Thailand: "More than 3900 people have died in shootings, bomb blasts, beheadings and crucifixions" since 2004

This article shows so many valid points about the nature of the pious muslim. so many times we hear if only there would be peace in the ME would these violent acts cease. but when you tell people of the violence in other parts of the world without a Jew or American involved these islamists appologists have no answers, expect for well Christians have killed to blah blah. but saner minds will begin to see the difference between other religions and islam.

Given the strange hesitancy, or reluctance, on the part of many in the (advanced, white, Christian or post-Christian, -- name your rhetorical guilt-ridden poison)West, to see Islam steadily and whole, to analyze the contents of this Total Belief-System, to understand that it is a faith based on conquest and on the clear distinction between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel, between whom there must exist a state of permanent war (though not always of open warfare), it is useful to have at the ready examples of Muslim war-making against non-Muslims who are not of the (advanced, white, Christian or post-Christian) kind -- that is, Hindus, Buddhists, and others.

3900 Buddhist victims of Muslim violence in southern Thailand tell some in the Weste what, so far, they are refusing to hear or understand: it is not Muslims against the West, but Muslims against All The Rest. It is not what this or that government does or does not do, but the fact that Infidels, insofar as they refuse to yield, anywhere and everywhere, to Muslim demands (those demands vary, in their outrageousness and ferocity, and in the means chosen to force Infidel assent, but essentially -=- if one interprets them rightly -- they consist of demands to remove all obstacles to the spread and the dominance of Islam).

It's the same in Pakistan, and Bangladesh, when Muslim governments discriminate against Hindus, or allow false charges to be brought (for "blasphemy"), charges often not brought by the government but by Muslims who murderously enforce their own ideas of Shari'a on non-Muslims and Muslims alike. It's the same eveywhere -- everywhere, that is, that Muslims either are in control, or feel strong enough to enforce their will or to get away with what they wish without a timid government apprehending or punishing them.

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote "The Emperor's New Clothes" to illustrate the human capacity for willful and purposeful blindness to the obvious when such blindness suits a certain agenda.

The willful and purposeful blindness of the West in the early 21st century to the Global Jihad and Islamic Supremacism suits the agendas of "political correctness" and "multiculturalism," even though it is painfully obvious that Islam is a 100% intolerant mass-murder ideology that is oppressive, totalitarian, uber-misogynist and determined to dominate, not assimilate.

Which leaves us as the little kid who exclaims, "But he hasn't got on any clothes!"

Did you know that in the original the little boy who tells the truth is set upon by the crowd and killed?

Which brings me to a favorite proverb, which happens to be Armenian:

"The Truth-Teller must have one foot in the stirrup."

Example of the painfully obvious from the Koran, along with world events:

"Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Allah's." - Qur'an 8:40

No truth-telling about Islam permitted in the early 21st century, even after 9/11, 3/ll (Madrid), 7/7 (London) etc....as it doesn't suit the PC/MC agendas. We're living in pathetic times in the West, as pathetic as the Nazis' gradually gaining power in the 1930's, and nobody stopping them.

I'm not sure why Koran places the crucifixion verse at 5:37 instead of 5:33. Anyway, the resemblance between the Islamic texts and the jihadist deeds is always striking!

Oops, I meant to say "the Koran I use places the crucifixion..." I use Rodwell's translation...

I remember reading stories about this when the death toll was 1,500, then 1,800, the 2,200, and on and on. Now it is almost 4,000. What will it be next year, or the year after that? And after Southern Thailand is conquered, what becomes of the rest of Thailand? Will no one notice what is happening?

Very restive indeed!

Sometimes there is a silver-lining to Imperialism. It was the Spanish Imperialism that checked the advance of Islamic Imperialism in the South Pacific.

But now, after WWII, with the Spanish gone, the Japanese gone, and now the U.S. gone, Islam is trying to pick up where it left off before the Spanish came.

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter..." -- Mein Qurampf 5:33

*

Let us not forget that this verse follows the one pathetically quoted by Buraq Arafat Saddam Hussein Osama in his surrender speech at Al-Azhar "University" (and how in the hell can an institution that teaches geocentric astronomy to this day be referred to as a university?)

"Sometimes there is a silver-lining to Imperialism. It was the Spanish Imperialism that checked the advance of Islamic Imperialism in the South Pacific."

There's no "sometimes" about it. Western Imperialism was the best thing that happened to the Third World, and was good for the West as well. Nothing is perfect -- but that unremarkably obvious reminder need not even be said (for the need is evidence of a more or less incipient anxiety about one's own West). The dismantling of Western Imperialism in the aftermath of WW2 coincided with the beginning of the reign of the mainstream dominance of PC MC. That coincidence was no coincidence: the dismantling was itself the first robust expression of PC MC (albeit massively reinforced by the exigencies of a war-weary West at the time).

The fact that a sympathetic Jihad Watch reader would have to leaven his remark with "sometimes" shows how deeply PC MC has insinuated itself into our bones, blood, brain, marrow, nervous system.

Thus, one of the litmus questions for determing the extent to which a person has freed himself from the pathology of PC MC is:

1) Was Western Imperialism a good thing or a bad thing?

And the correct answer of course should be obvious.

Extra credit for writing a 1,000-word essay on why it was a good thing, using different regions of the various parts of that Empire (parcelled out in competing spheres among the various Western regimes).

Hugh
you wrote

"it is not Muslims against the West, but Muslims against All The Rest"

It's strange that this lady in India came to the same conclusion, in 2004

http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=40236

Evidence of intelligent life at AFP?

I clicked on the link and read the rest of the story, which contains a few details worth noting, such as: that that 16 year old Buddhist girl was murdered, and her husband wounded, merely in order to be used as 'bait' in an ambush - their Muslim murderers placed a bomb, which exploded when the posse arrived - "A police officer, a soldier and a civilian defence volunteer were wounded when a bomb exploded as they went to inspect the scene" [i.e., presumably when they went into the house to try to help the young couple].

And the other person who was murdered in this latest killing spree was a deemed-insufficiently-Islamic fellow Muslim, killed for letting down the Ummah by siding with the Kaffir:

"Also in Yala, militants handcuffed a 42-year-old Muslim defence volunteer and shot him execution-style in the head before dumping the body in a road on Saturday". The Ummah behaves exactly like an organised-crime gang.

Hesperado: I used to say Western colonialism was good in my essays at university (and in classes). I was treated as a freak, a bigot, a racist, or worst of all,a "conservative"! Ah, the fun of university...

As I sometimes do, I have taken the liberty of rewriting the article for greater clarity and accuracy:

'SUSPECTED Jihad gang raiders assassinated two people, one Buddhist, one Muslim, and wounded three others in a bomb blast in Thailand's jihad-wracked Muslim-majority south, Thai police said.

'Muslim gunmen broke into a house in Yala province and shot dead a 16-year-old Buddhist girl, also wounding her 29-year-old husband, they said.

'A police officer, a soldier and a civilian defence volunteer were wounded when a bomb exploded as they went to inspect the scene.

'Also in Yala, Muslim jihadists handcuffed a 42-year-old Muslim defence volunteer and shot him execution-style in the head, before dumping the body in a road on Saturday, they said.

'Presumably, he was being punished for his perceived collaboration with non-Muslims.

'More than 3900 people, most of them Buddhist civilians, have been murdered in shootings, bomb blasts, beheadings and crucifixions since full-on jihad restarted in Thailand's southern provinces bordering Malaysia in January 2004." END REWRITE

Now, if AFP and the Thai police had a full understanding of what is going on, that is how the report might have read.

Turkish soldiers used crucifixion during the Korean War to deter the locals from stealing.(they also fought like demons) The UN looked the other way.

The Thai government has created shot gun militias to deal with their muslim unrest problem.

recently "Malaysia has offered to assist, in any way it can, if Thailand decides to offer the three southern Moslem provinces more autonomy, as a way to reduce the Islamic terrorist violence."
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/thai/articles/20091029.aspx

DDA and gravenimage:

Remember the recent Muslim plot in Boston: they were going to shoot shoppers at random, and then shoot emergency personnel arriving at the scene to help the victims.

PG -- sounds like you were ahead of the curve before most of us. I only had that epiphany about the West and the greatness of Western Imperialism in the late 90s -- at least the full implications of it, without hedging it round with half-guilty euphemisms and weaselly padding.

Hesperado, PG - sorry, I cannot agree with you when in your claimed reaction against PCMC you now seem to want to state that European/ Western Imperialism was a pure, unmitigated benefit for everyone subjected to it, always and everywhere.

Leaving aside imperialism in the nonwestern world, let's just think about what the English appear to have felt entirely justified in attempting to do to those evil, primitive, barbaric and inferior Welsh and Scots and Irish (never mind that, in fact, the violent Odin-worshipping slave-keeping Anglo-Saxon and Norse invaders of Britain were...converted to Christianity by Welsh, Scots and Irish missionaries, way back in the day...who had themselves become Christians not by imperial conquest but by peaceful evangelism). Rafts of discriminatory laws, and deliberate downright sadistic suppression of native languages in order that English-only should prevail (use of psychological and physical abuse against children, among other things, to achieve this), all happening as late as the late nineteenth century. And that was one nation, claiming to be Christian, doing it to *other fellow-European peoples who were also majority-Christian*. Ever heard of the 'Welsh Not'? Or the 'Highland Clearances'? Were they good, just, and right? If it was wrong in Wales when done to the Welsh, it was wrong in colonial Australia when done to native Aboriginal people.

And do you both seriously believe that *everything* that was done in the Belgian Congo by Europeans, for example, was justifiable and good, and no-one should have protested against it at the time? And that *everything* Mussolini did to the [Christian] Abyssinians, was just and good? Or that *everything* that the Spaniards and Portuguese did in the New World - up to and including the enslavement (leading to mass deaths) of the Caribbean peoples (such that virtually none survive today), or the use of mass slave labour, leading to mass deaths, in the silver mines of Bolivia, was necessary, right, good and justifiable? Do you believe Bartolomeo las Casas, for example, was a traitor and subversive who should have been taken out and shot for committing the heinous crime of questioning and criticising the absolute morality and perfect justice of what his fellow Spaniards were doing to the native inhabitants of the lands they had invaded? Do you believe that the forcible deportation of the - largely-assimilated, Christianised - Cherokee from their homeland, was just? Do you believe that the destruction of the Jesuit missions - the 'Reductions' - by secular Spanish land-grabbers (which led to many deaths of those native people whom the Jesuits had tried to shelter and educate) was right and good?

Re. Imperialism. I will grant that 'western' imperialism has not been *quite* as destructive as Arab/ Muslim imperialism has been, or as Han imperialism currently is in Tibet, or Bama imperialism against the Christian Karen and other non-Bama peoples in Myanmar/ Burma.

But I do not and cannot see it as having been an unmitigated and perfect good for those peoples who were on the receiving end: many of whom, in Australia and the Americas, lost their lands, their languages, and very often their lives; were used as slave or near-slave labour (and systematically cheated of their wages, in Australia, as late as the 1960s); and had their children forcibly removed, often for the flimsiest of manufactured reasons.

The obliteration of a multiplicity of languages, and the mass deaths that resulted - and those deaths due to epidemic disease, displacement or forced mass removal from home territory, forcible confinement in small areas under poor conditions, destruction or contamination of traditional food sources, or even deliberate poisoning [there were cases of poisoning of waterholes or wells in Australia; and arsenic and strychnine *were* put into flour or meat which was then left as deliberate 'bait' by Europeans, for Aborigines; there were instances of Aboriginal people being actually *invited* to poisoned dinners!] - was ALL of this justifiable, just and good?

It is estimated that in 1788 there were at least 750 000 native Australians; in 1900 there were perhaps 93 000. I do not believe that that massive population collapse had NOTHING to do with anything that English-speaking people were doing (PG - ever heard of those European Australians who, in northern Australia in the late nineteenth century, did not pay their Aboriginal workers with money, but with either grog or opium ash? Yup, *opium ash* - sort of as if a modern businessman were to pay people in heroin or crystal meth) or that such a massive population collapse should be viewed with equanimity or approval. Since 1900 the identifying-as-aboriginal population has taken a whole century to creep back to something near what it was in 1788.

And perhaps, PG, you think that the Stolen Wages and the Stolen Generations did not happen, that there was *never* any instance of deliberate fraud or injustice, that NO teenage aboriginal maid was ever raped or beaten or starved by her European employer, that EVERY Aboriginal child forcibly taken from its parents benefited (even when told outright lies, such as that its parents hated it and had forgotten it, when this was not in fact the case), and that the Aboriginal people who survived these things, and are now talking about it, are ALL telling lies and complaining about nothing...me, I believe the testimony re stolen wages and stolen children, and I am quite prepared to believe the accounts of massacres, poisoned waterholes and poisoned flour, precisely because I am a Christian and I know two things 1. the heart of man is desperately wicked, 2. the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and 3. human beings bent on doing evil to others, are very, very good at lying to themselves and to others about what they are doing. And evil people can be found among the ranks of 'Christians'.

M Scott Peck's 'People of Lie' is very helpful for understanding Muslims and Islam. But it is also very helpful for understanding the kinds of ways in which European imperial conquerors, in Australia and in the Americas, did very often abuse the native peoples whom they had subjugated, and the kinds of rhetoric they used to hide from themselves the full extent of what they were doing. Such as 'disperse'. The natives were 'dispersed'. E M Curr, himself a squatter, remarks sardonically, after relating the story of an Aboriginal girl in 19th-century Central Queensland who was shot for the capital crime of lighting a fire in grass beside a creek, that when such a girl is shot, she is said to be 'dispersed'.

PG - it is documented that in Central Queensland the owners of stations, during a period of severe drought, drove the local Aboriginal people away from the permanent 'drought refuge' water holes, with gunfire, in order that the water might be kept for the cattle and sheep. Aboriginal families, thus denied access to permanent water, DIED. Human beings were deliberately condemned to die of thirst, so that the squatters' livestock could drink. Perhaps you will say ' details, details, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs'. But when I, a Christian, contemplate the fact that human beings were deliberately caused, by persons strange to their country, to die of thirst by those strangers, in order that the water that human beings might have drunk, should be drunk by the strangers' COWS, is obscene.

The only thing that mitigated the cruelty and greed of the semi-Christian - and later, Enlightenment-era - European imperialists was that their professed religion, Christianity, unlike Islam, was NOT created expressly in order to justify and rationalise the wholesale subjugation and annihilation of other groups of people in the interests of one particular group.

So some of their fellow Christians spoke up for, and tried to help, the peoples who were being subjugated, dispossessed and, often enough, enslaved and mass murdered. The dissenters and protesters were few enough, but they existed, all along, in the Americas and in Australia; whereas no such dissenters can be found anywhere in the history of Islamic imperialism.

*That* is the only difference that seriously matters to me.

Any 'christianised' society that decides to play the heady game of Empire - let's conquer, enslave, and forcibly culturally assimilate this or that other group of people, take their land, steal their kids, make them work for low wages or for nothing - has to face the fact that its own religion neither commands or prescribes and certainly does not commend any such behaviour. The New Testament contains NO command to CONQUER. Indeed, when Hitler set out to try to create a Third Reich, he realized he'd have to get rid of the Jews and the Christians altogether first, in order to pursue Empire and seize Lebensraum untrammelled by pesky moral scruples.

The founder and promulgators of Christianity were members of a tiny nation, inhabitants of a tiny territory (the Hebrew conquest of Canaan, which observed strict boundaries, is simply not comparable with the vast imperial/ conquering movements in human history, none of which seem to have been willing to admit any limit to their imperial ambitions) who had spent most of their history under the boot of this or that imperial invader [Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome] and occupier - who had recently only barely survived a massive and violent attempt at forcible cultural assimilation (the Hellenising paganising campaign of Antiochus, who set out to 'civilise' the Jewish barbarians and untermenschen by forcibly eradicating their religion, customs, language, etc.)

It should also be noted that wholesale conquest of a people, the obliteration of their native language, dispossession from their lands, etc, is quite clearly not *necessary* for that people to be converted to Christianity. The church in Ireland and Scotland, Armenia, Ethiopia, the churches of the Silk Road (prior to the advent of Islam), the Mar Thoma Christians of India, and in more recent times the church in Korea, came into existence *without* their countries having been invaded, conquered and 'occupied' by a 'christian' imperial power. Kievan Russia was not converted (and its culture quite dramatically transformed) as a result of having been *invaded* or *conquered* by Byzantium or by anybody else. The greatest expansion of Christianity both in China and in southern Africa has taken place *after* their 'decolonisation'.

So if - as I do, being a Christian - one regards the Christian faith as the best thing the European Christians had to offer to others, one also knows that Empire was not *required* - it was neither necessary nor sufficient - in order for European Christians to communicate the faith to others.

A few more thoughts.

Thailand is, in fact, one of the countries of South-East Asia that was never colonised, as such, by any European Power. They were *assisted* by the Portuguese at one point, during a struggle with the Muslims (and it should be noted that the Portuguese also assisted the Ethiopians against the Muslims, in the 15th or 16th century; I also seem to recall that in recent times Portugal spoke up for their former colony, East Timor, against Indonesia...and have not recolonised it, once it got loose from Indonesia, but have allowed it to remain free).

From my Christian sourcebook, 'Operation World' - "'Thailand' means 'Land of the Free' because it successfully retained its freedom while surrounding countries were colonized by western powers. It is believed that a special guardian angel, Phra Sayam Devadhiraj, protected the land...".

(My Christian source, of course, deplores the fact that the Thai have created a golden statue representing this being...I myself think that the perception that one has been preserved from domination by spiritual assistance, is not in and of itself necessarily wrong; Thai Christians [there are some] might choose to believe that something more than Phra Sayam was at work; that YHWH in his infinite mercy permitted their country to remain free; that there *were* angels acting on their behalf.

Personally, I pray that even though He is not acknowledged or known by most Thai, YHWH the Liberator will in his mercy help the non-Muslim Thai people and government defeat the ceaseless and monstrously-cruel Jihad that is being waged against them.

Why does not the West take a leaf out of Portugal's book? They seem to have had enough big-picture sense to back the Ethiopians (Christian) and the Thais (Buddhist) against local jihadists. And to do it as partners/ equals. One Infidel helping another. Why are our Aussie and Canadian and US and Western European soldiers not helping majority-kafir nations like Ethiopia, Thailand, Philippines, India and Israel (for example) hammer the jihadists into the ground, rather than futzing around burning men and money trying to herd murderous Mohammedan kilkenny cats in Afghanistan and Iraq [at least the Aussies are out of Iraq, but we are still getting our men killed in Afghanistan] and pouring money into the bottomless pits of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, etc?

PS - a bit OT, but,- while we're on Portugal, I understand that way back in the Middle Ages a contingent of English crusaders heading for the Holy Land stopped off in Portugal for provisioning, etc. The then king of Portugal pointed out that if they wanted to help Christians defend themselves against Mohammedan attack, they didn't need to go all the way to the other end of the Mediterranean to do it; he had a problem with Mohammedans right where he was, and could they help out, please? They were delighted to do so, and thus an alliance was formed that lasted for some centuries.