New Mandala

11 responses so far ↓

• 1 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 6, 2007 at 3:41 pm

  Thanks for the link. It’s a shame that his blog only allows comments from those with Blogger accounts, though.

  I read his article “The Far South of Thailand in the Era of American Empire” with great interest. He does insightfully point out the connection the militants have with local mafia and corrupt bureaucrats, which is vital to a complete understanding of the conflict; unfortunately, Prof. Horachaikul chooses to frame these insights within the malicious and calumnious rhetoric of Anti-Americanism that happens to be in vouge now. Not that I am accusing Prof. Horachaikul of plagiarism, but at times, his article read as if he took a left-wing academic’s paper on American foreign policy and replaced the word “Palestine” with “the far south of Thailand.”

  I’ll post a point-by-point analysis when I have more free time.

• 2 khamtham // Sep 6, 2007 at 10:49 pm

  Demo (of) Crazy? Does he explain what this means? It sounds like a comment on the misuse of the rhetoric of democracy. But the phrase seems to translate as ‘an example of lunacy’

• 3 thaicrisis // Sep 7, 2007 at 12:15 am

  I agree with Samuel.

  The article leaves a bitter taste in the mouth…

  And it reminds me what was said during Thaksin era : mafia, drug related violence, like “nothing to worry there”, etc.

  Same old story…

  With just a “modern” varnish : the bad Americans with their “war on terror” put gasoline on the situation. It’s ridiculous.

  The bottom line is : I’m not sure that the Americans have anything to do with the beheading of people… Nor drugs, nor mafia.

  We should put away those rozy glasses.

  The South is on fire. Because of an ideology (muslim fundamentalism linked to a political target, that is the independance from Thailand).

• 4 nganadeeleg // Sep 7, 2007 at 9:21 am

  Thai Crisis: I am surprised you seem so sure that American policy has nothing to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism – do you completely discount the ‘blowback’ theory?

  Hopefully LSS will also able to do a point-by-point analysis of the ‘blowback’ theory when he has some free time.

• 5 jonfernquest // Sep 7, 2007 at 4:43 pm

  Thanks for the blog and all the online papers. Great resource.
  IMHO Scholars who do this sort of thing are the real heroes of the internet age.

  Haven’t read the paper yet that is accused of America bashing, but as the world’s only superpower and given post-9/11 debacles in Iraq and policies that are drifting further and further away from international realities, I’d even rate being critical of current policies an act of patriotism. Chomsky’s been doing it for years.

• 6 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 7, 2007 at 7:48 pm

  Re: ngandeeleg> Well, I am currently working on the analysis and hope to finish it by the weekend. I, for one, do not say that American foreign policy has nothing to do with the rise of Islamic fundamentalist violence; however, they are not related in ways most people think and America has very little to do with what’s going on down south. I mean, when Police Senior Sergeant Major Niran Kunprah died yesterday in Yala, was he killed as a protest to the American war in Iraq? or was he killed as a show of solidarity with the Palestians?

  I doubt either of those reasons were central to the motivation of yesterday’s bombing; and yet, they do all share a common thread, that is the concept of fard(both ayn and kifaya to struggle against fitnah both within dar al-Islam and without (i.e. dar al-Harb) and expand the borders (both politically and geographically) of the Umma , as authorized by all four recognized madhhib of fiqh and the various muhadditheen. I’m not translating all the Arabic jargon to make a point; that is most scholars, indeed, most people, who discuss if Islam, as a religion, is connected to the geo-political goals of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, have no idea what they are talking about. And those who do make an effort to delve into the primary sources and invest years of study into it are labeled “Islamophobes” if they don’t report back the most glowing praise in their research.

  Indeed, this state of willful ignorance is what allows a Surat Horachaikul (whom I bet, couldn’t tell a fard from a haram) to assure us that certain, orthodox and widely held tenets of Islam have nothing to do with events in the south of Thailand. While many people have the knowledge to refute his claims; very few people have the chutzpah (pun intended).

  It is one thing to be critical of American policy, God knows I am often critical of it; however, in his article Prof. Horachaikul indulges in venomous Anti-Americanism as a rhetorical smokescreen to cover up the paucity of evidence that “transnational terrorism” has nothing to do with the Southern insurgency. Prof. Horachaikul is correct in that very little “transnationality” occurs in the transfer of men or material; however, he misses the point that there exists a shared ideology throughout the Islamic world that, in combination with the current technology that makes globalization possible, allows the terrorism occuring in the south of Thailand to be part and parcel of a larger, ‘open-source’ movement.

  I’m running out of time….I’ll explain more later.

• 7 Ladyboy // Sep 7, 2007 at 9:25 pm

  nganadeeleg -The blowback from American stupidity, arrogance, invasions, torturing etc is just used by Islamic extremists to further their cause. These Islamic fascists and murderers are trying to gain their caliphate through any means possible. They are not out to avenge American policy. Do not excuse their behaviour because of American policy.

• 8 jonfernquest // Sep 7, 2007 at 10:55 pm

  This recent DPA article (Bangkok Post editorial, August 25th) delved into the role of influences outside Thailand:

  “…The BRN-Coordinate has been recruiting followers from the Thai Students Association of Indonesia,” claimed Colonel Shinawat Maendej, Commander of the Army Infantry Unit 1 in Narathiwat.

  “Shinawat told a recent press briefing that the BRN-Coordinate has for years been recruiting Thai graduates from Indonesian universities in Bandung, Jakarta and Yogyakarta, and then providing them with ideological and military training with help from the Indonesia’s Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and Jemaah Islamiah (JI) – the radical Java-based Islamic group blamed for the 2002 Bali bombing… ”

  A close reading of Desmond Ball’s books, however, provides some hints about how the conduct of security forces can keep a conflict going. Terror as a response to terror just creates a never ending see-saw of tit-for-tat. The only thing that will solve the problem in the end is a strategic application of good ole Buddhist metta.

• 9 nganadeeleg // Sep 8, 2007 at 9:42 am

  Ladyboy: I did not excuse their behavior.
  It’s not that black & white – there will always be fundamentalists and they can usually be contained, but it’s not made any easier when moderates are being conflicted by the ‘American stupidity, arrogance, invasions, torturing etc’ that you mentioned.

  Anyway, this is hardly the forum for that discussion – I was merely making a point to Thaicrisis (#3 above) that there were other factors affecting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

  I agree with LSS: ‘that there exists a shared ideology throughout the Islamic world that, in combination with the current technology that makes globalization possible, allows the terrorism occuring in the south of Thailand to be part and parcel of a larger, ‘open-source’ movement’.

  My concern is that the ‘ideology’ is spreading, in part because of, rather than in spite of, American policy.

• 10 Ladyboy // Sep 8, 2007 at 10:00 am

  Re 8: “The only thing that will solve the problem in the end is a strategic application of good ole Buddhist metta.” For jihardists! I don’t think so. I am not sure of the solution but it might help if the Islamic community started to condemn their co-religionists terrorism and not just the terrorism of the Thai army and police force. But criticism in the Islamic community of their brothers never seems to happen.

• 11 Ladyboy // Sep 8, 2007 at 3:26 pm

  Re 9 Thanks nganadeeleg – that explains it to me more clearly. I quite well agree with what you are saying

Leave a Comment