The jihad continues in Thailand, not often with large-scale attacks, but one ambush or bombing at a time. "Two killed in attacks in Thailand's south: police," from Agence France-Presse (thanks to Dumbledoresarmy):
Separatist militants in Thailand's troubled south have killed two men in separate attacks, provincial police said.
"Separatist militants" whose affiliation, of course, cannot be named.
A 27-year-old Thai man working as the assistant chief of his village council was shot dead in an ambush while on his way to work in Pattani province on Tuesday morning (local time), they said, adding that he was beheaded.
Two hours earlier, also in Pattani, three soldiers on patrol were wounded in a roadside bomb attack.
In Yala province a 21-year-old Muslim paratrooper was gunned down Monday evening in an attack on his outpost in which one of his colleagues was injured, the police said.
More than 3,400 people have been killed since separatist unrest erupted four years ago in the south. Tensions in the region have simmered since Thailand annexed the mainly ethnic Malay sultanate in 1902.
Key word: Sultanate. And that's about the closest we get to any mention of an Islamic aspect of the conflict.
"Separatist militants" is pretty good for the MSM.
Recently they tried to change it to 'missionary bandits', which had me in stitches.
What's infuriating is that AFP and Reuters often add the old chestnut about how the 'deep south' was once a Muhammedan Sultanate which was annexed by Thailand and that they are a mistreated and neglected minority in a Buddhist country etc etc.
Before the oil-boom in the seventies they were Thai's like everybody else and hoisted the flag and sang the national anthem in their schools every day.
With the influx of Arab money, mosques, hate-preachers and young Muslim Thai's going to work in Sowdi Arabia to return indoctrinated with the jihad ideology, the war against the 'idol-worshippers' has started in earnest.
Now its hijab country, where the bombs go off every day. That's progress.
THEIR 9/11
Like I said before when non-Muslims are killed like this the Thai government should go in and clear a few mosques. Repeat as necessary. Start with the militant mosques and work your way down the list
If Thais had any cojones they would announce mosque demolition in advance and then drop a few bombs on a flyover. Or fire missiles if that's more accurate
What do you know! An article about Thailand's Muslim insurgency that did NOT use the word "restive" to describe the south.
I also notice that 'restive' was missing, replaced by 'troubled'.
What I want to know is, is that a step up or a step down? Is there a difference between 'restive' Thai muslims' and 'troubled' Thai muslims.
Have you ever seen or heard a muslim who was not 'troubled'?
I'm trying to figure this out, but it's tough.
Does a muslim in Thailands south, become 'restive' before or after he becomes 'troubled'?
Does the Quran have anything to do with this?
I guess only Allah knows for sure, and he ain't talking...but he is willing...he's always willing...
Duh Swami,
Thanks for the chuckle.
Considering it was an AFP dispatch, maybe it was problems in translation that resulted in the "restive"-turned-"troubled" conundrum.
Hey, its a time-tested excuse when Muslims try to explain the Quran's incessant exhortations to hate.
Key word: Sultanate. And that's about the closest we get to any mention of an Islamic aspect of the conflict.
.................................
Well, yes and no. There is also this:
"In Yala province a 21-year-old Muslim paratrooper was gunned down Monday evening in an attack on his outpost in which one of his colleagues was injured, the police said."
Why did the reporter think it was important to note that one of the victims was Muslim? The religion of his injured colleague is not mentioned.
If I knew nothing about this conflict but what I read in this article, I might assume that the perpetrators were Buddhists, rather than Muslim Jihadists.
Of course, it does not surprise me that one of the victims was Muslim. Muslims, in fact, are always the main victims of violent Islam.
Perhaps they didn't know that this Thai paratrooper was Muslim. Or, perhaps, that made them seek him out--as a "hypocrite", or an "apostate", or indeed any Muslim who has the temerity to "take Jews and Christians (or Buddhists and Hindus) as his friends", and fails in any way to fully support the worst of his fellow Muslims in bloody Jihad.
gravenimage - that was the first thing I noticed - that all mention of Islam, or jihad, or Muslims, was carefully bleached out of the article, except to identify that one soldier who happened to be Muslim.
When I first came across the article, I amused myself by rewriting it as it might have been, had the Thai police, the AFP reporter and the news editor undergone the instruction that we have undergone here at jihadwatch and from the books of Mr Spencer and others.
Here's the rewrite:
- Jihadists kill two in S Thailand: police
'Muslim supremacists in Thailand's jihad-wracked south have killed two men in separate attacks, provincial police said.
'Jihadis ambushed and shot dead a 27-year-old Thai Buddhist man, the assistant chief of his village council, while he was on his way to work in Pattani province on Tuesday morning (local time), police said, adding that he was beheaded.
'Two hours earlier, also in Pattani, jihadists carried out a roadside bomb attack, wounding three Thai soldiers on patrol.
'In Yala province on Monday evening jihadists attacked a Thai military outpost, shooting dead a 21-year-old Muslim paratrooper and injuring one of his colleagues, the police said.
'More than 3,400 people have been killed since jihad began in earnest four years ago.
'The Malay people of the region, originally Buddhist and Hindu, were converted to Islam in the late middle ages.
'In 1902, responding to an unprovoked sneak attack by the sultanate, Thailand defeated and annexed it.
'Classical Islam teaches that all non-Muslim regimes are illegitimate and that non-Muslims should not rule over Muslims; so Thai non-Muslim rule has always been resented to some degree'.'
I should add that at this stage any editor or journalist truly worth their salt would not merely state blandly '3 400 people have been killed' in four years (which works out at just under 1000 people per year!).
Ideally, by this stage one newspaper somewhere would publish a graph.
On this graph we would see a breakdown of those killed, divided into two groups.
One group would comprise the number of those killed directly by the jihadists; this set would be further subdivided as to whether people were Muslim or non-Muslim, and then again, as to whether they were combatants or noncombatants. Thus we would see how many Thai Buddhist civilians the jihadis were killing, as opposed to how many civilian fellow-Muslims.
The second group would show how many were killed directly by the Thai army or police force, and then again, how many of these were combatants (jihadists) and how many were - at least putatively - unarmed civilians (e.g. small children, women). It is possible that there might be some non-Muslim victims - 'friendly fire' occurs in all wars.
That way we could see *who* was targeting whom, and *who* was focusing more on civilians.
A good news outlet would also, at this stage, provide
1. a complete 'incident map' of the relevant provinces covering those four years of jihad and 3400 deaths
2. a timeline, commencing a couple of centuries BEFORE the arrival of Islam, while the region was still Buddhist, Hindu and animist