From the article above:

"'If you go to work, we will kill you cruelly. We will wait for you 24 hours a day, follow you wherever you go,' said one recent leaflet obtained by The AP, ordering Buddhists in one area to leave within three days."

Let's just imagine how the entire world, led by the nose by al-Reuters and the like, would *FREAK OUT* were this to be, say, Christians saying this about muslims... ordering them out of their home and threatening to kill them.

uh huh. *eye roll*

Posted by: JenBee at March 11, 2007 5:40 AM

You hear from the old media, and muslim apppologists, if only Israel could settle with Palis (ie evey Jew to leave() the muslims could be at peace. well tell that to Thailand! and many more places around the world where there is no Israel and Jews! We need to let this news out about the evil in islam expand their historical way.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 11, 2007 7:23 AM

Had to chuckle when I saw 'British Blaspheming Crusaders'-BBC in a 'grateful' Muslim poster protesting [when aren't they] about dreaded Mo cartoons. And we know how the Media,especially BBC toady & push Pro Islamic propaganda...
No matter how Dhimmi politicians & Leftist Journos protest otherwise-ISLAM WILL ATTEMPT WORLD DOMINATION BY INTIMIDATION,TERROR,SUICIDE
BOMBINGS OR SIMPLY OUTBREEDING ITS HOSTS.
Read life of its evil,depraved founder & Islamic
Conquest by Jihad to know future of all Infidel Countries.Time to stamp out this cancer while we still have means to do so and a country to call our own before accursed black flag of Sharia law
has replaced everything Civilization has fought for in last 1,000 yrs.
Whether Thailand tries peaceful or firm measures,end result will be the same -fighting in the streets like every other Islamic Hell Hole.In sick 'culture' of Muslims,lies & duplicity are admired as much as beheading,throwing acid into faces of unveiled women or bombing music shops .And these hypocritical bastards claim THEY ARE THE VICTIMS...

Posted by: Morgane at March 11, 2007 8:46 AM

An Arab Web site appeared in January, dedicated exclusively to southern Thailand and believed the first of its kind. Couched in Islamic rhetoric, the site backs independence for southern Thais."
-- from the article above

The "independence movement for southern Thais" is not merely "couched in Islamic rhetoric." The impulse is entirely Islamic. Muslims are not to be ruled by Infidels. They are to rule over any land which they currently live on, for Infidels are never to rule over Muslims: that is against nature, contra naturam, or rather against something stronger than nature, against Allah. Furthermore, any inch of land once controlled by Muslims is forever Muslim -- that means Spain and Portugal and Sicily, parts of southern France, Bulgaria, Rumania, parts of Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, much of Russia (those Tatars), and so on.

But in the end, these distinctions are merely a matter of priorities. In the end, the entire world belongs to Allah and to the best of people, the Muslims.

The Muslims in southern Thailand are not working toward "independence" because this is a "nationalist" movement any more than the local Arabs called "Palestinians" are genuine "nationalists" who suddenly realized that the "Palestinian people" (never mentioned, not once, before the 1967 war), or the local Muslims in Kashmir, or in India, or those Muslims in Pakistan supporting them, are "nationalists." Muslim loyalty is to Islam and to fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers. Muslim loyalty must never be offered to Infidels, although here and there outward signs of feigned loyalty may be offered, if it allows Muslims to find out (by sometimes serving in the military, for example) about how non-Muslim armies operate, or if it helps to make the position of Muslims in an Infidel-controlled land more secure where it might otherwise be under scrutiny -- and such can be continued for a long time.

"War is deception" said Muhammad. But as long as Islam remains Islam, who knows when the feigning will come to an end, or in what generation? The only thing one needs to know is the doctrine of Islam, the 1350-year history of how that doctrine has been worked out, and the testimony of our best, most acute informants, the defectors from Islam, the apostates and those who are Muslim-for-identification--purposes-only Muslims who genuinely wish to warn us (see Magdi Allam) about the menace. It is they, and the
Western students of Islam, those who have managed to obtain posts, and those who have been shut out, very deliberately and carefully, by the army of academic apologists for Islam, who if they were dealt with appropriately, would --- many of them - not only be held up for ridicule, but be stripped of the sums they have received from Muslim interests, both directly and indirectly, and some, upon thorough investigation, be punished for what amounts to putting their own countries in danger through intellectual treason, or what might be called a "trahison des faux clercs."

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2007 9:27 AM

"Palestinian people" (never mentioned, not once, before the 1967 war)

from a posting by Hugh

Today's Palestinians were Egyptians or Jordanians pre-1967 but weren't they part of the original state of Israel before being taken over by those two countries? Weren't Israeli Arabs also considered part of the people of Palestine?

The "Palestine Question" was a preoccupation of Gamel Abdel Nasser and was part of inter-Arab politics since the 1930s. At a 1964 summit in Cairo a decision was made to "lay the proper foundations for organizing the Palestinian people and enabling it to fulfull its role in the liberation of its homeland...". Four months later the PLO was born. Whom did Yasser Arafat consider to be Palestinians who needed to be liberated in 1964? Wouldn't that have been all Arabs living in the state of Israel?

Posted by: PMK at March 11, 2007 1:52 PM

"I want to see them try to upset the cart in China, they'll be slaughtered by the Chinese military, and you'll never hear about it in the news either. Why don't the Islamics stress their crap in China ? They know, they'll be at the end of a blood bath."

So, what does this tell you? As I have mentioned: The only counter to Islam involves application of equal or greater force. I have lost all hope of Muslims pacifying the jihadis amongst them. Since that is the case, we must do it ourselves. Let's see: Any ideas on how to pacify a psychotic mass murderer? I know one, and it works with a single application. Pick your caliber.

Posted by: Zenster at March 11, 2007 1:55 PM

Now seeing first hand how Islam acts in these modern times...that any European response [no matter how over the top it appears in history books] in the crusades were carried out by people who were driven to the point of either kill or be killed. Maybe its coming full circle again where Islam simply drives the rest of the world into survival mode & where brutality takes a backseat to restraint? Sure seems to me its headed this direction.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 11, 2007 3:15 PM

"Thailand insurgency may have links to the broader world of radical Islam"

What a surprise!

=====================

The islamist attack on buddhist Thailand is particularly upsetting to me for sentimental reasons. I have a settled attachement for the buddhist cultures of the world and the art and social atmospheres they have produced.

It was with particular disgust that I watched Tibet fall into the hands of the communists and Cambodia devastated by Pol Pot and his communist thugs.

I fear that the Thais will be unable to defend themselves. Not only do they seem disinclined to do so, but their military establishment has been infiltrated by mohammedans and likely islamist 5th columnists.

The fundamentally passivist buddhists will not organize a resistance anywhere near soon enough or strong enough.

I fear that Thailand may be a good as lost already.

The idea of Thai temple dancers, stripped of their brightly colored clothes and muffled under grim burqas, those smiling faces locked behind the veil -- it makes my stomach turn.

Most of the western world will not care at all.

Posted by: joeblough at March 11, 2007 3:26 PM

"Today's Palestinians were Egyptians or Jordanians pre-1967 but weren't they part of the original state of Israel before being taken over by those two countries? Weren't Israeli Arabs also considered part of the people of Palestine?"
-- from a posting above

There were, and are, Arabs living in the Ottoman vilayets that made up what became Mandatory Palestine. There were Jews living in all the Ottoman vilayets that became Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and they were also to be found elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim lands -- in Yemen, and Morocco, and Tunisia, and Algeria, and Egypt, and Libya. And now all of those Jews, the descendants of those whose land had been conquered by Muslims, those Jews who had never left the Middle East (as many Jews did, because bad as Western Christendom may have been, apparently the Muslim lands were not all so wonderfully "tolerant" as some would have us believe -- the mass-killings of Jews in Grenada, in Fez, in Tripoli, in Baghdad, in Shiraz, in Mausa, and the ritual-murder trials used to good effect, when Western Christians were around, as in Damascus in 1840 -- show what the Jews had to endure.

There are still Arabs living in what was Mandatory Palestine, that small sliver, the single mandate, that managed to be created for a non-Arab people (neither the promises made after World War I for a Kurdish state, or an Armenian state, weref ulfilled). While as the Mandatory Authority, the British government managed to breach every single one of its most solemn commitments made to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, beginning with the lopping off of all of Eastern Palestine in order to buy off one of the Hashemite princes (Abdullah, older brother of the Feisal who was given the "Kingdom" of Iraq on a platter), and instead of "facilitating Jewish immigration" and "ecouraging close Jewish settlement on the land" -- as they were supposed to, in the precise language of the Mandate -- but instead did everything they could to prevent Jewish immigration (and in 1939 MacDonald's White Paper was intended to limit Jewish immigrants to 15,000 a year, for five years), while illegal Arab immigration continued, especially from Egypt and from impoverished Iraq and Transjordan, throughout the entire Mandatory period).

Of course there were some -- far fewer than the Jews in Arab and Muslim lands who ended up in Israel -- Arabs in Mandatory Palestine. And they have thrived, and their numbers swollen, even as the numbers of Muslims has swelled at a rate far beyond that of non-Muslims, all over Western Europe.

It's the same problem. And will require the same measures -- if either Israel, or France, or Great Britain, or Italy are to survive as parts of the West. But it will take, apparently, a long while for that to be recognized and acted upon.

A great pity. The costs will be unnecessarily high.

Posted by: Hugh at March 11, 2007 4:24 PM

There is a constant murder of Buddhist by Muslims in Thailand:

Muslims murder 5 Buddhists in Thailand

Muslims behead Buddhist in Thailand

Posted by: markedmanner at March 11, 2007 7:34 PM

[...]the divide not just between Thailand and Malaysia but between Southeast Asia's Muslim and Buddhist worlds [...]

Samuel Huntington talks about the constant battles between the Islamic civilization and those other civilizations it has border contact with.

Islamic civ. is the worst aggressor in every instance of one civilization meeting up with another geographically. Islamo-Buddhist borders have as much conflict as Islamo-Othrodox, Islamo-Western, Islamo-African, Islamo-Sinic.

Huntington sees Islamic culture as retrograde, militant and aggressive vis a vis every other of the 8 civilizations he describes in The Clash of Civilizations Prof. Huntington sees the problem with Islam quite well.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 12, 2007 10:10 AM

"Palestinian people" (never mentioned, not once, before the 1967 war)

from a posting by Hugh

Actually the term "Palestinian" originally meant only a Jew or Christian indigenous to the Holy Land. It NEVER meant a local Muslim who were always called simply Arabs or Turks. In the 1960 movie version of Leon Uris' "Exodus" there is a character called "the Palestinian". All it meant was he was born in Palestine and not in Europe. For Jews at the time of Israel's war for independence, the term "Palestinian" was interchangeable with "Sabra".

Even the Balfour Declaration uses the term in the plural promising safeguards to those communities already living in Palestine, i.e. Christians, Samaritans, Druzes, etc. In other words, there is not "a" Palestinian people but several. They are Jews, Christians and Samaritans who have always been living in the land. The Muslims were and are just Arab invaders who have no real claim on the land.

A true Palestinian nationalism would be to expel the Muslims so that a Jewish Israel could exist in federation with a Christian, Jewish, and Samaritan Palestine in Judea, Samaria and Nazareth.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 13, 2007 12:03 PM