20 bombs hit south Thailand

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/06/15/thailand.bombs/
BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- More than 20 bombs have exploded in police stations and government offices in three Muslim-dominated provinces in Thailand's troubled south.

One bomb exploded in a restaurant on Thursday, killing one local government official and injuring seven, a military source told CNN. Eight were injured in other blasts, including a number of police officers.

Some of the homemade bombs were planted in toilets.

The motive for the bombings wasn't immediately known, but an insurgency fueled by conflicts between Muslims seeking an independent state and Buddhists who cross into the area from Malaysia has killed at least 1,200 people since it began in 2004.

more...

I'm not sure what to make of this yet, but doesn't it sound like it's an attack against the Muslims? ( by Buddhists?)

If they controlled all the organs of the state would they be trying to separate in the first place? That's not how minority relations work in most places. But I'd like more details too.

I was thinking that Muslim dominated referred to the local government, not the citizenry.

It is Muslims who are attacking anything and anyone who is perceived as pro-government. There are constant attacks on the police and on monks. It's a bloody mess in the South of Thailand. After the war the country was partitioned along with everyone else and these provinces, which are primarily Muslim were granted to Thailand.

The Muslims have not been treated well. Their complaints are valid. Unfortunately, they have become much more radicalized since the "war on terror" began.

Muslim-dominated provinces

Is that relevant to it all? Not saying it is not of course (given the context of the story as mentioned) but wonder if the reporter noting such is doing so for a valid reason or just tossing that in there as an after thought.

I guess the feeling is: Buddhists are more pacifists, and muslims are not - hence the gist of the story may be - muslims, being more noted for violent rhetoric, planted a bunch of bombs because they don't like buddhists ruling things (ie - as noted in your post, muslims want a change and are therefore more likely to be the ones doing the bombings).

IF this is the case - hopefully the muslims will see this as the wrong way to go about things. If it is not the case, then one wonders why such things as 'muslim/buddhist' were noted.

Damn I am getting skeptical in my old age :)

Even if we're not 100% sure how yet, 20 separate bomb attacks don't go off without some sort of particular grievance.

I can see that point all too clearly.

Give it a day though - and these threads will be in the 9/11 forum and this will all be a bush plot. The cia did it, then they paid this reporter to throw out muslim, et al...

I kinda doubt it though.

long history of using the "state of emergency" to obtain and maintain power. Support for their new eternal war on terrorism is in need of support what with their credibility in the toilet. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they were not behind the Sri Lanka, bombing, Istanbul bombing and Thailand bombings. Wouldn't even surprise me if Osama is still a CIA's asset. I agree only in the use of the term "Bush plot"; Bush is just a minor cog in the endless scam.

also happen to be ethnic minorities with more in common with the Muslims on the other side of the Malaysian border.

The Muslims there have had simmering complaints for a number of reasons. First, they want to be in a Muslim-majority country; they're in Thailand because their sultan was in a huff when it was decided how the various little fiefdoms would be amalgamated into larger states. So this is part ethnic-religious in historical background.

Second, they've been part of the Islamist/shari'a groundswell. Being Muslim in a non-Muslim, polytheist state is not the ideal thing; being Muslim in a Muslim, truth-abiding state is far superior.

Third, there are social and political grievances. As minority-speakers, they're at a disadvantage. They have fewer opportunities, and don't get as educated as the run-of-the-mill Thai. Some is because of ethnic prejudice; their agitaters say it's religious bias. But some is just cultural: education isn't as privileged. In any event, development and infrastructure is also lagging in those three southern provinces.

The first reason is nearly a hundred years old. The third reason has been building. The second reason got a big lift in the late '90s when lots of nice, white, spartan mosques suddenly went up, and preachers trained in a purer form of Islam suddenly appeared to set things right. This both encouraged the resentment from (1) and (3), as well as fed off of it. Violence finally was authorized by religious edicts saying that a struggle oppression is not just a moral good, but a religious obligation. Until then, the people weren't happy, but there weren't bombs going off.

There have been some major screw ups; the Thai government had a container of prisoners in which most suffocated or died from heat exhaustion, with the assumption being it was intentional. There have been some nasty clashes when a hundred or more 'militants' overran police stations and seized weapons, killing people. 1300 killed in 2-3 years ... quite a mess.

come on people, this is too organized to be anything but radical islamists. Who else in this world carries out this kind of stuff?

:sarcasm:

including Buddhism.
To be fair. ;)

- various Marxist groups (e.g. Red Brigades).
- various independence movements (e.g. IRA, FLQ).
- various right wing extremists (e.g. McVeigh).
- various Christian fundamentalists (e.g. abortion clinics).
- various right wing Latin American govt' death squads.
- various intelligence agencies.
- various military forces.
- various other religious/ethnic movements (e.g. Khalistan).

The list isn't exhaustive. Maybe you were being facetious though.