Jihadists posing as clients kill Chinese salesman in Thai south

The Religion of Peace showing us all, once again, why exactly Islam is the Religion of Peace.

It looks that some of these guys didn't get the memo from Darul-Uloom’s grand mufti Habibur Rehman:

"Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form".

Islamic logic = chaos

Maybe China should pursue some justice in southern Thailand.

Or maybe Thailand should get its sh_t together.

Either way is okay.

Did I miss the connection?

NARATHIWAT, Thailand : A Chinese man was found shot dead in Thailand's Muslim-majority south on Sunday, police said, blaming separatist rebels for the rare killing of a foreigner in the insurgency-hit region.

Cai Wensheng, a 55-year-old carpet vendor, was found at a local teashop in Narathiwat province with two bullet wounds to the head.>p>
Local police said Wensheng and two Chinese colleagues were in the area to sell carpets, but were fired upon by two suspected militants on a motorcycle who were posing as clients.

The two other men escaped without injury, police added.

I wouldn't doubt there is a muslim connection but I guess I don't see it from what is presented here.

The only tie to muslims is the "muslim majority south" and two men on a fleeing motorcycle could be rival carpet vendors from China.

Also, how would selling carpets per se be offensive to the religon of peace anyway (of course, everything and everyone is offensive, but how specifically is selling carpets?)

Guess I just not connecting the dots this morning but I really don't see the connection here.

"I wouldn't doubt there is a muslim connection but I guess I don't see it from what is presented here.

The only tie to muslims is the "muslim majority south" and two men on a fleeing motorcycle could be rival carpet vendors from China."
-- from a posting above

You have to read between the lines, knowing what you know about how Muslim Malays (or Muslim Thais) think of the Chinese. They assume, usually rightly, that the Chinese are not Muslim, and furthermore, it is understood in southeast Asia --in Malaysia and Singapore and Indonesia -- that Chinese have been most resistant to becoming Muslim, and their secret weapon has been their own confidence and attachment to their own history, to the idea of being Chinese, helps protect even the lowliest, while many even of the better off in the West-- see John Walker Lindh, David Hicks, Yvonne Ridley, Yahya Birt -- lacking that strong sense, find some kind of salvation -- in the Complete Regulation, and Total Belief-System, of Islam.

When in the 1960s, war was made in Indonesia on putative "Communists," the killingsof hundreds of thousands of those deemed to be ideological opponents also took on an anti-Infidel cast, as the occasion was taken to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim Chinese, and in many places, Islam was enrolled in the killings, and anti-Infidel impulse behind the massacres of the Chinese, by Muslims (Hindus and Buddhists were not involved) was not disguised.

"Muslim-majority south...police said, blaming separatist rebels..."
-- from the article

"Separatist rebels" does not adequately describe what is going on. The phrase is also used about the Muslims in the southern Philippines. But if they are only "separatist rebels" then the implication is that were they to succeed in breaking away, in "separating" the part of Thailand or the Philippines from the Thai or Filipino state, that would satisfy them.

But it wouldn't. That would be a first step. But Muslim desires are not exhausted by this or that limited victory. They would still have the goal of spreading Islam, of removing barriers to that spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam. If Thailand were to let go of its south, would this mean that the local Muslims, or those in Malaysia, or those in Indonesia, would be sated or at least satisfied, and would from then on drop all demands for changes within Thailand, or for ever-larger bits of Thailand?

How has it worked out in India? Did India, when at Partition it lopped off large parts of the country, to form West Pakistan, and East Pakistan, and then to give part of Kashmir over to Muslim-rule (not all of Kashmir is controlled by India), find itself at long last at peace? Have the Muslims in Indian-controlled Kashmir behaved peacefully? Have the millions of Muslims who have fled the misrule in Bangladesh, and gone to India, behaved like loyal members of a non-Muslim nation-state? Have Muslims in Mumbai been quiescent, or have their repeatedly been campaigns of terror by the Muslims who control, among other things, the underworld? Who was it who seized the Indian Parliament building in Delhi (just imagine the seizure of the Capitol in Washington)?

These are not "separatist rebels" who are out for a particular, discrete, limited lopping off of territory. They are people who want that, and then want -- must want -- more, as much as they can get, and then more, and more. Islam does not teach that only those parts of the world where Muslims are a majority are to be under Muslim rule. The entire world belongs to Allah.

It's all a matter of timing, and tactics, of what is possible today, and what, if surrenders are made, will be possible tomorrow.

"Separatist rebels" does not adequately describe what is going on.
by Hugh

No, but it is the euphemism that has been chosen, not only by the press but by many in government. To do otherwise would require we confront Islam. To confront Islam would require we give up the lie of the religion of peace, which too many people, including President Bush and all three presidential candidates, have a vested interest in maintaining.

You have to read between the lines, knowing what you know about how Muslim Malays (or Muslim Thais) think of the Chinese.

They assume, usually rightly, that the Chinese are not Muslim, and furthermore, it is understood in southeast Asia --in Malaysia and Singapore and Indonesia -- that Chinese have been most resistant to becoming Muslim, and their secret weapon has been their own confidence and attachment to their own history, to the idea of being Chinese, helps protect even the lowliest, while many even of the better off in the West-- see John Walker Lindh, David Hicks, Yvonne Ridley, Yahya Birt -- lacking that strong sense, find some kind of salvation -- in the Complete Regulation, and Total Belief-System, of Islam.

This makes sense especially about the secret weapon of confidence, attachemnt to history and the idea of being ... anything other than muslim.

This is the same secret weapon that the West is intent on throwing away.

So, the connection to islam in the case of this shooting is subtle, but nevertheless strong given the context of the situation.

Thanks for the insight as always.

Too many of our leaders and so-called policy experts unfortunately see this type of violence, not as part of the worldwide jihad, but rather as local conflicts over specific grievances that can be addressed independently of one-another. They suggest that appeasing one group of local Muslims will thus lessen their appetite for jihad, diminishing the appeal of groups like al-Queda and Hezbollah.

As Hugh has pointed out many times, any accommodation of local Muslim demands only leads to Muslim triumphalism and increases the belief that jihad is the way, making life more dangerous for infidels elsewhere. But that is not how most policy makers and journalists think, which explains the belief that forcing Israel to give land to the Arabs will lessen the appeal of "extremism," thus benefitting the West. Yet a brief look at the evidence suggests that after three decades of Israeli concessions and negotiations, neither Israelis nor other infidels are safer.