Yesterday:
Thailand: Jihadists kill 5 soldiers with roadside bomb
They’re just “rebels”, you see. Just like “rebels without a cause”…. or something….
Three of the five soldiers killed were Muslim and two Buddhist….
Today AP has this:
“Restive Suspected Muslim insurgents” Kill Eight
They’re only “suspected”, you see. One can’t be too careful. Lets not rush to conclusions, shall we?
Thai Jihad, file photo
PATTANI, Thailand – Suspected Muslim insurgents detonated roadside bombs that killed eight people, including one civilian, in two separate attacks in Thailand’s restive south, police said Friday.
A bomb explosion in Yala province on Friday killed three soldiers in a pickup truck who were sent to fix a water pipe in a village in Yaha district, said police Col. Sawas Tiawirat.
On Thursday evening, suspected insurgents detonated a bomb and then shot at security forces on a patrol in Narathiwat province, killing a soldier, two security rangers, a village security guard and a village official, said police Capt. Pairat Kiatcharoensiri.
The suspects stole four rifles before fleeing in the Rue So district of Narathiwat, he said.
More than 4,000 people have been killed in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces since an Islamist insurgency erupted in 2004.
Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala provinces are the only Muslim-majority areas in the predominantly Buddhist country. Muslims there have long complained of discrimination by the central government.
The southern insurgents have made no public pronouncements, but are thought to be fighting for anindependent Muslim state. Their attacks target symbols of the state, including soldiers, government-run offices and businesses.
————————————————————
Dumbles has some interesting comments:
“A separatist insurgency”.
Translation: Jihad.
And note that the three Muslim soldiers, being in the employ of the Thai non-Muslim state, would be viewed by the sharia-pushers as traitors to the Ummah.
I would be curious to know whether anyone has done a study setting out the composition of that tally of ‘4,100’ victims of the Jihad in southern Thailand. (And I’d like to know the date – the day, month, year – on which the count begins. Is it 4,100 people killed in the last five years? ten years? twenty years?).
It would be worth knowing how many of those murdered by the jihadist assassins have been Buddhist civilians (I know that some have been schoolteachers, some buddhist monks, some plantation workers and tea-shop customers), how many have been Thai non-Muslim soldiers and policemen, and how many have been ‘deemed-insufficiently-Islamic’ or ‘collaborator’ Muslims, killed because of a perception that they were aiding the Infidels rather than the Ummah or Mohammedan Mob.
I read the whole of the article over at Adnkronos.
The second-last paragraph is absolute boilerplate for any report on a region where an aggressive and treacherous Muslim population is waging jihad against a majority-nonMuslim society within which it is embedded.
I quote: “Thai militias and security forces in [the] southeast Asia countries [sic: country’s?] south have been accused of widespread abuses by rights groups since the separatist campaign escalated {translation: ‘since the Muslims stepped up their Jihad’] in 2004.”
Suure. The pooor, pooor Muslims, always so persecuted by the non-Muslims, and the ‘rights groups’ who are so upset when the non-Muslim state attempts to suppress the Jihad. What about the rights of Buddhist monks and tea-shop customers and plantation workers and Buddhist schoolteachers, to live peaceful lives without being shot at, or blown up, or beheaded, by psychopathic Muslims?
And the final paragraph, too, leaves out something that should be included every time the Jihad in southern Thailand is mentioned.
“The region was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until it was annexed in 1902 by mainly Buddhist Thailand.”
The paragraph, as it stands, implies that those wicked, aggressive Thai Buddhists, out of the blue, attacked and colonised a peaceful Muslim sultanate that was just sitting quietly minding its own business.
In fact, it was the other way around: the sultanate, perceiving an opportunity whilst Thailand was engaged in a conflict with Burma/ Myanmar, had *attacked Thailand*, entirely unprovoked (unless by the usual fake grievances and ‘incidents’ Muslims always seem to be able to cook up).
The Thais turned out to be stronger than the sultan had thought; they counter-attacked, defended themselves effectively, and *defeated the sultanate*, so that instead of the sultan expanding the possessions of dar al Islam by gobbling up big chunks of Thailand, it was the *Muslims* who got gobbled up by dar al harb.
So let’s rewrite the paragraph:
“The region was an autonomous Malay Muslim sultanate until it attacked Thailand in 1902 and was, in the resulting war, defeated and annexed”.
Sounds like Gaza. Islamists are violent, aggressive mongrels that should be put down like a rabid dog.
I suspect the Thais will eventually wise up and start doing what they need to do.
To left wing moronic moonbats the use of the euphemism is a way of escaping having to face reality. The more they euphemise the more pathetic they become until their every utterance is treated with the utmost contempt as well it should be.
Any good sources on the Pattani invasion of Siam in 1902? I don’t doubt it at all, of course, but like some other Jihads (the Insurrection of the Malees, the Battle of Broken Hill) it’s naturally been kept obscure because it’s un-PC and all…