What We Won't Let Thailand Teach Us...

[Seagoon]

For obvious reasons the Western Media doesn’t pay much attention to the Jihad in Southern Thailand. There is no connection to the war in Iraq, the victims are Buddhist, and the problems are caused by Muslims who are driving out the Buddhist Thais in order to create a Muslim state. Since none of the cliché answers (“its all our fault” etc.) will work in the scenario, the best answer has simply been to ignore the conflict. In fact, it has been vital that in the quest for answers to why there is so much violence we never be allowed to stop and consider that throughout the world, wherever Islam is in contact with another religion, there are terror cells or all-out violent Jihad.

This morning for instance, in Narathiwat, Thailand, Islamic terrorists attacked two groups of teachers with roadside bombs and shot a 44-year-old man to death. As Time magazine explained in an article this month, this targeting of Thai teachers by the Jihadis is quite deliberate:

The torching at Ban Bukoh was one of more than 100 arson attacks on the region's state schools this year, against 37 in 2006, with nearly 80 teachers and school officials killed. Many were murdered with calculated savagery. In December, a school director and a teacher, aged 59 and 52, were gunned down a few hundred meters from their school in Yala; the four assailants then doused the bodies with gasoline and set them alight. In January, a kindergarten teacher died after eight months in a coma; she had been dragged from her class in Narathiwat by a Muslim mob and beaten until her skull shattered. And more than 300 government schools in Narathiwat were temporarily closed after insurgents killed three teachers last month. Two were women, shot dead in the school library by two gunmen while a hundred horrified children looked on.
…
Terrorizing teachers is central to driving minority Buddhists from the region—a "de facto ethnic cleansing," according to Zachary Abuza, an American academic who specializes in militant Islam in Southeast Asia and who is writing a book on the conflict in the Thai south. "Teachers are very vulnerable, and targeting schools is a very effective tactic," says Abuza. "If you can't send your kids there with any degree of safety, you're going to leave." Terrorizing state schools also forces more parents to send their children to private Islamic schools, where "hundreds of young militants have been recruited and, in some cases, given military training" by teachers, reported the Brussels-based International Crisis Group in March.  (Thailand’s Endless Woe, Time Magazine, July, 2007)

If we had a grain of common sense, we might be able to figure out what’s causing our “terror problem” – but sadly since we don’t, it remains an international mystery.

[mosgood]

It's not a mystery.  It's just not right to single out anyone or group of people as a problem.  Ever.  You wouldn't want to make them feel persecuted.


It's called being civilized.  duh!

[Masherbrum]

As long as two "beings" live on Planet Earth, there will be strife.

[Seagoon]

Yup. Coincidence. That's what I thought. Any group of people on earth committed to any ideology might beat to death, blow up, shoot or burn kindergarten teachers and think they are doing a good deed that will help them both create a better society and get in to paradise. In fact I'd keep a close eye out for terror cells planning to attack elementary schools at your local Rotary club.

By this reasoning, the Second World War was a coincidence and all supposed links between Fascism and genocide or an increased possibility of violence are invalid. No wait, that doesn't work, we have no problems drawing obvious connections between certain ideologies and violence, but as I noted above, we are absolutely prohibited from drawing any links between the ideology of Islam and practical outworking of that ideology.

EDIT: As someone I was talking to actually put it to me after I pointed out that they are commanded to kill the infidel and they have been doing just that for 1400 years, "just because they are commanded to kill the infidel and they do, doesn't mean the religion itself is violent."

- SEAGOON

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Yup. Coincidence. That's what I thought. Any group of people on earth committed to any ideology might beat to death, blow up, shoot or burn kindergarten teachers and think they are doing a good deed that will help them both create a better society and get in to paradise. In fact I'd keep a close eye out for terror cells planning to attack elementary schools at your local Rotary club.

By this reasoning, the Second World War was a coincidence and all supposed links between Fascism and genocide or an increased possibility of violence are invalid. No wait, that doesn't work, we have no problems drawing obvious connections between certain ideologies and violence, but as I noted above, we are absolutely prohibited from drawing any links between the ideology of Islam and practical outworking of that ideology.

- SEAGOON

It's not an Ideology.   It's a fact.   By "being", I meant Humans, Reptiles, Insects, etc.

[Elfie]

It's not a mystery. It's just not right to single out anyone or group of people as a problem. Ever. You wouldn't want to make them feel persecuted.

1400 years of documented Jihad is enough in my opinion to single out all of Islam and muslims in general as a *problem*.

Sadly, even as the Jihad problem becomes worse and worse there will be people who insist that Islam isn't the problem, only the radicals are. Even when it is shown that the Koran itself teaches violence as an acceptable, even required method of conversion.

[Chairboy]

What would your solution be?

* 100% religious conversion at the sword?
* Do unto them first, ala kill all muslims?
* Legal prohibition of their religion?
* Other?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Chairboy
What would your solution be?

* 100% religious conversion at the sword?
* Do unto them first, ala kill all muslims?
* Legal prohibition of their religion?
* Other?

Religious conversion by the sword? Islam does that already. I do not condone this.

Do unto them first? Islam does this already. I do not condone this either.

Legal prohibition? The US Constitution forbids this, as it should. Once you enter this ground all religions are susceptible.

Even defeats on the battlefield do not discourage the Jihad. The West will not win this war simply because Western civilization does not have the stomach for the kind of warfare it would take to stop the Jihad.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Chairboy
What would your solution be?

* 100% religious conversion at the sword?
* Do unto them first, ala kill all muslims?
* Legal prohibition of their religion?
* Other?

Of course not.  The only reasonable solution is to keep burying our heads in the sand and point fingers at anyone that brings it up.  

Our country was founded on freedom of expression, it's just unacceptable and unamerican to not tolorate any religion.  Even if it IS an agressive "You will be assumulated or die and you will serve as my slave in heaven" doctrine.

[Seagoon]

Hi Chair,

Originally posted by Chairboy
What would your solution be?

* 100% religious conversion at the sword?
* Do unto them first, ala kill all muslims?
* Legal prohibition of their religion?
* Other?

I've actually answered this question a number of times, and I don't want to re-invent the wheel. So I'll say "other" and give you my standing answer on how to at least begin to address the problem:

1) Stop misdefining the problem as "terrorism" - no one dies for terrorism, terrorism is a means, not a movement or an end. We cannot defeat terrorism any more than we can defeat "bombs."

If we are unwilling to critically examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shaheeds and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.

2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.

3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).

ALSO - Make it very clear that we will not afford favorable trade status, foreign aid payments, etc. to nations that do not allow non-Islamic religions to exist in their countries and who do not afford equal rights to their non-Muslim citizens.

4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean, for instance, that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.

5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that westerners have to play by in the Islamic world to Islam.

It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected. The Quran, for instance, could not withstand the same level of higher critical scrutiny the bible has been subjected to for 200 years in the West for a moment without complete collapse.

Chair, the West has successfully opposed and contained (but never actually eliminated) other dangerous ideologies - Communism and Fascism which are also seek to build a single world-wide Utopian society, even though it was difficult to do so and took many years and many lives. I believe we could do the same with Islam, but not if we never begin the endeavor.

- SEAGOON

[john9001]

Originally posted by Chairboy
What would your solution be?

* 100% religious conversion at the sword?
* Do unto them first, ala kill all muslims?
* Legal prohibition of their religion?
* Other?

all of the above.
Attila the hun

[AKIron]

I say we just let the Muslims move in, take over, and kill all the liberals. Then we kick 'em out. Win/Win  

[Coshy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To me this means not only can we not establish a nationial religion, we also cannot ban, block, restrict or otherwise thwart any religion or the free excercise thereof.

Like it or not this is one of the founding principals of our nation. If we begin 'interperting' the Constitution to allow us to "suppress and eliminate those ideologies" that conflict with our own, we are setting ourselves up for other 'interpretation' of our rights. I don't think thats a road we are willing to go down.

Seagoon, typically when I read your posts I agree and have a good deal of respect for your positions. However your list ... I simply cant agree with a few points. 1 and 5 I have no problems with, however 2,3,4 would be, to me, an unacceptable assault upon our Constitution. We just cannot favor, or thwart one religion over another. Even if in the short term this is detrimental to our citizenry including the loss of life.

We can, and should demand that muslim countries allow non-muslims to practice their religion freely if they want to do business in/with us.

This quote I like:
"It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither."

[Trell]

Seagoon,  
Some of the problems are because of the Thai police cracking down on protesters in south Thailand.  A few years back the police locked about 100 of them in a van and let then die by heat. not the best way to make or keep friends..

You do know the head of the Thai military is Muslim right?,   Guess he didn't get the memo about the jihad....

I guess I should be worried about Dearborn rising up and taking over Detroit..

[Seagoon]

Hi Coshy,

Originally posted by Coshy
To me this means not only can we not establish a nationial religion, we also cannot ban, block, restrict or otherwise thwart any religion or the free excercise thereof.

Like it or not this is one of the founding principals of our nation. If we begin 'interperting' the Constitution to allow us to "suppress and eliminate those ideologies" that conflict with our own, we are setting ourselves up for other 'interpretation' of our rights. I don't think thats a road we are willing to go down.
...
We can, and should demand that muslim countries allow non-muslims to practice their religion freely if they want to do business in/with us.

Respectfully, I have to disagree. I do not believe that the Constitutional Rights of US Citizens would be in any way infringed by banning the immigration of Saudi Wahabbi clerics and the importation of Salafist, Muslim Brotherhood, and Wahabbi literature that teaches violent Jihad, especially when doing so would simply be to mirror the Saudi policy towards us. During the Second World War we did not allow pro-fascist training camps in the USA, neither did we allow the Soviets to come to the USA in order to set up Communist indoctrination centers during the cold war (we did that ourselves at places like Berkley and Cambridge - sorry I couldn't resist).

We take Jefferson's words regarding the "wall of separation" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists very seriously, well then I think it is time we also took very seriously what he wrote about the Constitution in a letter to John Colvin in 1810:

strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

Or as Justice Robert Jackson later famously put it we musn't make the Bill of Rights into a "suicide pact."

We are once again locked in a death struggle with a hostile ideology. Coexistance with Wahabbi and Salafi Islam is not possible, because they expressly state that they will not do so, we must be converted or subjugated and placed in a state of Dhimmitude.

Now, I don't expect any of what I outlined to be enacted here or in Europe, and I fear that because we refuse to think strategically and implement reasonable wartime reactions, when a terror cell in the USA does finally pull off a spectacular attack our response will be terrible, general, and unreasonable simply because someone will have to pay for our terrible pain. I'd much rather see the measured establishment of a just war policy with the strategic goal of containing and gradually neutralizing an expressly hostile ideology before that happens.

- SEAGOON