Talk:South Thailand insurgents blamed for five bombs

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Cspurrier in topic Mobile phones and bomb detonations

How does anyone know who planted the bombs?Edit

Has there been an admission or has any evidence been found to show who planted the bombs? Neutralizer 14:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read the related material? It is a significant issue that the southern provinces of Thailand are predominantly Muslim. And, if you read again, you will not see anywhere in the article text the accusation that the persons placing the bombs were Muslim. This is the only part of Thailand where there is a significant Muslim population, and the only part of the country where there is insurgency activity. Brianmc 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but your very words,imo, reveal a tendency we all have to draw conclusions based upon our own logical thinking and then to report those conslusions as a "by the way" aside in a news story ( "Muslims likely did it" is the message delivered by mentioning the religious affiliation of people in the area). + it just feeds into religious friction to always mention the religion of people in certain locations when it may have nothing to do with the story. e.g. New York City has the largest percentage of Jews of any major US city but we didn't mention that at all in the reports of the 9/11 attacks because we had no proof that it was relevant to the event. Neutralizer 15:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try reading this [1], then you might want to reconsider putting Muslim back in there. Brianmc 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought this was important; "To Gen Sonthi, the violence in the South is linked to the battle for resources..." a lot of times I think it's all about money and has nothing to do with religion. Neutralizer 16:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "insurgents" is not specific and refers to any person or groups acting in opposition to the government. It is neutral, and describes what they do - not whether they are justified or what their alleged motives may be. To say "insurgents are blamed for planting bombs" is redundant: whoever planted the bombs are by default insurgents as they are acting in opposition to the government. This edit adds obfuscating and confusing language to the lede which should be brief and precise. - Amgine / talk 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is still no proof it was anti-government people who did it. It could be crazy people or government people(engineering an excuse for a reaction strike) or just a murderer who wanted to kill 1 of the victims and did the rest to deflect attention. All of these are unlikely but still possible. We have no proof at all that it was insurgents. Neutralizer 15:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sometimes bombs are planted to "frame" the enemyEdit

That is always a possibility, especially without any investigation or verified admission of responsibility. Neutralizer 15:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is patently ridiculous. You are accusing the Thai government and army of bombing their own citizens. They are struggling to deal with the unrest, not make it look worse. Brianmc 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you really saying it has never happened before? (a government setting up a phoney "enemy attack").? Neutralizer 15:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not saying the scenario you have suggested is impossible; I am saying it is so unlikely as to be pretty out-there. The Thai government would like news of events in the south kept as low-key as possible as they claim it aids the insurgents' cause. That being the case, why would they plant the bombs? Brianmc 15:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a member of the Thai government, so I won't presume to know what there desires or agenda are. All I know is that there is,thus far, no proof that anti-government people planted the bombs. Neutralizer 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other editors' opinions needed on thisEdit

I'd like to hear from other editors as I prefer not to use tags. Neutralizer 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll wait on this until later, but it is significant that the south of the country is predominantly Muslim, the roots of the separatist movement and insurgency are based on the history of the region being a Muslim Malay Sultinate. The Thai army have asserted that the insurgents are Muslim, although they do not apparently represent the majority in the region. Taking out Muslim and putting in weasel words to avoid giving any indication why there is insurgency in the country does not sit well with me; had the information on the religious persuasion of the majority in the region been moved elsewhere I would not have reverted this. If that information is not included I will revert it back. Brianmc 15:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I think we just agree to disagree; that's why I hope others voice their views.Neutralizer 16:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others did voice their opinion. You reverted that to your personal preference for the story. I see you have been dealt with for that. Brianmc 11:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now others are involved; before it was just 1 anon. Neutralizer 15:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ah, i suddenly understandd Amgine's point... Insurgent can mean:

  1. NOUN rebel, guerrilla, freedom fighter
  2. ADJ rebellious, opposing authority

[wiktionary] Neutralizer and I have been reading the first paragraph to be refering to the noun, where as amgine and maybe others have been reading it as the nominalised adjective, hence i think that all edits in regard to this word have been in good faith, and it has just been a matter of mis-interpretation.

Who is right? Nobody. However, I think the title of the article is using it in the noun meaning and so perhaps we should continue using that meaning. What do other ppl think? ~The bellman | Smile 14:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe you can be "accused of being a rebel" if you perform an act of rebellion. You simply are, because you have done so. Planting a bomb is an act of insurgency. Those who do so are insurgents. I strongly oppose using obfuscating language in the opening paragraph of articles without specific justification. There is no justification here. There is no benefit to the language you have inserted which I can see, but perhaps you can explain one? - Amgine / talk 15:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is currently in the first paragraph is "...insurgents have been blamed for the planting of five bombs during one day." People other than terrorists, guerillas, freedom fighters, rebels etc are capable of planting bombs. According to Brianmc an insurgent "attempt[s] to overthrow the government, or effect the establishment of an independent state in part of the country." There are reasons beyond these to plant a bomb. We know that there were bombs planted. We do not know, but assume that these bombs were probably planted by anti-government forces of some type. Untill we KNOW that the bombs were planted by anti-government forces then we can only report that their planting has been blamed on insurgents/anti-government forces. As a side note, since insurgents are the most likely explanation, and those insurgents use Islam as a tool/reason for thier insurgency, then the provences being muslim is very important. ~The bellman | Smile 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Insurgent" is a fairly neutral word, I believe the BBC has promoted its use in recent years and both sides of a dispute can interpret it to suit their personal agenda. In this case, if you're a supporter of the government you may interpret insurgent to mean "terrorist", if you support the separatists you can take away the "freedom fighter" meaning. By definition, the people who plant bombs are insurgents.
Where I had an issue with Neutralizer was the repeated removal of the word "Muslim". Three of the provinces listed on the infobox have around 80% Muslim population, the fourth around a third. That, as far as I am concerned, is a material fact which relates to the story. Look to the previous article I put together on the issue and you'll see that other editors had not been particularly happy there that there was no indication of the background to the insurgency. This time round, with the debut of the infobox, I intended to make up for the prior article's shortcomings.
Incidentally, Tuesday marks the first anniversary of the Tak Bai incident. So far some lawsuits have been filed by relatives of those killed and some of the injured. Another lawsuit is apparently to be filed on the anniversary and there may be some protests (news if there are, news if there aren't - because they're expected). I have started laying out material to use in an article on this for Tuesday, it can be found in my user space. I sincerely hope that when the article goes up it is not subject to a similar disputeBrianmc 15:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is still no proof it was anti-government people who did it. It could be crazy people or government people(engineering an excuse for a reaction strike) or just a murderer who wanted to kill 1 of the victims and did the rest to deflect attention. All of these are unlikely but still possible. We have no proof at all that it was insurgents; even using Amgine's definition. Also, the Bellman is correct about the fact I interpreted the meaning of the word differently than Amgine and I certainly was unaware that I was doing anything that could be referred to as "bad faith". Also, does anyone think we should start putting the word "Christian" into stories about the USA or UK or Italy? Neutralizer 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to comment here on one specific aspect of Neutralizer's comment above, namely should we use "Christian" in articles about the USA, UK, or Italy. The idea is ... interesting, but I do not believe a valid comparison in this context. The three mentioned countries are predominantly Christian, and anyone with a passing knowledge is aware of that. On the other hand, most people know Thailand as a predominantly Buddhist country, and the exception is that the southern provinces have a significant Muslim population. In the Bangkok Post article I referred Neutralizer to earlier there was an admission by the Thai army that the insurgents are a tiny minority and not representative of the majority - regardless of their religious affiliation.
Now, if you were talking about some parts of the U.S., such as those known as the "Bible Belt", and something like same-sex marriage, then I'd wholeheartedly support the labelling of the state as predominantly <something> Christian, not as a criticism of the religion, but as a statement of fact. Of course, being an atheist Buddhist I may be biased. Brianmc 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the 9/11 attackers were "insurgents"?Edit

That's what you are arguing, are you not? Neutralizer 15:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Clarification; My point above is directed toward's Amgine's definition of insurgents as "The term "insurgents" is not specific and refers to any person or groups acting in opposition to the government"; not toward anything Brianmc had to say. Sorry for confusion. Neutralizer 19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did you get that idea from? They (a) Were not citizens of the United States. (b) Not attempting to overthrow the government, or effect the establishment of an independent state in part of the country. Please refrain from twisting my words and trying to incite a flame war. Brianmc 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to request the participants in this discussion, which is degenerating rapidly, to take a couple hours break away from this article, and this talk page, please. - Amgine / talk 15:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok..just added 1 more edit above before seeing this request. Neutralizer 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been off and had some nice, spicy, Thai food. I think I can live with the article as it stands right now. I'd like the introductory paragraph to be more concise and "punchy", but I don't think we're going to achive a consensus on something like that. (In any case, this is now 2-days-old news). Neutralizer, my work off my User space for the Tak Bai anniversary could do with some feedback, I'd be happy to work on the talk page for that to avoid any controversy when I get round to using it. Of course other people are welcome to comment on that too, this is something I'm aiming as being appropriate for use as a 2nd lead or featured article - there could be a lot happen on the day to justify that. Anyway, in this case as we've a couple of days to go we should be able to agree without things degenerating. Brianmc 19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure,thanks for the suggestion. Please send me a link to the work you'd like feedback on. Neutralizer 20:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On your talk page, for anyone else interested see here. Brianmc 20:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile phones and bomb detonationsEdit

"In Pattani province, a home-made device was left at the entrance to Yarang district's electricity office. It was found to contain fertilizer and iron rods, with a mobile phone, presumably for remote detonation."

I think there is a conventional wisdom that mobile phones are used to remotely detonate IEDs. In fact, most of the time it's simply the timer circuitry which is used as a trigger mechanism. I think it's wrong to reinforce this misconception. Although this could very well of been an exception. 05:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not familiar with the acronym "IED" I???? Explosive Device? I'd rather not go looking for bomb-making manuals, but I may need to get more background if this becomes a regular attack method. Brianmc 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improvised explosive device --Cspurrier 11:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "South Thailand insurgents blamed for five bombs" page.