Do you really think that if _Opi_ was to explain anything to you about Islam, that you'd *BAM* all of a sudden have an epiphany and fully understand Islam....umm I think not.

How about you take some classes on Islam, read the Quran, do something and LEARN FOR YOURSELF.

Just like you said, its easy to take something out of a book and misquote it....so STOP doing it.

I could answer your questions, but it should have been obvious to you that I chose not to. I am well-studied in Islam actually. One of the best classes I took was actually at my alma mater. I'm more than willing to share with you the contact info of the school, if you want... it might help you more than JihadWatch or anything you might get from a thread about THAILAND.

ETA: the last five posters have very good points. You should listen to them.

This is a discussion. If you don't feel qualified to answer my questions, I understand. Is there anyone else who does?

I asked specific questions as they relate to the insurgency in Thailand. None of these passages are misquoted. I'm simply asking for an explanation.

[QUOTE=MysticCat;1329387]Well, I hope if the Crusades and the Salem Witch trials are going to be taken into account in critiquing organized religion, charitable works, hospitals, care of the poor, the establishment of educational institutions and the role of organized religion in social movements like the abolitionist and civil rights movements, just to name a few contributions of organized religion, will also get some consideration[/B]

I agree with this. Organized religion has done much good for the world.. but it has also done much bad throughout history.

You have a very good point regarding the problem of ethnic vs. Thai. I'm sure that is part of the problem as well.

There are many mentions in conventional newspapers about the way Thaksin dealth with unrest in the South and how it was a big factor in the coup, as well as corruption and other factors which spurred the military takeover.

Interestingly, it seems the Muslim voice directly blames Thakskin and the way he was trying to deal with the violence in the Muslim community in the south. Here is a link to a Muslim site for an OpEd on the subject:

From alt.muslim
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1791_0_24_0_M

"While Muslims account for only 4.6% of Thailand's total population, their presence in the country (a relic of a 1909 deal with the British that left three Muslim-majority Malay states in Thai hands) has been a major factor in the coup in Thailand last week that ousted democratically-elected PM Thaksin Shinawatra, a businessman who was so widely accused of corruption that even the US did not call for his restoration"

This from The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...1-1702,00.html

"More than 1400 people have died in the conflict in Thailand's far south since early 2004. The violence has been blamed on Malay separatism, religious extremism and organised crime in the border region.

Thaksin Shinawatra, the former premier ousted in last week's coup, has been accused of inflaming tensions there with heavy-handed tactics. There have been hopes the Muslim army chief who led the coup, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, may be able to ease the unrest. "

And this, from the Christian Science Monitor:

"The dormant conflict awoke in 2001, when the newly elected Thaksin dismantled a security network in the South that provided Bangkok with a link to local Muslim leaders. The move was designed to shut down what the government regarded as an opposition-run organization. The conflict then exploded in January 2004, when a coordinated attack on a weapons arsenal by more than 30 militants unleashed a wave of carnage that has claimed more than 1,700 lives over the past 21 months.

Thaksin's administration had fought the insurgency with an iron fist, allowing security forces to tap phones, ban meetings, detain suspects without charge and impose curfews. This approach raised the ire of human rights groups, who accused the government of extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and torture.

Moreover, Thaksin's aggressive strategy was failing; by nearly all measures, the violence was escalating. "The heavy-handed policies could not solve the problem," said Srisompob Jitpiromsri, a lecturer of political science at the Prince of Songkhla University in Pattani. "The military can't do this alone; we also need a political solution."

And this, from the NY Times:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/21/news/south.php

"The general who led the coup, Sonthi Boonyaratglin, is himself a Muslim and had clashed with Thaksin over the government's southern policy. Only days before the coup, Sonthi proposed negotiations with the insurgents, only to be brushed off by Thaksin."

Ma'am, don't take this the wrong way, but you state this above, then go on and post these quotations:

I can't imagine how you think these state anything other than the conflict being mostly about Malay separatism, and the Muslim aspect of this is noted only for completeness, noting the difference between the two populations. This does not mean it's a religious problem - and it CERTAINLY does not make the Muslim community violent, warring or any other sort of 'non-peaceful' moniker you'd like to assign. It definitely does not reflect on all Muslim cultures.

It's purely 'ethnic vs. Thai' - your own quotations prove MysticCat's points . . . can you elucidate for me how you're getting where you're at? We're not even on the same map.

Sure we're on the same map! I agree that the problems leading up to the coup were many.. including the insurgency in the South (which is both religiously and ethnically driven).. as well as other factors.. such as corruption on the part of the former leader.

The quotes back up what I have said regarding the problems in the south being a big factor in the coup.

I'm curious as to your take on the coup?

And yet, you have still failed to come up with support for your (unsupportable) statement that "Thaksin Shinawatra was thrown out of power last week mainly because of the way he dealt with those Muslim uprisings." Quite true that the articles you cite describe the way that Thaksion dealt with the Malay insurgency as part of the reason for dissatisfaction with Thaksin. I still don't see a single one that says it was the main reason for the coup, and I can point to many other reasons that are listed more prominently. What I do seem to see is a desire to blame Islamic fundamentalists-terrorists-jihadists regardless.

Opi has answered your questions in effect by telling you that they aren't worth answering, especially (need I say it again) in an Internet forum thread about Thailand and when those questions appear to be derived from reliance on anti-Islamic websites and to indicate an inclination to believe the worst about Islam, regardless of what Opi or anyone else might say.

why don't they make up some kind of deal with Malaysia? they might want some extra states since Signapore left.

And you would know that they were NOT misquoted or taken out of context...how?

Quit pretending like you know so much about this whole thing. Are you Thai? Do you live in Thailand? I think not.

_Opi_ has already told you that she will not answer you, so give it a rest. Again I say, TAKE A CLASS, <b>learn for yourself</b>.

There are only 4 now. Methinks someone got mad over being reported themselves and asked that the post where I said I was reporting them be deleted.

Oh well. It's hard being a defender of the TOS:)

I was wondering why my post got mysteriously up to the top of the page, when it wasn't before.

The Thailand coup was largely the result of widespread corruption within the former Thai government, high crime levels outside of and in Bangkok, as well as the impact of their worsening economy on their social structure. I have family and friends who live in the area and they all say that the coup was a result of the above issues getting out of hand, not religion.