortunately, very little if anything can be done to stop it.

Care does need to be taken since even if you can't stop it, you can escalate it easily.

[Donz]

The situation in the South is certainly a tragic one. Insurgencies tend to have a life of their own; there is little that can be done to stop it. It's really a no-win situation for the gov't. Gov't's that talk to them are accused of being weak, those that don't are accused of using strong-arm tactics. In fact nobody has ever had much luck in stopping these things once they get started. They tend to have a life of their own.

What does seem to work is time. Over a long enough period of time (I think the historical average is around 7 years), they tend to die out on their own.

The trick, and the mistake that was originally made, was letting it get started. Care, caution and respect could have prevented the mess. Now, unfortunately, very little if anything can be done to stop it.

Care does need to be taken since even if you can't stop it, you can escalate it easily.

Thats pretty much right, if the government got really aggressive with it then there will just be more bloodshed. look at lebanon and israel as a prime example

[Losangels]

I think what General Sodthi said a couple of days ago was that to allow the military freedom to resolve the crisis in the South. He mentioned that political influence from this administration is damaging the operations. I believe that by Sodthi talking directly to the insurgents to hear what they have to say will lessen the violence and that some type of negotiation is necessary.

[GracelessFawn]

Govenments face difficult dicisions. Sometimes, they have to choose between WAR and PEACE.

War could mean a lot of deaths by the "enemies of the state" or civilians. It could create more hatred, more opositions, and more problems. But sometimes, war is useful. In some cases, it's the most "lethal and strongest way" to get important POINTS across. Sometimes, it's also the only available choice left for the government to execute inorder to save its citizens and "get rid of the enemies" who are constantly trying to inflect pain or create trouble.

Peace on the other hand, could mean "a false sense of security for everybody, putting everything under the rug, but not necessarily fixing the problems." In situations like these, most governments fall into the trap of waging wars to fix the problem, instead of opting for "peaceful and win-win solutions. But who could blame them?

[steveromagnino]

Previuosly there was an unspoken agreement between the army, Democrats and the insurgents, that they would let off a few bombs, create slight mischief and the govt would leave them be. The 3rd army I think do their own things down there, and it was all ok.

AFAIK.

THe TRT Govt sought to remove any influence of the army (and thus the Privy council) or the Democrats by moving control to the TRT controlled police, and also to remove the power of the 3rd army (it might be the 4th, either 3rd or 4th).

Their martial law approach has been inept, heavy handed and in conjunction with the rise of Islamic power worldwide, it is now at a point where it is almost impossible to easily fix. The influence of wise men in BKK has led to K. Annan being sent down there, but if TRT ignore everything he says, then where is that going to get us?

I am not sure that TRT wants peace down there; by inference problems in the south create needs for strong leadership, and also that is Democrat country down there.

I am also not sure Taksin or his family have the skills to fix what is broken there. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FACE IMho.

[h90]

Govenments face difficult dicisions. Sometimes, they have to choose between WAR and PEACE.

War could mean a lot of deaths by the "enemies of the state" or civilians. It could create more hatred, more opositions, and more problems. But sometimes, war is useful. In some cases, it's the most "lethal and strongest way" to get important POINTS across. Sometimes, it's also the only available choice left for the government to execute inorder to save its citizens and "get rid of the enemies" who are constantly trying to inflect pain or create trouble.

Peace on the other hand, could mean "a false sense of security for everybody, putting everything under the rug, but not necessarily fixing the problems." In situations like these, most governments fall into the trap of waging wars to fix the problem, instead of opting for "peaceful and win-win solutions. But who could blame them?

no war is always the wrong way and if a country causes dead civilians, than we are over the border, who can decide who are the bad one and who are the good ones if both are killing inocent.

That leads in a short time to that that local people see the terrorists as protection against the gouverments army.

As soon as a country accept dead civilians, it lost the war already (check history).

[GracelessFawn]

no war is always the wrong way and if a country causes dead civilians, than we are over the border, who can decide who are the bad one and who are the good ones if both are killing inocent.

That leads in a short time to that that local people see the terrorists as protection against the gouverments army.

As soon as a country accept dead civilians, it lost the war already (check history).

I personally think that war is evil, but whatever we say about war, the fact remains that war is inevitable! I am not here to qustion "the violent and disastrous nature of war and what it brings/does to humanity."

I don't question "war," but rather the motives of goverments who wage wars! Say whatever you want about "personal interest" and "hidden agendas" of certain governments, but if you look at history, some acts of war are justifiable and understandable.

It is human nature to push when pushed! (I think, these applis to governments as well.)

Edited September 5, 2006 by GracelessFawn

[womble]

Northern Ireland is an example of when dialogue can help improve a situation.

Sri Lanka is a good example of where dialogue helped for a brief period, but now all the good work is undone.

It's always good to know ones enemy, and the better you know your enemy the easier it is to try to find middle ground that is acceptible to both sides.

So dialogue is good in that you could learn exactly what your enemy wants (their main goals), if you can't agree to all demands then you have to let it be known what you can agree to, maybe you can through negotiation come to a settlement that is whilst not perfect, acceptable to both parties.

If dialogue fails, well atleast you tried, you now know exactly what it is they want and can at least try to help with improving certain things that are acceptable to you and the local populous as a whole.

A very important part here is to understand exactly what the poulation of the three southernmost provinces want. By giving into demands that are also popular with the people you get them on your side. If certain demands are not popular with the people then ignore those demands as some of the terrorists demands may not reflect local opinion.

With people on your side the terrorists are weakened. They will start helping the state as they see terrorists as a threat to their new found importance.

Investment in the area could really help, especially in infrastructure and industies that will benefit the local people. If you start to improve their lives they will see that they matter to central government, if that isn't enough maybe a form of devolution could work (although highly unlikely from a nationlist thinking government and soveriegn nation population as a whole).

Know your enemy use dialogue.

Know your people, gadge public opinion and consult with the local population on all relavant matters.

[GracelessFawn]

Northern Ireland is an example of when dialogue can help improve a situation.

Sri Lanka is a good example of where dialogue helped for a brief period, but now all the good work is undone.

It's always good to know ones enemy, and the better you know your enemy the easier it is to try to find middle ground that is acceptible to both sides.

So dialogue is good in that you could learn exactly what your enemy wants (their main goals), if you can't agree to all demands then you have to let it be known what you can agree to, maybe you can through negotiation come to a settlement that is whilst not perfect, acceptable to both parties.

If dialogue fails, well atleast you tried, you now know exactly what it is they want and can at least try to help with improving certain things that are acceptable to you and the local populous as a whole.

A very important part here is to understand exactly what the poulation of the three southernmost provinces want. By giving into demands that are also popular with the people you get them on your side. If certain demands are not popular with the people then ignore those demands as some of the terrorists demands may not reflect local opinion.

With people on your side the terrorists are weakened. They will start helping the state as they see terrorists as a threat to their new found importance.

Investment in the area could really help, especially in infrastructure and industies that will benefit the local people. If you start to improve their lives they will see that they matter to central government, if that isn't enough maybe a form of devolution could work (although highly unlikely from a nationlist thinking government and soveriegn nation population as a whole).

Know your enemy use dialogue.

Know your people, gadge public opinion and consult with the local population on all relavant matters.

I agree with you, but we have to remember that some people "don't understand peace." It's simply in their culture not to listen to (chit chats) dialogues and negotiations. In order for you to get their attention, you have to engage them in a fight. You have to "be at war with them," fight them and beat them, before they listen. There are others people that even gets confused with peace!

[Gonzo the Face]

No amount of bullets, or bombs will kill a precept, a thought, a dream. Short of the total annihilation and the destruction of the planet.

Wasn't that a lesson that should have been learned by the West in the Vietnam war?

or by the IRA/UK

or by the Arab/Israeli's

The 'You hit me and I will hit you back harder' approach to the difficulties in the South of Thailand, in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places throughout the world will end up proving a couple things.

Who had more and bigger bombs.

Who had he most resources to last longer, etc

But it will solve nothing. Will prove nothing concrete, and will definitely not bring the two or more warring factions together, in any long lasting peace.

Let me make a simple analogy....

In and before the 1950's the children [for the most part] of the world were at peril of a very malicious and possibly fatal disease. That disease was Polio.

Nothing could be more heartbreaking to a parent than to see their 3,4,5 year old child , writhing in pain, crying , pleading with mommy and daddy to stop the pain, the hurt. The pain and heart break of the Doctor or the Nurse, standing by the pleading tear stained parents, and feeling I am a Doctor but I am helpless..... Yes, this was a war also, not a war on terrorism, but a war against a killer disease.

The best that medicine could do to fight back was sometimes to put this small child in what was called an "Iron Lung", a big ugly frightening machine to assist the child in breathing to extend the inevitable for a small length of time. But make no mistake about it .... It was no cure, no solution.

Let us for the sake of this thread , consider the Iron lung response as the same as what governments all over the world are doing today. Striking back at someone or some discipline that they feel has wronged them..... and just as the iron lung, it is no cure, no solution to the problem at hand.

Then in the mid 50's along comes a Dr. Jonas Salk, who created/invented/discovered, what came to be know as the polio vaccine.

This Dr. Salk saw that the iron lung procedure was just a reaction to a problem, not a solution, not a cure or solution. The cure and/or the solution would e harder to find, uncover, and cure.

BUT HE SOUGHT OUT A CURE..... and he found it. There was a universal, world wide cure for the cause not the effect of this war.

Today the people of the Southern provinces are not born hating the people of the north, any more than the Jews are born hating the Arabs of vice versa, or for that matter any terrorist or the reason they feel the need to strike out. This is a correctly or incorrectly learned trait.

An individual; a group of any sort; nor a country can find the cure , the answer for someone else's correct or incorrect understanding of a situation, without open minded talk, discussion, investigation by both sides.

Diplomacy seems to have evolved to a point where this simple basic premise cannot be utilized, because of arrogance, pomposity, assholiness or the possibility of loss of FACE. So instead it is better for the leaders to allow thousands of innocents die!!! Just so I don't show what others may perceive as weakness.

Be they right or wrong these are my feelings. My humble opinion. My apologies if I offended anyone, and now I step down from my soapbox and back to the cave.

Gonzo

[womble]

Northern Ireland is an example of when dialogue can help improve a situation.

Sri Lanka is a good example of where dialogue helped for a brief period, but now all the good work is undone.

It's always good to know ones enemy, and the better you know your enemy the easier it is to try to find middle ground that is acceptible to both sides.

So dialogue is good in that you could learn exactly what your enemy wants (their main goals), if you can't agree to all demands then you have to let it be known what you can agree to, maybe you can through negotiation come to a settlement that is whilst not perfect, acceptable to both parties.

If dialogue fails, well atleast you tried, you now know exactly what it is they want and can at least try to help with improving certain things that are acceptable to you and the local populous as a whole.

A very important part here is to understand exactly what the poulation of the three southernmost provinces want. By giving into demands that are also popular with the people you get them on your side. If certain demands are not popular with the people then ignore those demands as some of the terrorists demands may not reflect local opinion.

With people on your side the terrorists are weakened. They will start helping the state as they see terrorists as a threat to their new found importance.

Investment in the area could really help, especially in infrastructure and industies that will benefit the local people. If you start to improve their lives they will see that they matter to central government, if that isn't enough maybe a form of devolution could work (although highly unlikely from a nationlist thinking government and soveriegn nation population as a whole).

Know your enemy use dialogue.

Know your people, gadge public opinion and consult with the local population on all relavant matters.

I agree with you, but we have to remember that some people "don't understand peace." It's simply in their culture not to listen to (chit chats) dialogues and negotiations. In order for you to get their attention, you have to engage them in a fight. You have to "be at war with them," fight them and beat them, before they listen. There are others people that even gets confused with peace!

Thats extemely cynical, there is nearly always something behind the violence, an ideology, teritory or aim of some type. The violence is usually used to draw attention to those aims, specifically as in the south where whilst some incidents are lethal on the whole they are designed for impact as opposed to large scale loss of life.

There are few in this world who kill purely for fun, a group who go around killing for no reason other than to kill would not find many sympathisers from the mainstream population.

I personally think the killing in the south is being carried out to force the government to the table. By doing away with the previous local hierachy and putting implace people acceptable to central government they have taken away the people with the power and local respect to control subversive elements. This leaves the terrorists to run amok as there is no people with enough local respect and combined power to stop them.

Now the puppets from central government cannot control the situation, this is leading to it becoming increasingly ungovernable, it's entirely the governments own doing and more than lilkely the best solution to the crises is conceeding that thier system of control is not working and trying to go back to the old system, although this would never be acceptable as they want to be in control down there (even tho they arn't), they still call the shots.

This government will never solve the problem as they have no intention of making their oponents more powerful in the region.

Edited September 5, 2006 by womble

[Douggie Style]

Some excellent points all round,

[Sorry, but this forum is not for discussing International politics. There are other venues for this purpose on the Internet. /Meadish]

In regards to the south here:

There are few instances of successful military resolutions to terrorism; one recent one that comes to mind is Malaya where the hearts and minds campaign worked so successfully. In contrast the single faceted, unsophisticated approach of the present US regime is a failed policy rolling forward under its own inertia.

Can a policy of suppression work? In limited circumstances. It is not likely in Iraq where a large percentage of the population is young, male, culturally opposed to the occupying powers and supported by at least part of the populace. I do not know of the relative demographics in the south (others here would be more knowledgeable) but it would seem to be a similar situation. Further it is subject to relatively porous borders with neighbours increasingly more sympathetic. This is in reaction to the good guys/bad guys polarisation currently running its course in response to 9/11.

We are all human with the same aspirations which is a good basis to looking at the reasons behind terrorism.

PS: November (US elections) may not be a good time for Iran/mideast

Edited September 5, 2006 by meadish_sweetball

[PeaceBlondie]

I doubt that our problems in the south of Thailand have much in common with Israel and Hezbollah. Northern Ireland, perhaps.

Taking one thing that GracelessFawn suggested, out of its context, we know very little about peace, as a planet of 6 billion people. How many pacifists can you name? Or even, how many recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, several of whom were unrepentant terrorists and army generals? Did you know there are literally hundreds of university programs, in the West, for peace and justice programs, non-violent studies, conflict resolution, etc.? How many such programs in Thailand?

The military understands war, but hardly ever knows what peace is (or they might say simply "peace is the absence of war" as if it's' synonymous with "unemployment"). What Thai politician has studied peace, or is very experienced at it?

Some will say, "Oh may the teachings of ****** prevent us from actually talking to our enemies. Enemies should be killed, not talked with."

It will take much more than a photo op visit from Kofi Anan, much more than easy platitudes at a press conference, much more than a pretense that they're actually making peace, not war. It will take serious and hard work, a long time, much development aid, and countless losses of faces. Do you know many Thai leaders with that kind of determination and commitment?

[Ulysses G.]

I doubt that our problems in the south of Thailand have much in common with Israel and Hezbollah.

I have often wondered why the Muslims in the South never expand their terrorist activities beyond the South like they do in other countries and many educated Thais have told me that it is because they are afraid to. They know what the people here are capable of if pushed up against the wall.

If they did start attacking targets outside their own area, it would destroy Thailand's tourism industry and the Thais would simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world.

[GracelessFawn]

Quoting Ulysses G.

If they did start attacking targets outside their own area, it would destroy Thailand's tourism industry and the Thais would simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world.

One form of this less than human thinking was called the Final Solution.

Ref: Wikpedia

The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust. The expression reflects the Nazi belief that the Jewish European population itself poses a "question" and a "problem".

It is impossible to wipe-out the muslims in the South of Thailand. The fight for a separate state in the South will continue.... .... The animosity between Muslims and Christians, will continue to exist.

I can't think of a proven solution when it comes to fixing this problems. Most countries with concentrated number of Muslim inhabitants are experiencing/experienced parallel problems as Thailand.

I'm starting to believe that "no solution, could ever work!" (And I mean a working and proven solution, that will fix the problems between governments and Muslim separatist for good.)

PS - I don't hate Muslims. I embrace them as my brothers and sisters as long as they don't deliberately stir trouble, sabotage peace, oppose and fight the government without using formal petitions and the due process of law, bomb public places or when they go out of their way to harm others.

Edited September 5, 2006 by GracelessFawn

[Ulysses G.]

PS - I don't hate Muslims. I embrace them as my brothers and sisters as long as they don't stir trouble, oppose and fight the government without using formal petitions and the due process of law, bomb public places or when they go out of their way to harm people.

I think that we ALL agree with you.

[the swagman]

The problems in the south of Thailand go back many, many years.

It is a problem that unfortunately will not go away quickly.

All war is senseless.

The people of the south are proud to be Thai, they want to be Thai. They are however on the whole a different people to the northern and central Thais. They follow a different religion, they have a different social structure.

Understanding is needed by all parties.

[Douggie Style]

Quoting Ulysses G.

Are you for real? There is no SANE comparison.

The European Jews were not blowing up banks or murdering teachers and Buddhist monks. In fact, they were totally non-violent and did not resist the Nazis. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bah.gif)

Your half right, the facts are different but the thought process that ultimately led to that tradegy are the same, so they are comparable ie

Quoting Ulysses G.

If they did start attacking targets outside their own area, it would destroy Thailand's tourism industry and the Thais would simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world.

Above is what you stated previously, I can find no difference in sentiment.

The point is being so convinced you are on the right side blinds you to any other side and possibilities for a fairer (lasting) solution. Here you have unwittingly proposed the very horror that was used agaisnt the people you are trying to defend, strange isn't it?

[Ulysses G.]

The point is being so convinced you are on the right side blinds you to any other side and possibilities for a fairer (lasting) solution. Here you have unwittingly proposed the very horror that was used agaisnt the people you are trying to defend, strange isn't it?

Comparing Muslim terrorists in Southern Thailand who are committing mayhem and killing ethnic Thais to non-violent European Jews who marched to their deaths just because of their religion is simply asinine.

The blind guy is in your mirror every morning; You just can’t see him.

[Douggie Style]

The point is being so convinced you are on the right side blinds you to any other side and possibilities for a fairer (lasting) solution. Here you have unwittingly proposed the very horror that was used agaisnt the people you are trying to defend, strange isn't it?

Comparing Muslim terrorists in Southern Thailand who are committing mayhem and killing ethnic Thais to non-violent European Jews who marched to their deaths just because of their religion is simply asinine.

The blind guy is in your mirror every morning; You just can’t see him.

A weak attempt of labelling me with views never made, nice try but sorry not going to fall for the very obvious trap. To remind you of own words and the actual point being made (as opposed to the point you are desperately trying to manufacture) again:

Quoting Ulysses G.

[/color]If they did start attacking targets outside their own area, it would destroy Thailand's tourism industry and the Thais would simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world.

Here you have stated :>>> Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world to simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

This is the exactly the same thought process that led to the tragic final solution therefore from your own words you have proposed the same solution as the people you are trying to support.

It might be time to switch on the other half or is it just a quarter?

Edited September 5, 2006 by Douggie Style

[Ulysses G.]

If they did start attacking targets outside their own area, it would destroy Thailand's tourism industry and the Thais would simply wipe them off the map - men, women, and children - with no second thoughts and no more Muslim problem.

Might be a lesson there for the rest of the world.

I repeated the reason that many Thais believe that the violent terrorists in the South haven't gone completely out of control here like they have in other countries, and you are trying to use it to jusify the Jewish holocoast in Germany.

We've got your number.

[Diablo Bob]

Putting Israel and its' origin and politics aside, because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the problems in the South of Thailand, I offer the following observation:

1) The present administration is correct in their view that they will not negotiate or deal with the Southern terrorist!

2) The present administration has exasperated the situation in the South by ignoring the pleas from the people on the street. Not necessarily Muslims, but also Buddhist who happen to live in these Southernmost provinces. These provinces are/have been neglected by the Bangkok proloteriat for decades. They receive S_it in help from the government.

3) Terrorism and extremism are normally a by-product of unemployment and a lack of education. Give people a job and a future and extremism will be reduced but never eradicated.

4) This administration is neglecting the big picture, these extremest don't necessarily dislike Thailand, but they resent their treatment by not only this Thai government but probably the governments over the last 50+ years. They have just gotten to a point where they won't accept the status quo NO MO!

But that is just my take on the issue.........

[PeaceBlondie]

Okay, I'll propose that as soon as Thailand once again has a real parliament that isn't voted out of office for phony elections, they sit at the feet of Buddhist monks until they learn what peace is. There's a great Monk in Vietnam, the last I'd heard, who could teach them.

They could hold the course down by the riverside, "and learn war no more."

[Diablo Bob]

Okay, I'll propose that as soon as Thailand once again has a real parliament that isn't voted out of office for phony elections, they sit at the feet of Buddhist monks until they learn what peace is. There's a great Monk in Vietnam, the last I'd heard, who could teach them.

They could hold the course down by the riverside, "and learn war no more."

Won't work...... wrong sect of Buddhism in Vietnam (Dali Lama Style), their images of Buddha have swords and stuff, very militant (Extreme!)

Edited September 5, 2006 by Diablo Bob

[dog412]

having dialogue with the "south" would infer a STRUCTURED entity in control of this violence. i would be very wary of those who claim, at the first, to represent those that are actually involved in , not only the planning and funding, but also as to the ideology behind it. find the true funding, find the truth.

[Douggie Style]

Apologies for going off topic before, some very good points above especially agree with

Diablo bob

3) Terrorism and extremism are normally a by-product of unemployment and a lack of education

However regarding this:

Ulysses G.

and you are trying to use it to jusify the Jewish holocoast in Germany.

We've got your number. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

This bears no resemblance to my views, the views or points expressed in the above posts or any of my previous posts.

[meadish_sweetball]

We are not discussing America, Iraq or Israel here. Please stay on topic.

[sriracha john]

For what it's worth:

Nation Poll

Do you agree with Army Commander in Chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin’s decision to launch talks with the leaders of the insurgents who are responsible for the continuing series of violence in the southern provinces?

Yes

83.29%

-----------------------

No

16.71%

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/qvote/view...4&par_vid=1