Round up

The ceasefire announced by alleged leaders of the southern insurgency in Thailand is something that I - like all sane people - desperately wish to believe in and that is why it is almost certainly a form of mental warfare by the terrorists.

Since the insurgency perked up post 9/11 , more than three thousand people have been killed in the deep south. Some have been beheaded (crime: Buddhism) , some burned alive (Crime: Buddhism) , some executed in front of their students (Crime: being a teacher) and of course (this one still makes my heart sink when I think about it) the totally innocent female teacher who was captured and beaten into a coma by over one hundred villagers. (Crime: Being in the wrong place at the wrong time as Muslim villagers were angered by events elsewhere)

Would a group that employs and condones these tactics announce an unconditional cease fire out of the blue? Why?


The reason that the insurgency has been so difficult for the army and authorities to stop is no doubt partly due to the incompetence and corruption of these authorities, but it is also due to the secrecy, networking, clandestine and guerilla style tactics employed by the insurgents.

After such a campaign, why would these alleged leaders suddenly decide to expose themselves on national TV and promise an end to their insurgency campaign? It simply does not make sense.

So while I'm impressed that at least one soldier has staked his credibility on the claim, I hold little hope. If I am wrong, it will be the most glorious mistake I have ever made.

******************

The building tensions on the Cambodian border are another cause for concern. Should this lead to violence, certain politicians will have blood on their hands. The temple (which is a Hindu temple, less than one percent of either Thais or Cambodians are Hindu!) has been whipped up in a storm of nationalistic frenzy. As much as I admire them on occasion, Chamlong, Aphisit and everyone else who has used the temple boundary as a political weapon have contributed to this problem.

The border settlement was dealt with reasonably well, and should have been left alone.

Khaleel Mohammed, with whom I exchanged e-mails a short while back, has updated his web page. He has moved a few polemics around and added a couple more into paragraphs. If this was done because of our exchange I have no idea, but his site is still one big piece of argumentation.

The professor, while being good enough to engage in debate, hides behind typical talk of non - Arab speakers "not being able to understand the Qu'ran" and all critics having "their judgement clouded by faith". The irony of this last comment seems lost on him.

Likewise, his talk of "hate" belies the fact that in my case at least, two thousand of my countrymen have been murdered by Islamic militants since 2004. Something would be wrong if we were not angry (not hateful) about execution of farm workers, beheadings of monks and public slayings of teachers. We should be angry and we should look for the source, if the source is a religious book that teaches violence, we should respond peacefully by exposing it.

It would be unfair of me to keep referring to the professor, so this will be the last reminder of our exchange for people to see his words in full and judge for themselves.

Communication with more open and informative people is in progress, it might be a while but stay tuned for some very revealing investigations.

As sceptical author and paranormal debunker James Randi once said: "You can argue and you can hide, but the truth is annoyingly persistent"