violence in southern Thailand

[Ic3b3rg]

there has been some violence in southern thailand recently.... will it spread to the northern part of Malaysia? i am getting worried.... Thailand has been known to be a peaceful country.... i hope that no terrorists escape to Malaysia

[Moozy]

Even if they do, our police/army force will not tolerate they existence. Didn't our gov. stress(it was the headline of Sin Chew a few days ago) that it'd not harbour terrorists. Since I didn't read thouroughly about the report, what exactly happened that made them make those chaos? Is it a North-South war or what? please, someone, enlighten me! :D

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Gun them down and annihilate them if they ever try anything funny here too, that's what I say. No matter what issue they may have with the Thai govt, I would like to stress once again that violence really isn't the way to get themselves heard.

[pandaboy]

Are they terrorists? Or rebels? What happened to the world nowadays....?

[__earth]

i think we need to be extra careful when it comes to the distinction between rebel and terrorist.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

But isn't a rebel who fights for his cause through violence considered a terrorist?

[__earth]

But isn't a rebel who fights for his cause through violence considered a terrorist?

so, do you consider george washington, sparticus and sukarno as terrorist?

how about the chechen rebel? the iraqi in falluja? consider aceh, which is the terrorist? the indonesian or the aceh?

[el_empty]

well the discussion as to what constitutes a terrorist and a rebel will be an endless debate.

basically...

terrorist - from the root word terror. so a person who creates terror. does large scale harm. for whatever reason.

rebel - noun and verb. a rebel rebels. basically to search for some form of sovereignty.

so, do you consider george washington, sparticus and sukarno as terrorist?

so yeah they're rebels. and if they caused harm, yes they're terrorists.

don't forget, the american govt and media paints a very vivid picture of what constitutes a terrorist and it has penetrated very deeply into all our minds *their* version of the definition of terrorist. you and i know what it is.

yo moozy. you ada internet do some research lah. www.google.com
www.dogpile.com :) a search will take less than a second. to read the articles will take less than 5 mins. [/u]

[USSDefiantNX74205]

so, do you consider george washington, sparticus and sukarno as terrorist?

Had George Washington lost against the British, the USA would never have existed and the Continental Army would have been labelled in British (and world) history books as nothing but another failed rebel movement. Terrorist is just a modern word to describe the same thing. And don't forget, history is often written by the victors. The Microsoft Encarta dictionary describes 'terrorist' as:

ter?ror?ist [t?rrərist]
n
somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes

how about the chechen rebel? the iraqi in falluja? consider aceh, which is the terrorist? the indonesian or the aceh?

They're all terrorists to me unless proven otherwise. Fighting for freedom doesn't necessarily mean having to resort to violence that can potentially take the lives of civilians. The Iraqis in Fallujah? They did everything a decent terrorist is supposed to do - kidnap, murder, bomb, etc. And don't even get me started with the Chechens. If they're indeed fighting for their freedom, then why send people around the globe to go on suicide missions? You don't see Gandhi being branded a terrorist do you? A rebel, maybe. But a terrorist, definitely not.

[aquila]

a terrorist is one who purposefully inflict violence in civilian populations for political gains. There are four different types of terrorists.

1) domestic terrorists - usually separatist movements. target domestic victims. Basque (Spain) and ETA (N Ireland) as examples.

2) National terrorists - govt terrorizing own people. eg. Argentinian govt randomly arresting and torturing civillians.

3) intl terrorism - state sponsored terrorism against another state. eg. iranian govy sponsored hezbollah in the past. hezbollah killed western tourists in beirut, lebanon

4) transnational terrorism - groups that terrorize civillians beyond borders. eg, Al Qaeda (surprise surprise!)

learned this in my polsci class. taught by robert keohane.. anyone read his books yet? that guy is so prolific and well known, it's incredible. prez of american polsci assoc, etc. of course,taking such a hard class my freshman yr was prob a mistake. as evidenced by my B. :(

I think it's relatively unproductive to get into the technical definition of terrorism. Instead, we should analyze this issue from a stratergic perspective. Some people may call Israel, or the United States for the matter, an international terrorist, while many others may disagree, but regardless, the point is to focus on what stratergic actions are actors/groups taking.

In this situation in South Thailand, it is in the interest of both Malaysia and Thailand to stop the fighting and defeat the rebels. The objective of the rebels, namely to gain independence, is clearly unviable and hence giving in or negotiating with the rebels on this issue is not useful. Furthermore, this objective of independence represents only an extremely small minority of the people of South Thailand.

Judging from the actions of the Defence Ministry of deploying troops in the northern states and having a zero-tolerance policy towards the rebels, I think they're doing the stratergically right thing. Let's hope that the rebels will be defeated soon, and peace will return to southern Thailand.

[el_empty]

perhaps a fundamental problem is thailand's lack of separation between church and state - well in this case, the buddhist temple and state. buddhism is a national religion, lots of high profile, and a lot of tax $$ goes to the celebratory and infrastuctural expenses for this one religion. quite like malaysia's policy towards islam as a national religion, sidelining other religions that co-exist with it.

if you've been to patani and suratthani and other areas in the south, it's really really poor, rural, underdeveloped, and very disjointed from the central huzzbuzz in bangkok.

if you were a poor hungry and largely uneducated muslim in the south of thailand, would you join your fellow brothers in rising against a government that institutionalizes religious discrimination? use your tax money somemore...

[ElansarGelmir]

if you were a poor hungry and largely uneducated muslim in the south of thailand, would you join your fellow brothers in rising against a government that institutionalizes religious discrimination? use your tax money somemore...

Perhaps that's the reason. But maybe there's more reason to this. Take for example, Malaysia. Malaysia is declared (by some politicians) as an Islamic country, but there are still some rebellions like Al Maunah going around. These people may want more than the status quo. And being not educated means using terror, I guess.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Well they should know that negotiating with the govt is the right way isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I mean is, if they are muslims and they subscribe to the belief and principle that Islam is a religion of peace, then why resort to violence?

[ElansarGelmir]

Well they should know that negotiating with the govt is the right way isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I mean is, if they are muslims and they subscribe to the belief and principle that Islam is a religion of peace, then why resort to violence?

Yeah, but take note the fact that they are UNEDUCATED. haha, will that make a difference?

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Uneducated as in the academic sense, or the religious sense? If they're uneducated in the first one, then they should at least be educated in the second one. Educated enough to know that violence will bring them nowhere. If they're uneducated in both, then perhaps that's the only 'acceptable' reason for their violence.

[el_empty]

*or* you could be largely educated in the religious sense, but from a fundamentalist viewpoint. that's how suicide bombers come about. their mullah and ustaz tells them it's glorifying to blow your ribs and hundreds of other people around you to save your religion.

[__earth]

Bomb just explore in southern Thailand.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BKK66334.htm

This might be our first refugee crisis since Aceh.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/01Sep2005_news10.php

http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=153099

[vseehua]

*or* you could be largely educated in the religious sense, but from a fundamentalist viewpoint. that's how suicide bombers come about. their mullah and ustaz tells them it's glorifying to blow your ribs and hundreds of other people around you to save your religion.

looks like problems with religious interpretation again to me...

i wonder when people will stop using religions justify their own selfish causes :(

[Tasslehoff]

I believe that will happen when extremism ends too....

[PaTiEnT]

ei.. it's just human nature.. to make anything seem solid or "right" it's always best just to turn to where or what general consensus is.. and that's religion..

sometimes i feel.. religion is too abstract.. and the human is in a sense.. "corrupted".. therefore, anything that invites open intepretation, esp. something as influential as religion, will always be used to our own convenience..

[vseehua]

haiz..guess we'll have to live with this sad fact... :cry:

[Schye]

Well, it seems that the tense is growing and the PM is not looking for a peaceful solution.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra told reporters in Bangkok that justice would be done.

"The authorities tried to negotiate with [the villagers] and were extremely patient, but these people came back with inhuman cruelty and torture," he said.

"What happened shows that these people want violence and not peace."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4266670.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3955543.stm

Those who stay near the border should follow the news more often as those militans may flee to Malaysia anytime.[/quote][/b]

[gonjeng]

i believe there are three parties involve in the crisis. one is obviously the government, two is the civilians or the villagers and the third is the manipulators. from what i was told and what i read, the villagers want peace and nothing else. but the third party, whoever the crap they are, are the ones manipulating the events such that it is in their favors. it is done by creating rumors, initiate the killings/bombings, incite hatred, etc. since the third party hides amongst the villagers, the Thai government sees that the villagers are responsible for the terrorist act.

this just suxx and sad as the innocent villagers are the victims and, IMO, they are the 'unconciously' being hired by the terrorist to be their army.

hmm came to think about it, it is also possible that the third party to be politically motivated. by killing one or two soldiers and by bombing here and there gives the government to get in and destroy everything. its like what the CIA tried to do in sabah :) heh, i guess the truth is out there ay?

[__earth]

The Thais are spying on us by climbing up trees near the border. Heh!

Check it out at Utusan Malaysia (http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2005&dt=1022&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Muka_Hadapan&pg=mh_03.htm)

I think utusan is sensationalizing the issue but hell, it's disturbing nonetheless.

[vseehua]

i've also read about it in the star...

spying is very serious, no matter how you put it, i would be very worried myself if i read abt some other countries trying spying on us...