Let's debate critical issues without fear or taboo

[Balance]

I would like to input some perspective here as I feel that most people including the Thai public have no idea what the conflict in Southern Thailand is all about other than the general BS fed out by mainstream media.

First of all I would point out that I am not a Muslim and do not support terrorism for whatever reason anywhere in the world.

Also there is a majority of Muslims who just want to live in peace.

As with most religions there are different sects with differing views so just because a minority of Muslims are extremists it doesn't mean to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorist acts are carried out by Muslims.

Now here is what the conflict in the southern Thai states is about in a nutshell quoted from Wikipedia as I like to do some research before I make any unsupported statements.

"Background[change | change source]

The rebellion started in the 19th century, when the British and the King of Siam agreed on the border between Siam and Malaya. The British took Kedah and Kelantan, and Pattani became part of Siam. The sultan of Pattani was removed and his kingdom was split into three provinces. Ever since then, the Malay people of this region have wanted to get their independence back, or to join Malaysia as a state.

Recent history[change | change source]

The unrest in the southern provinces is one of the biggest problems in Thailand. There is an armed struggle against the government. There are many severe attacks on civilians too, mostly considered terrorism. Since it has happened, some Thai families had to move out from the site because the problems changed their lives. They were also scared of what would happen with them."

This situation will go on ad infinitum until a dialogue is established between the governments of Thailand and Malaysia and some kind of peace process is put in place with the protagonists in the souther states similar to that with Britain and Northern Ireland.

So, as the problem was created by Thailand (formerly Siam) with the British as cohorts it is up to them to sort it out.

During the reins of Rama 4 and 5, much of the political energy was spent simply to avoid becoming a British or French colony. In the 1890's and ending in a 1907 treaty with the English, Siam gave up over 170,000 square miles in the north and and along the Cambodian border. In the south, Siam gave up territory on the two coasts to the English.

I would suggest that Thailand nor English paid any attention as to how the south was divided with the single exception of economic and military advantage that would accrue to the British. England has had a long history of creating havoc for future generations by paying NO attention to the history, religions, and ethic identification of the people they colonized. The English are responsible for the disaster that is the Middle East, full stop.

Prior to 1934, two years after the coup, Pattani had been allowed to govern itself with little interference from Bangkok. However, this changed when Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram decided that all ethnic minorities would be "assimilated." The situation has deteriorated ever since.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Balance