Islamofascists shut down 944 Thai Schools !!

They sure embrace the doctrine of Keeping the masses uneducated to help exert there control .....

Weird though, youd think that these terrible acts would do nothing but bring them more enemys ??

Story Here

Thailand will close all 944 public schools indefinitely in the country's restive Muslim-majority south after a string of arsons and shootings that left two teachers dead, an official said Monday.
The victim was the 60th teacher killed during three years of unrest in the south, where more than 1,600 people have been killed in the almost daily violence since January 2004.

The Thais have offered to have talks with the Extremists, but they dont seem to have any demands, maybe the Islamofascists just want everyone dead that doesnt follow there little train of thought ?

Whenever I see the word "Islamofascists" I can be assured that someone's not thinking. It's the sure sign of a knee-jerk response to a situation impelled by the need to demonise the current "out-group".

Did you not notice the last line of the article you posted?

The latest unrest has been variously blamed on ethnic Malay separatists, Islamic extremists and criminal gangs.

Had you but read the article without being desperate to see Islamofascists (doubtless hiding under a bed near you, feeding off the mouldering flesh of a Red, still under there since the 1950's) just being "evil" you might have noticed that Thailand annexed the province where all this was taking place.

This could more easily be interpreted as a demand for separation.

And talking of demands... if people are being killed for no apparent reason you can bet that the demands of the faction committing the violence are being suppressed. If people have a grievance bad enough that they want to kill, they'll certainly express it, somehow, somewhere. The fact that the mainstream press aren't reporting this is just SOP.

After reading Rich23's response, well I can be assured that some one's not thinking..


Facism... think its only for germans ?? do you?? think islamists cannot be facists?? do you really?? then you are in for one hell of a shock if the facist jack boot of islam lands on us all in its aims of world wide dominion and servitude..

All they do is supress and kill in their mindless almost automaten way... allah allah kill kill allah allah kill kill....

Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

The Thais even asked for a set of talks for godness sake... no talks because they want non muslims dead... same as indonesia, same as the phillipines, same as nepal, same as russia, same as america, same as uk, same as.... well look at the muslim population of any country and you see a seperatist state in the making.

They don't want intergration, they want domination.

And Rich23, with responses to their brutality like yours, their going to get it..

Take off the blind fold, and see them for what they really are. Hell Bent on world wide domination by the bomb and gun, nothing more nothing less.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

waco
no islamic movement behind it

the white nationalist movement, nothing islamic there

KKK, plenty of good ol' christian boys but no muslims

black panthers, come from all faiths

i guess your theory doesn't hold water

also, kn1ght, you gave examples of how the muslims all over the world want domination, but not a shred of evidence to back up the claim that most muslims in all countries in the world want to dominate the countries

[edit on 11/28/06 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Facism... think its only for germans ?? do you?? think islamists cannot be facists?? do you really?? then you are in for one hell of a shock if the facist jack boot of islam lands on us all in its aims of world wide dominion and servitude..

No. I am thinking. (Right now, I'm mostly thinking about your over-use of the question mark, and wondering if the impression you really want to create is of someone frothing at the mouth.) I just don't necessarily leap to conclusions about "Islamofascists" from inadequate evidence. There's plenty of room to suspect that there are political elements entirely separate from Islam at work in this example.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that fascism is just for Germans, or indeed, Italians, or even British and Americans, all of whom had fascist parties in the 1930s. I think that the most fascist country in the world right now is the US. It shares many of the characteristics identified by Umberto Eco in his essay "14 ways to identify a brownshirt". I'm heartened to see that some Americans agree and are rightly disturbed by what's happening to their country - see this page.

The use of the word "islamofascist" is the clearest possible indicator that someone is simply regurgitating right-wing talking points... like this:

All they do is supress and kill in their mindless almost automaten way... allah allah kill kill allah allah kill kill....

Now this might pass for rational discussion where you come from, but that looks rather like a meaningless, insulting and prejudiced generalisation to me. Had it occurred to you that there might be moderate Muslims on these boards?

Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

How about the Basque separatists in Spain? Your assertion might have more force if the majority of the world's colonised and oppressed regions didn't have Muslims living in them.

And don't think I'm just sticking up for Muslims because I'm not. I'm appalled at Islamic traditions towards women, at the barbaric punishments inflicted by Sharia... I just don't put knee-jerk labels on people and force a complex situation into terms that satisfy an inner emotional need to demonise the current out-group as determined by the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of this world.

If you look, you'll also see that "ethnic Malay separatists" could be to blame. We don't know, from this one article.

The Thais even asked for a set of talks for godness sake

According to the article:

Since taking office after the September coup, army-installed premier Surayud Chulanont has offered a number of olive branches, including an offer to hold talks with militants, in a bid to bring peace to the troubled region.

But the violence has spiralled since then, with bombings, arsons and shootings happening every day.

Now, when I see an article use a phrase like "the violence has spiralled", I know that I don't know enough. I become highly suspicious of innocuous phrases like that, it makes me think, "what are they glossing over here?" You see, for a spiral to occur, it's often the case that there has been some sort of violent response, provoking a violent counter-response... and so on. It's also the case that Thailand had a military coup recently (if you'd forgotten this, you might like to note the words "army-installed premier" in the extract above), and armies are generally not known for treating separatists with kid gloves.

I therefore don't unquestioningly accept that "army-installed premier Surayud Chulanont" is a complete pussycat and that the people committing the violence (which, by the way, I do abhor) are necessarily Islamofascists. I read the article and I can see where more information is needed.

I don't just jump to conclusions so I can froth at the mouth about evil Islam.

Like this:

... no talks because they want non muslims dead... same as indonesia, same as the phillipines, same as nepal, same as russia, same as america, same as uk, same as.... well look at the muslim population of any country and you see a seperatist state in the making.

I live in the UK and know one or two Muslims myself, you see. The ones I know are really rather nice. That doesn't mean I don't believe that nasty ones exist: it just means I don't tar them all with the same brush. It also means that I have some sympathy with them because I've seen how they've been treated differently since 9/11.

So, anyway... if you can demonstrate that the people committing the atrocities in the linked story actually did it because they're Muslims, go for it. But actually, there's nothing in the story itself to show that, as a discerning reader can tell at a glance.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

waco
no islamic movement behind it

the white nationalist movement, nothing islamic there

KKK, plenty of good ol' christian boys but no muslims

black panthers, come from all faiths

i guess your theory doesn't hold water

also, kn1ght, you gave examples of how the muslims all over the world want domination, but not a shred of evidence to back up the claim that most muslims in all countries in the world want to dominate the countries

[edit on 11/28/06 by madnessinmysoul]

I dont beleive kn1ght said MOST Muslims in ALL countries.

I would say SOME Muslims in EVERY country on the Planet want world domination and support (wether actively or passively) Violent means to acheive this.

Even the many who dont support it generally choose to Ignore it, knowing they have a foot on both bases i guess ?

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Even the many who dont support it generally choose to Ignore it, knowing they have a foot on both bases i guess ?

I strongly suggest you try to meet and talk to someone of Islamic faith.
You seem to have some very warped ideas about the followers of Islam. From your post, I can tell you've never befriended (and likely never even spoke to) an Islamic person.

I've had the good fortune to meet and speak with many Islamics. None of them have been supportive of the use of violance. None have choosen to "ignore" those who abuse their faith. Most of them feel powerless to do anything about the evil people who use their faith as an excuse to do horrible things. One I spoke to joined the Canadian Military specificly so he could do something about it.

Yes, there are bad Islamics.
There are also bad Buhdists, Pagens, and Christians.
Your faith does not define your heart... your actions, attitude, and your intentions do.

May I humbly suggest that you stop speaking of generalities concerning a group of people whom you obviously know nothing about?

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I dont beleive kn1ght said MOST Muslims in ALL countries.

Here's what he said:

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
All they do is supress and kill in their mindless almost automaten way... allah allah kill kill allah allah kill kill....

Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

"All they do"? Don't they do anything else?

Those statements from DarkKnight's post don't permit of any exceptions. The language is clear and unambiguous.

And that's a very interesting site you linked to. I love the way that these stories are often subtly different than what you'd expect from the link labels. For example, the one that said "Pelosi dismisses al-Qaeda role in Iraq" actually links to this CNN story which goes with the rather more accurate headline, "Pelosi 'sad' over Bush's Iraq representation".

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday she feels "sad" President Bush blamed insurgent violence on al Qaeda while he dismissed notions Iraq is in a civil war.

As a rather more informed article makes clear, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just one of a number of armed factions (of which the US army is only another, and not even the most significant) on the loose in Iraq. The point behind Pelosi's statement and the CNN piece reporting it is not that she's dismissing Al-Qaeda, it's that Bush (and, indeed, the people on that lovely website you posted) simply aren't facing up to the reality of life in Iraq, which is that it's now embroiled in a civil war that simply wouldn't be happening had the US not invaded. Blaming everything on Al-Qaeda is just dumb and ignorant. The situation is more complex than Bush wants to acknowledge.

This is NOT the same thing as dismissing Al-Qaeda. The other links are, on cursory inspection, similarly spun. That website ought to have an audio file with the sound of axes being ground, it's so biased. And I really laughed at the section labelled "Islamic Terror's War on You". Let's just look at their top stories:

7,000 al-Qaeda Members Killed of Captured by U.S. & Iraqi Forces...
Fresh Mujahid Grenade Attack on Tourists in India...
Thai Islamists Force Closure of 1000 Schools with Arson, Murder Attacks...
Afghan Restaurant Bomber was from Pakistan (15 Dead)...
'Islamic Jihad' Promises Suicide Attacks if Israel Not Out of the West Bank...
Eleven Rockets Fired at Israel (Four Hours into 'Truce')...

The first story, then, is how many al-Qaeda members have been killed... and the other stories are only Islamic Terror's war on You if You happen to be on holiday in India or live in Thailand, Afghanistan or (of course) Israel. Now I could be wrong, but I suspect that most of the people this website is aimed at live in the US and don't holiday in India. Again... it's pretty misleading, and just more of the same hysterical "be afraid of Muslims, be very afraid". I guess some people just like to walk around full of hatred and fear. I don't.
I could as easily put together a website saying "Christianity - the religion of peace: believe it, or they'll invade your country and rip off your oil!"

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Facism... think its only for germans ?? do you?? think islamists cannot be facists?? do you really?? then you are in for one hell of a shock if the facist jack boot of islam lands on us all in its aims of world wide dominion and servitude..

Take a look down Pensylvania Avenue or up the stairs of Capiltol Hill.

Normally I don't degrade myself to go on threads with certain people and sometimes I even think ATS should be split in two seperated parts, one for people to mock (whatever they don't understand), and one for people to debate on serious intellectual level, where reason and arguments should be the term rather than fear.

In this case it is not only in support of Rich, but to cerntainly object to this questionable "news".

I live in Thailand and insurgency in the South certainly aint no news here. But this BS "news" is.

I've searched for some kind of a verification of it. First of all the foremost news outlet in this part of tha world, Bangkok Post has nothing on it. The closest I've been able to get is this from Voice of America (not exactly an outlet I usually reffer to either):

Thai officials say hundreds schools in the volatile southern province of Pattani will be closed in response to the murder of two teachers by suspected Islamist militants.

Officials say they will begin closing about 334 primary and secondary schools Monday because teachers and students fear for their safety.

How come the substantial difference in number?
Some old Kuomintang general in Taiwan letting out his frustrations?

OK, I shall offer you a 101 chrash course on the problem with Narawit, Pattani and Yala provincies of Thailand.

Mainpoint, though predominant Muslim, there didn't use to be any problem. Thai society have a century long tradition for living in peace (and harmony).

The subjects within the kingdom have always respected eachothers beliefs and practiced them side by side. Until recently nationalism was associated with their royal rule only.

The different groups of ethnics (about 30) and faith (a handful all regonized) was largely left to govern themselves in whichever way they fashioned. Much like the Austro-Hungarian Empire did, if that can enlighten anybody. About the only century with peace on the Balcan was during their rule.

The rule can be summed down to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" as a young man said about 2000 years ago. And it works, in case you would like to try.

It used to work in the Southern provincies of Thailand as well. Until a lately ousted despot came into power. He instigated the insurgency by his overly imposing of national feelings. Thais love Thais, he called his party.

Then you are liable to create fire.

"Wichcraft scum exploiting the dumb... So wrapped up in the American flag"
---

To add to the irony of your non-information, the present military ruler is a Muslim.

Some people are better off to stick to their threads on sexual frusrations.



[edit on 29-11-2006 by khunmoon]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Pick a country where there are seperatists using force...and you'll find an islamic armed force at its center.

waco
no islamic movement behind it

the white nationalist movement, nothing islamic there

KKK, plenty of good ol' christian boys but no muslims

yes, a handful of christian extremist groups among thousands of muslim ones certainly validates your theory. :shk:

Originally posted by khunmoon
In this case it is not in support of Rich, but to object to this questionable "news".

Awww... something I said?

Anyway, thanks for raising the level of debate on the thread, and actually adding some information to go on. You made some very good points.

Oh, and NumberCruncher... nice point about the KKK. [/sarcasm] There's an interesting chapter in Freakonomics by Steven D. Leavitt and Stephen J. Dubner dealing with the KKK and why they haven't had to do much lynchin' for a while now:

The statistics reveal at least three noteworthy facts. The first is the obvious decrease in lynchings over time. The second is the absence of a correlation between lynchings and Klan membership: there were actually more lynchings of blacks between 1900 and 1909, when the Klan was dormant, than during the 1920s, when he Klan had millions of members—which suggests that the Ku Klux Klan carried out
far fewer lynchings than is generally thought. Third, relative to the size of the black population, lynchings were exceedingly rare. To be sure, one lynching is one too many. But by the turn of the century, lynchings were hardly the everyday occurrence
that they are often remembered as. Compare the 281 victims of lynchings in the 1920s to the number of black infants who died as a result of malnutrition, pneumonia, diarrhea, and the like. As of 1920, about 13 out of every 100 black children died in infancy, or roughly 20,000 children each year—compared to 28 people who were lynched in a year. As late as 1940, about 10,000 black infants died
each year.

What larger truths do these lynching figures suggest? What does it mean that lynchings were relatively rare and that they fell precipitously over time, even in the face of a boom in Klan membership?``The most compelling explanation is that all those early lynchings worked. White racists—whether or not they belonged to the Ku Klux Klan—had through their actions and their rhetoric developed a strong incentive scheme that was terribly clear and terribly frightening. If a black person violated the accepted code of behavior, whether by talking back to a trolley driver or daring to try to vote, he knew he might well be punished, perhaps by death.

So by the mid-1940s, when Stetson Kennedy joined up, the Klan didn’t really need to use as much violence. Many blacks, having long been told to behave like second-class citizens—or else—simply obliged. One or two lynchings went a long way toward inducing docility among even a large group of people, for people respond strongly to strong incentives. And there are few incentives more powerful than the fear of random violence—which, in essence, is why terrorism is so effective.

But if the Ku Klux Klan of the 1940s wasn’t uniformly violent, what was it? The Klan that Stetson Kennedy found was in fact a sorry fraternity of men, most of them poorly educated and with poor prospects, who needed a place to vent—and an excuse for occasionally staying out all night.

Also bear in mind that they weren't living under an occupying force willing to characterise everything they did as religious extremism when in fact much of it came from political causes.

Note to mods - tha above quote is from my own pdf copy of Freakonomics so I can't give you the link.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by khunmoon
In this case it is not in support of Rich, but to object to this questionable "news".

Awww... something I said?

No, sorry Rich, it was a slip. Saw it after I posted and edited ...only to make a typo... but what the heck.

Anyway, there's nothing to this thread. Considering the sources the thread poster prefers.

-khunmoon-

Originally posted by khunmoon
To add to the irony of your non-information, the present military ruler is a Muslim.

Well that certainly is ironic. I guess Muslims are only regarded as such when something bad happens, otherwise they are "Thai" or have some other label.

Hello NumberCruncher, I appreciate the article you posted here about the reality of Islamofascism that people still continue to ignore or deliberatley excuse. What also strikes me is how people attempt to argue by attacking the poster's credibility rather than the source. This to me immediatley shows that they are not willing to debate the real subject at hand, thus making NumberCruncher's point even stronger.

Now I might be contradicting myself here, but it is neccessary to stress my perspective and how we 'bigots' may view your attempts to contradict our initial statements.

Back on topic, it does not suprise me to the least that this would be taking place, especially in that particular area of Thailand. The influence of jihadist/terrorist propaganda is strong and active in that area, which is the direct result of Islamofascism.
www.time.com...

I'm so freakin' sick of these twisted half-truths and single-minded attacks on the boogeyman...

www.westernresistance.com...

The current insurgency began on 4 January, 2004. A military base in Narathiwat province was raided, with four soldiers killed. A large arsenal of weaponry, with more than 300 guns, including AK-47 and M16 rifles, was stolen. On the same night, twenty schools in the south were set ablaze, in what is called "the night of the fires". For many insurgents, schools are seen as symbols of authority, and as they promote the Thai language, rather than the Malay dialect (Yawi) of the local populace, even Muslim schools and teachers have become victims.

The three southern provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, as well as two districts of Songkhla province, formerly comprised an independent sultanate called Pattani. This was invaded by Siam (Thailand) in 1786. In 1902, the sultanate became officially annexed into Thailand. For fifty years, there have been movements to have the territory of Pattani secede from Thailand. Some insurgent factions desire a clean break from Thailand, while others merely wish to improve the conditions of Muslims in the southern provinces, who comprise 80% of the local population. The current insurgency has so far claimed the lives of at least 1,700 people.

There are several groups of insurgents in the south. Some of the main insurgent groups are: Pattani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo), New Pattani United Liberation Organisation, Barisan Revolusi National (BRN), Gerakan Mujahideen Islam Pattani (GMIP), United Front for the Independence of Pattani (Bersatu or Barisan Bersatu Kemerdekaan Pattani), Mujahideen Pattani Movement (BNP), Barisan National Pember-Basab Pattani (BNPP), and Mujahideen Islam Pattani.

The area is in turmoil - that much is not up for debate.

But if you review the facts (to the best of my knowledge the above information and the rest of the article is accurate) you will notice a few things.

The schools were not closed by 'Islamofascists' - they were closed by the educational authorities in the region, as a precaution against more violence.

The Muslim extremists are one element in the equation - there are other elements in the equation.

Muslim deaths in the region due to the unrest are equivalent to Buddhist deaths - so it's not a case of wanton slaughter of one group by another with no retaliation.

All in all, it appears to be a mess. Still, complex situations like this cannot be boiled down so much. It's a gross oversimplification to say that 'Islamofascists' closed these schools.

In your rush to advance your agenda you leave the nuances of reality by the wayside. Don't do that, for your own sake and for ours...

As an ethnic Malay who lives in a country south of Thailand, I can tell you all that the troubles in the south of Siam has less to do with Islam and more to do with the fact that the Malays in the southern provinces want independence from Thai rule.

If I were them I'd want out too. The Thai Federal government won't even acknowledge their language, Malay.

It's an ethno-cultural thing, not a religious issue. Stop spreading lies.

Originally posted by laiguana
Hello NumberCruncher, I appreciate the article you posted here about the reality of Islamofascism that people still continue to ignore or deliberatley excuse.

Hope you're not talking about me. Nah, can't be, because I said...

And don't think I'm just sticking up for Muslims because I'm not. I'm appalled at Islamic traditions towards women, at the barbaric punishments inflicted by Sharia...

But if you think I did, then you're labouring under the same "you're either with us or against us" false duality so beloved of simpletons everywhere (like George Bush).

What also strikes me is how people attempt to argue by attacking the poster's credibility rather than the source. This to me immediatley shows that they are not willing to debate the real subject at hand, thus making NumberCruncher's point even stronger.

You can't be talking about me. Or, indeed, about any of the other posters who responded on my side of the argument. I think, on mature reflection, if you read the thread again you will notice that I have answered points raised, suggested a few of my own that need answering, and generally debated the issues. On the other hand, I have suggested that over-use of punctuation marks makes someone look over-excited, which it does, and I have suggested that the word "Islamofascist" is a right-wing talking point, which it is. This is not attacking the poster's credibility, it's attacking their style and the laziness of their thinking.

I think you'll also find that I read the source rather more carefully than the OP and backed up my points with relevant quotes therefrom. Like the bit where it says it might not have been "Islamofascists"?

Back on topic, it does not suprise me to the least that this would be taking place, especially in that particular area of Thailand. The influence of jihadist/terrorist propaganda is strong and active in that area, which is the direct result of Islamofascism.
www.time.com...

So strong that the guy in the article has never used his training:

Since returning to Malaysia, the KMM member—interviewed by Time at a secret location 30 minutes drive from Kuala Lumpur—claims not to have put his terror training to use. "We had to go underground when September 11 happened," he explains.

Now doesn't that strike you as weird? According to the article, this guy got his training "early last year". So how is the above reference to 9/11 an explanation of, well, anything? I think this might have been more honest journalism -

"We had to go underground when September 11 happened," he obfuscates

And then there's the bit where

...The government has dismissed any link between the attacks and radical Islamic separatist groups.

You see, where people like yourself read the article and see evidence of "Islamofascism", I read the article and see that it's full of conjecture. Please show me the point in the article where its author demonstrates beyond doubt that all this carnage is the work of "Islamofascists". Please bear in mind that the colourful bit at the front with our inactive but slightly trained terrorist is actually irrelevant because it's not connected to anything. What we're looking to establish is a chain of causation, not throwing some facts at a wall and hoping they stick like cooked pasta.

And I'd far rather go with the opinion of someone who lives locally (thanks again for posting, Khunmoon) than with the opinion of a Time reporter with an agenda and too few facts to cover it. All the article demonstrates is that it's easy to slip across the border between Thailand and Malaysia. Well, duh. No solid connection is made between the atrocities and Islamofascists.

Please, please find me the part of the article that points to evidence about that.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
It's an ethno-cultural thing, not a religious issue. Stop spreading lies.

Thank you. Testimony from someone who is actually on the scene means far more than any slanted BS coming out of the mainstream media.

I also feel vindicated in that my extremely close reading of the articles concerned has apparently paid off. When you look at what an article doesn't say as much as what it does, you learn stuff. Thanks again, beachcoma.

And you know what? I'm going to be really smug and irritating and post my own comment from my very first post on this thread, when all I had to go on was the linked article:

This could more easily be interpreted as a demand for separation.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
As an ethnic Malay who lives in a country south of Thailand, I can tell you all that the troubles in the south of Siam has less to do with Islam and more to do with the fact that the Malays in the southern provinces want independence from Thai rule.

If I were them I'd want out too. The Thai Federal government won't even acknowledge their language, Malay.

It's an ethno-cultural thing, not a religious issue. Stop spreading lies.

Seen as your from South of Thailand, id assume Malaysia? or maybe even Indonesia ? like most folks here who follow Islam do you just blindly follow the opinions and actions of your Brothers in Religion for no other reason other than Bigotry?

Let me ask you something. If a foreign nation invaded your state and annexed your territory, then proceed to marginalize your people, would you want your state to continue being part of the federation? Would you not want independence? Would you not want to be the master of your own destiny?

Where is the freedom for the marginalized? Where is the democracy?

How is it bigotry to want a better life? I do know it is bigotry to assume a person is a terrorist just because of their religion, though...

Edit: Another thing, it's not a coincidence. And you know why? Because nobody in the media is making as big a fuss about the Christian separatists in Papua New Guinea, nor the Tamil separatist in Sri Lanka, nor the rebels in South America as they do insurgents in Southern Thailand or the rebels in Southern Mindanao.

Hell of a coincidence? No, just selective criticism and news coverage.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Beachcoma]