Jihad against female, Buddhist farm workers. "Three killed as Thai junta chief visits Muslim south" from AFP:
PATTANI, Thailand (AFP) - Suspected Islamic separatists shot dead three Buddhists Monday in Thailand's Muslim-majority south, police said, as the nation's junta chief visited the region amid soaring sectarian tensions.
The three women, who all worked for a royally-sponsored farm project, were killed in an early morning drive-by shooting in Pattani, one of three insurgency-plagued provinces bordering Malaysia.
"Six suspected insurgents came on three motorcycles before opening fire on a pick-up carrying more than 10 people, including children, to work at the farm project," police said.
Three other women were injured in the attack, police said.
The killings came as junta leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin began a one-day visit to the region to meet with security officials following a series of bloody attacks that have shocked the nation.
Sonthi, the first Muslim to head the army in this mainly Buddhist nation, arrived early Monday in Yala, the scene of the most gruesome of the recent violence, including a massacre of eight Buddhist civilians and a bombing at a mosque on Wednesday.
Military officers have arrested 28 people in connection with the massacre.
Tensions were raised even further over the weekend, when two Muslim boys were killed in an attack on an Islamic boarding school in neighbouring Songkhla province.
The killings sparked a protest by 400 people living near the school, who blamed the military for the attack and blocked a road to prevent police from investigating the scene.
One can't let evidence get in the way of a politically useful conspiracy theory.
At least 2,000 people have been killed in separatist violence that has gripped the provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani since January 2004, with the bloodshed occasionally seeping into neighbouring Songkhla.
The military has imposed a curfew on parts of the region, where violence has surged despite a raft of peace-building measures proposed by Thailand's military-backed government.
Friends of Naseem?
""Six suspected insurgents came on three motorcycles before opening fire on a pick-up carrying more than 10 people, including children, to work at the farm project," police said."
Thank God they didnt say 10 innocent people.I dont think I can take any more of that bullshit.
laosuwan raises, indirectly, a question that I've not seen answered, at least not in any particularly convincing way.
Barring a mohammedan reform that discredits the jihaddi outlook, and which very well might not happen in our life-times, what would a military victory over a situation like Thailand require?
A true military victory requires that you deprive the enemy of their will to fight. This may or may not require depriving them of their ability to fight. In fact, it may or may not depend on even killing them, depending on their outlook.
But how does one accomplish this with the jihaddis and the angry mobs that shelter and nurture them?
Normally one strikes at the hopes of the enemy. When there is no hope, the fighting ends. That indeed was the message of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, i.e. you have no hope, but in a graceful and unconditional surrender, as we have the power of total annihilation, without injury to ourselves.
But if the jihaddis are truly and entirely nihilist, to the point where they have no hopes in the normal sense, other perhaps then the destruction of that which they hate, how do you render them hopeless?
Surely that is what the jihaddis mean to tell us by their suicide-murders -- you have no hope of defeating us in war, as we want nothing but death, whether yours or ours doesn't matter, all we want is as much death as we can arrange for.
Surely there is a way to get a wedge into this and break it, but what?
It is easy to fall back to the idea of truly massive, shocking numbers of deaths. I.e. killing many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, for which we certainly have the technical capability. But would even that work against nihilists?
And, considering the awful effect it would have on the morale of the free world, and the normal aversion that most normal people have to such methods, one has to ask, is there not another method available? Is terror the only workable answer to terror?
I fear the worst. Nihilists, especially committed nihilists, have at least in part obliterated their sense of self. So they will not be thinking of their own welfare in the same way as we. But coming, as the mohammedans do, from a throroughly other-oriented culture, perhaps one can frighten them by threatening their shrines and family.
I'm tempted to think that if the Thais rose up as a man, and descended on their oppressors with whatever implements they had to hand, they might just succeed in killing so many and so horrifically as to reduce the jihaddis to fear and disgrace.
But then one remembers that the Hindus tried exactly that, just a couple of generations back, without much effect.
It's clear to me that I don't have the answer to this. But I sure wish that somebody else had some plausible ideas.
Posted by: joeblough at March 20, 2007 04:32 AM
Dear joeblough:
I have long grappled with the same questions that you raise. In the past, a significant and overwhelming military defeat against Muslims would cause them to become inward and pacified as long as a generation. Now, in the age of the internet and affordable transport, any military retaliation, indeed, defense, serves as a beacon that beckons swarms of them to come in aid of their “brothers” seeking death while killing. Is there an answer to this madness? Certainly, acknowledging the truth and refusing to accept that Islam is a religion in the conventional sense of the word would be a small beginning but only a few thinkers who are vilified as right wing islamaphobes are even thinking about this small baby step. The posts on this site are filled with rants in near biblical terminology calling for the extermination of Islam or even Muslims, but this is unrealistic and morally indefensible. A feasible solution seems to lie only in disconnecting Islam from the framework of religion. Islam is basically a set of codes for regulating life and warfare in ancient marauder society. That it uses the power of religion to regulate and motivate the soldiers in this standing army seems obvious enough. Disconnect the legitimacy of religion from their code and you have found a way to break the hegemony of the faith. How to do that? I have no idea, that is for theologians and politicians to grapple with, but we can at least start by refusing to accept that Islam is a religion and confronting those who claim that it is.
Posted by: laosuwan at March 20, 2007 05:24 AM
http://www.640toronto.com/
OT but here's a radio link to a up-coming interview with a CAIR-Canada rep that wants canada to demand the USA stop "Racial Profiling"
of Muslims entering the USA from canada.
These are the same Islamofacists that demanded Cnada ban the episode of 24 that portrayed Muslim terrorists as muslim terrorist.
CAIR is the Org. that support the Arar's to Sue Canadians for what his homeland of Syria did to him.
CAIR will whine within the next hour and get out the scoreboard to count the times they use "Islamopohobia,Islamophobe, racial profiling, Post 911, Racist , bigot, and Islam=Peace".
ala-sux
Islam isnt even a race so how can they be "racially" profiled? Islamic logic for you.
"Six suspected insurgents" = six typical islamosupremacist cowards who can only fight the unarmed and innocent.
Even more effete -those in the civilized world who refuse to confront these vulgar beasts -on any and all levels - e.g. call them what they are not "suspected insurgents" - but disgusting miscreants mentally-infected, enabled and accuated by asinine 7th century doctrine of death and destruction.
I worked with some immigrant Christians from that part of the world once and they said how Muslims cause all the trouble where they were and were glad to be in the UK to get awy from them and that trouble. See they run into the UK (not Muslim country) to find peace. But won't say this is the whole picture for the UK but it goes to show, this was 6 years ago.
The Thai need to crack down on this massive before the Muslim thugs decide to bring this to the entire nation.
It sure takes a lot of courage to murder three defenseless women; certainly these men can hope to receive a great reward from Allah for their heroism in eliminating these clear threats to Islam.
Seriously. The Thais need to get their act together and crush these scum.
From the Intelligence Summit
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/Babu.php
laosuwan, once the sense of self has been obliterated and any social/spiritual contexts have been eliminated, you are left with only symbols; idols if you will, and those can surely be (and indeed should be) destroyed with minimal loss of life.
I'm waiting for the king to tire of this Sonthi Boonyaratglin. I suspect that he is being deliberately isolated.
About the Muslim military junta leader who took over the gov. in a violent manner. 400 locals who blame the military. I think the locals know whats going on.
Isnt this the fox guarding the hen house!
Its like giving a drunk the keys to a liquor warehouse.
A man drunk on Islam, given charge over a nation thats being attacked by other Islamic drunks, drunk on the blood of Buddhists.
laosuwan said
I agree that an examination of the true beliefs of Islam, and a questioning of whether it should qualify as a "religion" and receive the protection of the Constitution, will be required. We're still a long way from beginning that process as a society, unfortunately.
In parallel with this philosophical and moral examination of Islam, there needs to be a practical side too, a disentangling and a disconnection of the Islamic world from the world of the infidels. The very things that make the infidel world what it is (technological innovation, protection of religious freedom, tolerance of almost any belief system, multicultural openness) can all be exploited as weaknesses, if we allow them to be.
Any language like that is thankfully very rare, and is usually removed. But to be clear, it is neither unrealistic nor morally indefensible to take any steps necessary to protect oneself, and we may one day find ourselves in that position. The sooner we take non-violent steps to protect ourselves (limit immigration, educate the public about what Islam really teaches, end financial support to nations that are exporters of religious intolerance and violence, etc.), the less likely violent steps will one day be required to protect ourselves. Our current policies are irresponsible and expose us to great risk.
why should it be unrealistic to remove all islam mosques from the west? does not the sowdis impose these same restricitons on nonmuslims, aka infidels that come to their country?
how long will it take for non muslims to realize they are under assualt by muslims? note l did not say kill muslims, but outlaw islam as l do not see any real reform.
Laosuwan said:
Certainly, acknowledging the truth and refusing to accept that Islam is a religion in the conventional sense of the word would be a small beginning but only a few thinkers who are vilified as right wing islamaphobes are even thinking about this small baby step.
=====
Well we can educate Western journalists & politicians. We just show them the Muslim sources.
Laosuwan said:
The posts on this site are filled with rants in near biblical terminology calling for the extermination of Islam or even Muslims, but this is unrealistic and morally indefensible.
======
Is it? I dont think so. If the idea is that Muslims over run your country, then subjugate the indigenous population and systematically reduce them - will you fight back?
Consider Pakistan
It is reckoned that in 1947, at partition, the Hindu population was 15-24%. In 1998 it was 1.6%
Eventually it will be too late to fight back. the option is now. And it is not unrealistic.
Or unpalatable.
Laosuwan said:
A feasible solution seems to lie only in disconnecting Islam from the framework of religion.
======
How? You are never going to achieve that.
It is both a political system and religion.
To do that you will have to wipe out their holy books (no chance) or reinterpret them in a way that is acceptable to Muslims (much more realistic but it has never occured down through time). What is realistic is separating ourselves from them and then banning Islam as a religious option within Western and other like-minded countries. Destroy Mosques and pass laws that make it intolerable for Muslims to remain in the West and practice their faith. And it will be 100% necessary to explain in full to every Western citizen as to why we do this.
Laosuwan said:
Disconnect the legitimacy of religion from their code and you have found a way to break the hegemony of the faith.
==
I think what you say could be done if there was no Quran, no Hadith, no Sira. But there is.
And you will never irradicate it. And because of that, the disconnection is not possible.
Laosuwan said:
but we can at least start by refusing to accept that Islam is a religion and confronting those who claim that it is.
==
I dont agree. It is a religion. There is no question about that. The problem is it operates in the political sphere and is totalitarian by nature. Other religions do not.
Getting Western politicians, journalists to understand the situation is the first step.