Thailand’s southern provinces lie along the border of Malaysia, and have a population distinct from the rest of Thailand—most residents speak a dialect of Malay, practice Islam, and look toward Malaysia and Indonesia for cultural influence. These three provinces were, until the early 20th century, part of a sultanate. But in the early 20th century, the Bangkok monarchy—a Buddhist power—gained control of the region, triggering local anger against what the residents viewed as a foreign grip. In the 1960s and 1970s, as antigovernment protest simmered in other parts of Thailand, and insurgencies raged through­out Southeast Asia, a separatist insurgency emerged in southern Thailand as well. The death toll was relatively low, however, and most of the insurgents put aside their weapons in the 1980s following an amnesty from the national government.

To this day, no one really knows why the insurgency reemerged in the early 2000s, and why the conflict was so much more violent when it erupted again. But when it did, it contained an almost perfect recipe for a conflict that would be both horrifying and ignored. 

I have a few ideas if you saw the links above; I had plenty of time to think about them on the toilet.

For one thing, the insurgency appears to be decentralized, with few publicly declared goals.  

The hallmark of n intelligence operation -- or a legitimate demand by local people for freedom!  With Thailand a nominal ally for so many and it being kept quiet by the agenda-pushing press.... hmmmmmm.

My point is the CFR clown and his megaphone won't be clearing it up for us.

A study by Human Rights Watch that interviewed local residents throughout the south suggested that the insurgents are looking to drive Thai Buddhists out of the region and discredit local governmental authorities, as well as possibly pushing for more use of local languages, stricter forms of Islam, and ultimately autonomy or a separate state. But no one leader has emerged at the head of the insurgency, and experts who have interviewed many insurgents, like Don Pathan of The Nation newspaper in Bangkok, say the insurgent cells are diffuse and often disconnected—angry young men without one central leader. Some insurgents issue warnings and demands to locals in the south and the Thai government, often through leaflets left on cars or in public places, but no one knows how much of the insurgency they speak for.  

Who just might be willing to pick up that paycheck from some spy paymaster.

“The lack of a defined enemy makes reporting on and understanding the conflict difficult,” says Duncan McCargo of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, an expert on the Thai south. By contrast, other conflicts that may be even more remote from Westerners—such as the long-lasting insurgency in Uganda—may have one brutal and charismatic leader, such as Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army, who makes a figure easy for outsiders to understand and vilify.

See: The Kony Kon

I'm sorry that nothing is ever as it seems in my agenda-pushing jewspaper.

Also, the southern Thailand conflict doesn’t map onto conflicts that preoccupy America and other Western powers. Shortly after 9/11, some Western terrorism experts attempted to link the southern insurgents to Al Qaeda.

Excuse me, please. 

When no real links emerged, it became harder for academics and other experts to find funding from donors to do research on the south, according to several Thai analysts who study the region.  

Actually, links do emerge; however, they track back to "Al-CIA-Duh."

The southern insurgents have also apparently chosen not to target Westerners or Western interests, even though resorts like Krabi and Phuket are not far away. Meanwhile, the few experts on Thailand in the West have been primarily focused on the dramatic, if much less deadly, political conflict in Bangkok and the center of the country.

Southern Thais also lack large exile communities who could publicize the conflict in the West, the way East Timorese emigrants in Australia, Portugal, and the United States helped keep their tiny island on the radar of policy makers throughout its armed conflict with the Indonesian government.

And southern Thailand sharply highlights the problems of reporting from conflict zones, especially given the tight foreign-reporting budgets of even major broadcast and print outlets.

Maybe if you manipulating globe-kickers hadn't used your mouthpiece media to lie to us for, well, forever, maybe that wouldn't be true. I certainly don't want to be here commenting day after day and exposing the s*** shovel that passes for newspapers here. Lot better things I could be doing with my time if the media was doing its job. Maybe it is, though -- if propaganda is the point.

The Thai press, dominated by Bangkok-based Buddhists, has tended to view Malay Muslim southerners with bias. Foreign reporters trying to cover southern Thailand face high hurdles: Thai is a challenging language that uses a non-Roman alphabet; in the deep south, many people do not even speak it, using their Malay dialect instead. The relatively few foreign reporters trying to cover the region are highly dependent on local reporters or stringers, who are often amateurs, and may be too personally affected by the conflict to collect information impartially.  

AmeriKa is loaded with those kind.

Slow Internet access in the Thai deep south means that residents generate few of the cellphone videos and social-media reports that can spread word of modern conflicts.  

We do have the advantage there.

The insurgency in southern Thailand may be an extreme case, but it is hardly the only situation where this mix of inaccessible territory and opaque politics has rendered a violent conflict nearly invisible. A brutal ethnic conflict in the eastern Congo, which over the years has claimed the lives of millions and drawn in forces from neighboring nations, has been largely ignored by the outside world for similar reasons. So has a violent separatist movement in Indonesia, located on the western half of the island of Papua New Guinea. 

Related: 10 Million Dead in Congo 

Gee, that tops the magical 6 million number, doesn't it? Must be why it is largely ignored, among other reasons.  It can be really tough cutting through the MSM bullsh...., I mean, brush.

For the same reasons these conflicts are hard to cover, they are hard to solve. When the insurgencies have no one leader and no one coherent platform of demands that could be addressed, they tend to be passed over by governments and agencies that, understandably, would rather spend their money and energy elsewhere. (Thai government officials I have interviewed privately admit that there seems to be no end in sight to the conflict.)

But to ignore such conflicts is also to condemn the people embroiled in them. In southern Thailand, as difficult as the conflict is, there is still impressive work being done by some aid groups to bring its violence to light. The International Crisis Group, for example, a leading global research organization, has continued to put out thorough and insightful reports on the south Thailand insurgency.

It is easy to imagine that there’s no longer such a thing as an invisible tragedy—that the Internet, immigration and travel, and a globalized media quickly bring every conflict to our living rooms. The Thai insurgency is a reminder that we can’t take that visibility for granted. Sometimes there is simply no substitute for being there, and doing the hard work of reminding people that a conflict is happening. After all, if brutal, seemingly endless violence can erupt just a few hundred miles from one of the world’s party palaces, and almost no one takes notice, where else could such bloodshed go completely ignored?

Maybe here perhaps?

--more--"

Also see: Thailand eases royal traffic headache  

I'm getting one. I had not intended for this post to take this long.