But the wedding guests fought back.
"7 killed in Thai south: police," from AFP, May 28 (thanks to Twostellas):
YALA (Thailand) - THREE Thai soldiers and four suspected separatist rebels have been killed in a series of incidents across Thailand's far south, including a shootout at a wedding party, police said on Wednesday.One soldier was killed and two of his colleagues injured in a blast in Pattani province late on Tuesday, police there said....
Later on Wednesday, in Yala, a group of militants ambushed a wedding convoy, but some of the villagers headed to the celebration were armed and fought their attackers, killing one suspected rebel, police said.
Ten members of the wedding party were injured.
Thai security forces also shot dead three suspected militants during a search of a village in Yala on Wednesday, police said.
Note also AFP's casual placing of blame for the conflict on the non-Muslim Thais who imperialistically annexed the Malay Sultanate, thus provoking tension. AFP does not mention, of course, that the Malay Sultanate was making war against the Siamese during the war between Siam and Burma, and Thailand conquered it in that context -- making it Thai by a right of conquest that has been universally recognized throughout human history -- except, of course, when it comes to Israel and to any Muslim land that is conquered by non-Muslims.
More than 3,000 people have been killed since separatist unrest broke out in January 2004 in the south, which was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until mainly Buddhist Thailand annexed it in 1902, provoking decades of tension.
Muslim lands are never "conquered". They are simply "occupied".
Problems stemming from 1902, huh. Sounds like a grudge to me.
Weddings and funerals seem to be favorite targets of jihadi's. I suppose that's because they want to put a damper on joy, and rub the faces of those in mourning in the dirt. Always adding insult to injury.
"Oh, you are with the groom's family? Take the blue AK-47 and sit on the left side of the church."
-standard wedding protocol at kaffir weddings in Islamic areas.
Weddings and funerals seem to be favorite targets of jihadi's. I suppose that's because they want to put a damper on joy, and rub the faces of those in mourning in the dirt. Always adding insult to injury.
Posted by: duh_swami
People at weddings and funerals usually have their guard down. They are surrounded by family and friends, people they trust and who trust them.
The jihadis only know how to attack the weak and the defenseless. It's the mark of a coward.
Congratulations to those who fought back. It's a sign of the damage Muslims have done to Thailand, that people have to bring weapons to a wedding.
Someone tell me why we are putting up with this sh**?
Some Thais have decided enough is enough. They aren't putting up with it. Good for them!
"More than 3,000 people have been killed since separatist unrest broke out in January 2004 in the south, which was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until mainly Buddhist Thailand annexed it in 1902, provoking decades of tension."
Seems to be a standard phrase attached to every article from Thailands 'deep south' where shadowy rebel groups or militants blow up s*#t.
Pathetic reporting.
a group of militants ambushed a wedding convoy . . .
.......................
Remember when US forces accidently hit a wedding party in 2002 when going after jihadists? Approbium was heaped upon the Americans for this tragic mistake. This incident is still being cited by opponents of US presence in that country.
Will there be even equal outrage for this vicious attack *deliberately* targetting a wedding party? I wouldn't hold my breath.
duh_swami, you are right about weddings and funerals. Throw in elementary schools and popular shopping destinations, and you have the main loci of jihadist attacks, all targetting innocent people involved in innocent pursuits.
Will there be even equal outrage for this vicious attack *deliberately* targetting a wedding party? I wouldn't hold my breath.
The outrage will be directed at those guests who dared to fire back and kill a jihadi instead.
"....... some of the villagers headed to the celebration were armed and fought their attackers, killing one suspected rebel......."
Ha, ha (LOL!) Gee, isn't it funny how all these years we've had to listen to loony American liberals WHINING about how only the United States is dumb enough to allow ordinary people to have GUNS. But now we find out that not only do people in Thailand have GUNS, but they even use their GUNS for other things besides duck hunting. ( I would classify this as varmint hunting: "two legged varmints." ) God bless those good folks in Thailand for defending themselves and that is one less ULTRA-VIOLENT MAHOMETAN THUG that we will have to "pop" later.
Hhmm... now that I think about it, I have this weekend off from work. I should take a couple of my GUNS and go to the range and I would urge all of my fellow Jihad Watchers/Dhimmi Watchers to do the same.
And stock up on AMMO, boys and girls, its gonna be a long war!
"....... until mainly Buddhist Thailand annexed it in 1902, provoking decades of tension."
And speaking of WHINING, of course every problem in the world is always someone else's fault, never the fault of the thuggish Mussulmen. Cripes, I can't tell who is the biggest WHINER: the dimbulb American liberals or the ULTRA-VIOLENT MAHOMETAN THUGS. In fact, we could probably describe Islam with a single, simple equation: WHINING + THUGGERY = ISLAM.
Of course, most of us here are assuming the wedding party were kafir - Thai Buddhists. We don't, in fact, from what we are told in the AFP report, know that for sure.
AFP hasn't seen fit to tell us whether the wedding party were kafir, Thai Buddhists suffering attack as punishment for the crime of not being Muslim; or whether they were Muslims, 'provoking' jihadi wrath by the crime of being insufficiently Islamic (e.g., being content to live under a kafir government, or not showing sufficient enthusiasm for jihad, or perhaps because one or more of their number was thought to be aiding the kafir in some way - think of those 'Palestinian' Arab Muslims who are lynched on mere suspicion of having dealt with Israelis, or the Afghan Muslims who are executed on suspicion of dealing with the Americans).
Either way, whether they were kafirs or kafirised/ kafir-sympathising Muslims, but especially if they were kafir, Thai Buddhists, good on them for defending themselves.
Mental exercise: how might that final throwaway paragraph, placing all the blame on the Evil Thais for daring to invade and occupy Muslim Land, be rewritten in the light of what Mr Spencer has told us - that that Muslim sultanate (which had been Hindu, Buddhist and animist like the rest of SE Asia, prior to its 'conversion' to Islam [and we can guess how *that* came about]) had ATTACKED Siam/ Thailand in the usual sneaky Muslim manner, at a time when it (the sultanate) believed Siam to be vulnerable... but had lost its gamble when the Siamese/ Thais fought back successfully?
Let us remark, also, that AFP, although mentioning that "ten members of the wedding party were injured", carefully refrains from mentioning whether there were women, children and the elderly among those hurt. What if the Bride and her maids were hurt? Either AFP does not know any more than is given here...or, if they know, they're not telling.
Let's think about this. AFP seems to think the jihadis are perfectly justified in their pitiless assault upon the Thai Buddhist state and society. If so, would AFP, even if they knew, for example, that a Thai Buddhist bride and her attendants had been wounded by Muslim jihadis, take the risk of mentioning it? Mustn't do that - it might make their readers feel sympathy for the non-Muslim Thais.
Whenever there is a battle between jihadis and Israelis in Jihad Fortress Gaza, the Press falls all over itself to let us know how many 'civilians' and how many innocent children, were killed or injured during the battle. Quite often there are names given, and heart-wrenching
But here, jihadis attack a peaceful wedding party (some of whose members had providently provided themselves with the means of self-defence), and there are no expressions of horror, at all.
Indeed, the death of the jihadi - the 'suspected rebel' - is mentioned BEFORE telling us that 'ten members of the wedding party' were wounded.
Death, of course, outweighs mere injuries. Oh, the poor, poor jihadis. One of their brave men is dead. But ten wedding guests were merely 'wounded'. How unfair.
AFP stands for 'Agence France Presse', doesn't it?
Sorry - I didn't edit the above.
Unfinished sentence, ending with the words 'and heart-wrenching', should have concluded 'and heart-wrenching human-interest info on the victims'.
Is there any recommended historical account where I might find the facts on the Thai-Burma war?
I have been curious about the roots of this conflict in the south of Thailand.