http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...72112_2,00.html as much as i want to defend islam, they are everywhere and a royal pain to their neighbours.
I've read a little about the issue, but I'm still sort of confused. I got the impression that this coup was actually better for the nation. It may be anti-democratic in nature, (1) but it has the support of the majority of the population, (2) it was completed peacefully, (3) and the generals intend to hold elections soon. In contrast, I've read that Thaksin's regime was rife with corruption and mismanagement. This article, itself, suggests that Muslims were not the cause of the coup, but Thaksin's approach to handling Muslims was: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As head of the army, Sonthi was already deadlocked in an argument with Thaksin over the insurgency in the southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat. Muslims are a majority in the three provinces, sundered from the Malay sultanates by a treaty between Britain and Siam in 1909. A separatist campaign rumbled on for decades, but it had become insignificant thanks to shrewd policies of religious tolerance and good works by the king.</div>
my approach is theoretical- the precedent set is that a government can be toppled if its destabilized by a non-state, islamic insurgent. and more infuriating is the US govts. muted response to the toppling of a democratically elected govt. and remember democracy is a process, read up on indira gandhi and the emergency acts in 70's for a better perspective on why democracy is truly a process.
I actually felt that the coup wasn't in response to the government falling to the insurgency. Rather, I see it as an attempt to force a leader to compromis with it. I mean, in the past, it has been shown that the government can coexist with the Islamic population. While I don't like the idea of basically pressing the "re-start button" for democracy, I don't think the Islamic insurgency should be considered the primary cause of this coup. Thaksin's corrupt and ineffectual reign seems to be the reason that the majority of Thailand had no problem with this undemocratic coup. And, I've long ago stopped caring what the US response to an issue is. They're always riddled with contradicitons and their conception of what is good/bad in the world is entirely selfish. Also, can you be more specific about your recommendation? Being a Sikh, I've developed familiarity with the issue (that undoubtedly is a bit biased as well).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post"> And, I've long ago stopped caring what the US response to an issue is. They're always riddled with contradicitons and their conception of what is good/bad in the world is entirely selfish. Also, can you be more specific about your recommendation? Being a Sikh, I've developed familiarity with the issue (that undoubtedly is a bit biased as well).</div> in layman terms muslims need to chill out and respect governance, that was my point and i don't believe in justifications of their jaded world view. as for the US response- u should really care, cause they are the world's only remaining superpower (hegemony). trudeau once famously compared living beside the US as like" sleeping beside an elephant" - imagine if that elephant rolled over? and about the emergency acts- indira gandhi enacted the emergency acts as u probably know to bypass the check and balances of democracy to clampdown on her rivals and believe it or not, to enhance india's well-being. to that end, she wanted to curb population growth, as well curb provincialim, long thought to be a thorn in india's backside. some of her intentions were commendable and long overdue, but democracy is about consensus building and not understanding that was her fatal mistake.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting deception:</div><div class="quote_post">in layman terms muslims need to chill out and respect governance, that was my point and i don't believe in justifications of their jaded world view. as for the US response- u should really care, cause they are the world's only remaining superpower (hegemony). trudeau once famously compared living beside the US as like" sleeping beside an elephant" - imagine if that elephant rolled over? and about the emergency acts- indira gandhi enacted the emergency acts as u probably know to bypass the check and balances of democracy to clampdown on her rivals and believe it or not, to enhance india's well-being. to that end, she wanted to curb population growth, as well curb provincialim, long thought to be a thorn in india's backside. some of her intentions were commendable and long overdue, but democracy is about consensus building and not understanding that was her fatal mistake.</div> That honestly seems to be the problem of most religious groups that think they can develop a state based entirely on their faith. They become narrow-minded and extreme in an attempt to achieve a goal that is both unrealistic and overrated. I agree with most of what you said. Developing countries need to a show a committment to democratic institutions, if they want any chance of succeeding. This does bring up a potentially fatal precedent. But on the topic of consensus (and now I'm not necessarily supporting the view I'm arguing), doesn't the majority of the Thai population support this peaceful coup? Also, to clarify about my position on America's official response: I've long since stopped becoming outraged by their hypocrisies. I still find it ridiculous, but I realize that what they support/oppose is not related to upholding democracy, but upholding themselves (eg: ethnic cleansing in Sadam's Iraq is deplorable because he's an "enemy" of the US, but ethnic cleansing throughout most of Africa (an area that has nothing of value to the US) provokes no response whatsoever).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">That honestly seems to be the problem of most religious groups that think they can develop a state based entirely on their faith. They become narrow-minded and extreme in an attempt to achieve a goal that is both unrealistic and overrated. I agree with most of what you said. Developing countries need to a show a committment to democratic institutions, if they want any chance of succeeding. This does bring up a potentially fatal precedent. But on the topic of consensus (and now I'm not necessarily supporting the view I'm arguing), doesn't the majority of the Thai population support this peaceful coup? </div> assuming your hypothesis is correct and the majority of the people support the coup, i still don't believe in it cause as aforementioned it establishes precedent. of course thailand is a maturing democracy and they have had a long histroy of coup' s so they might qualify for the extraordinary circumstances category, even though nobody should. double standards and us policy has been there interminable history.
