The governor of Pattani (Thailand) wants to offer a bounty on Islamic terrorists;
The governor of Pattani wants to offer cash rewards of 50,000-100,000 baht to civilians who kill or injure insurgents in gun fights. He says rewards would give people an incentive to fight back, but academics and law experts argue it would just encourage more extra-judicial killing.
However, caretaker Justice Minister Chidchai Wannasathit and army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin appeared to second the idea yesterday.
Pattani governor Panu Uthairat said his proposal was a security measure aimed at protecting the lives of innocent people in the province. ”In some cases, people want to retaliate. Some have fired warning shots into the sky. Others clashed with insurgents who were killed or wounded in the process,” he said.”Some wounded insurgents were caught. In the past, we handed out 5,000 to 10,000 baht in cash to civilians to boost their morale so they will fight back in self-defence,” he said.
A source said civilians would be given 50,000 baht each if their return fire hit any insurgents, leading to their capture. The amount would double if the insurgents were killed.
Background.
Via Grim’s Hall. Read the commentary there, as well.
Wow, imagine that, ordinary people being given the incentive to protect themselves.
I saw this article linked at a number of other blogs and I thought of the US Constitution. It mentions “letters of marque & reprisal” in 3 places in the Articles of Confederation. It hasn’t been invoked in a couple hundred years. Glad to see someone has invoked it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Bounty…on terrorists…in Canada?
I’d settle for deporting the ones that are here now…..or declaring Mississauga Canada’s terror Mecca.
Hmm. This is saying that the official security forces of a society, the military and the police, are unable to defend the people and therefore, the people must assist in this defence themselves.
This is also acknowledging that terrorism, and in this case, Islamofascism, doesn’t operate by and against a military (as did European fascism) but by and against civilians.
The immmediate objection is that civilian killings of ‘insurgents’ will actually be personal and criminal actions, rather than against fascism. Certainly, a percentage of these will fit into that definition, but, the majority? And – how does one deal with civilian rather than military fascist warfare? I think that’s the key question.
After all- look at what is happening in Europe, the US, Canada, when civilians are arrested for Islamofascism and attempts are made to deal with them in civilian, rather than military courts. The fact that this type of warfare has, as pointed out in yesterday’s link, located itself within the civilian system, means that the terrorists have abandoned military mores: the sanctuary of the uniform, of surrender, of mercy, and, the sanctity of military courts.
They have put themselves firmly within the civilian realm. But, the civilian realm wasn’t set up to defend itself against people who act as ‘civilians’, that is, as members of the society, but in reality, are attacking that very same society. The civic courts can deal with criminality, which are individual acts of law-breaking, but, they aren’t set up to deal with internal agendas that seek to, not break the law, but destroy the society. We have to reform our civic codes to enable us to deal with a destructive force that locates itself outside of the military and yet, has the same agenda – destroying the nation.
The left doesn’t see this; it sees these actions only as criminal, akin to a break and enter of a local store – with the individual shown as ‘redeemable because he was abused as a child, and so on’. The left runs squealing to their defense, and actually, assists in the destruction of their own society!
Hey WLMR, regarding “Mississauga [being] Canada’s terror Mecca,” some of the 17 Jihadi dudes went to Stephen Leacock in Scarborough … which is where I played hockey as a kid … oh, never mind.
Not to be calloused toward the plight of those in Thailand, but I’m glad the “experiment” is over there rather than somewhere like…Caledonia.
Don’t like the idea. It blurs the distinction that makes terrorists terrorists. A terrorist is one who attacks civilian targets (as opposed to legitimate military targets) to accomplish political goals. Having civilians paid to shoot at terrorists by the government comes very close to making them legitimate targets. If a “terrorist” can legitimately expect the “civilian” to shoot at him, that makes the “civilian” a legitimate target, just like one military unit ambushing another military unit…
If civilians don’t want to be legitimate targets, they can’t be legitimate threats to “military” forces.
PS. The quotation marks (“”) are used when definitions are getting slippery – e.g. One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”…
temp- the point is, that islamofascist terrorism is based within the civilian population.
Therefore, fuzzy definitions about ‘arming civilians makes them legitimate targets’ ignores that the whole infrastructure of islamofascism is that civilians already ARE legitimate targets.
Progressive!
Perhaps special prizes for first, biggest, and most.
The model is in successful operation everywhere in North America, like deer hunters “Big Buck” contests run by the local sporting goods stores every fall.
May I suggest the “Big Schmuck” contest.
A box of shells for every entry, one entry ballot for each dead schmuck and your name entered into a draw held four times a year.
No closed seasons and screw the limit!
RE: One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”…
Quotation marks or not, I do not believe that statement is true.
Prehaps the more correct term for terrorism is asymetrical warfare and I think that it has been practiced for 1000’s of years.
I think the Japanese term for this type of suicide attack and warfare is Bushido. hmmmmm
This will bring back the DUTY of citizens to be armed and to come to the defence of the polity. This is an ancient tradition of ours (though when citizenry was limited to the upper echelons.. the gentry, the guild members, etc) from “hue and cry”, to a duty to have serviceable arms and armour, Anglo society has long relied on the populace for defence. Ancient Greece was entirely dependent on the citiznery for the armed defence of the polity.
As to making civilians “legitimate targets”: moot point. The terrorists don’t care, so this is just semantics that make leftists, nihilist law professors feel better. Since they already support the terrorists anyways, arming the populace will have no effect but to make them more secure and make life harder for the salafis. Boo hoo.
IDF rules for the entire society, with Israeli gun control, would make for a very much harder target.
Temp
“Having civilians paid to shoot at terrorists by the government comes very close to making them legitimate targets. If a “terrorist” can legitimately expect the “civilian” to shoot at him, that makes the “civilian” a legitimate target,”
Wow, that is a dilemma, temp!
Maybe this will help!
How about all like minded “non-aggressors”, so-to-speak, put a sign on your front door that self identifies you as not participating in the armed fighting, and that you are passive and unarmed, and therefore “not a target”.
That should help everyone.
How do you know they’re terrorists, just out of curiosity?
I mean, do you have to wait until you see them with bombs in their hands, or do you just get to shoot any sand nigger who looks a little shifty?
Maybe some of the proponents of this idea can clarify this point.
Nice mouth wonderdog.
Hey wonderdog, do you kiss your mama with that mouth?
Like an overpriced ,overbred ,Mississippi leghound, wonderdog is caught dry humping the kids discarded stuffed animal, racism ,while the rest of the pack goes to hunt.
That dog don’t hunt!
We could start by having all armed forces reserves, police officers and any other citizens who use firearms in their job to carry their service revolvers with them at all times. Right after we arm the border guards.
wonderdog – the proponents of this ‘idea’, which is, to conduct a war using civilians as the army, are the Islamofascists. That’s their tactic, to reject the ‘sanctuary of the uniform’ and the military rules of combat – which is to protect, not murder civilians. By dressing themselves up as civilians, they are exposing valid civilians to attack. After all, as you say, how can a member of the valid military know whether or not the person in front of him is a terrorist masquerading as a harmless civilian or that harmless civilian?
I think you’ll have to ask the Islamofascists your question. After all, they are the ones who set up and are using this ‘civilian-cover strategy’. Ask them if it’s a moral strategy.
Here in Canada, I’d settle for just a lack of criminal charges for shooting criminals and terrorists.
At least we aren’t in England. There you’re expected just to roll over and die rather than defend yourself.
Here you’re just expected to get shot once or twice before going to the vault to retrieve your gun, then you limp on over to your other vault to get the ammo. Then, after being hit 3 or 4 more times you load the sucker up and fire a warning shot…
In a sane world you’d be threatened and 3 seconds later the creep is dead. 7 seconds after that the mayor gives you the keys to the city. 15 seconds later you’re given the Order of Canada. Instead we suffer the Liberal “justice” that isn’t.
Wonderdog:
“How do you know they’re terrorists, just out of curiosity?”
They’re the ones with the AK47’s firing on the women and children. The other ones are the guys with the explosives straped to their waist. Sometimes all of the above.
Questions?
Funny, Warwick, I don’t see any terrorists toting AK47s around here. Maybe you can step out your front door and take a picture of them for me?
Funny, nobody has actually answered the question yet, you know, with an answer applicable to the real world.
Keep on jacking off in your fantasy world, folks.
Hey ‘Hey’ its not a duty, self defense is a human right.
wonderdog – I answered your question. I told you to ask the islamofascists. They are the ones who dress as civilians in order to carry out mass murder of other civilians.
Ask them why they do this.
Do you think the Islamofascists are dressed as civilians on purpose? To confuse us, so that we can’t protect ourselves from their bombs?
Ask them. Ask them how we can protect ourselves.
Ask them why they masquerade as civilians. Ask them how we ought to be able to tell the difference between them and a harmless civilian.
Ask them if they are dressing this way on purpose.
Ask them if they are indifferent if an innocent civilian gets killed.
Ask them. It’s their agenda.
Hmmm … that’s what is needed , modern day bounty hunters!
Imagine what the left and MSM would do with it.
Wonderdog,
The “around here” to that story being discussed is fricken Thailand you half-wit! If you’re looking “around here” as in your Toronto Annex apartment, you’re looking in the wrong spot.
In fact, beyond the AK47’s and suicide belts, you can also include the thug terrorists who carry machetes with which they have been known to cut off the heads of young Christian schoolgirls. You can google the story if you haven’t been enlightened as to the facts.
If you need more of that hard-to-find intel only available to those capable of going to http://www.google.ca, you aren’t smart enough to comment on your hangnail – never mind terrorism, crime, and the right to self-defence.
Apparently wonderdog is one of those who still reside in the fantasyland where the only people motivated to strap on suicide belts are the daring Arab Minutemen determined to expel the imperialist Bushitler and his Zionist Agents from sacred lands.
I provided a link titled “background” for a reason.
Don’t bother commenting here again – on this thread or any other – until you’ve read it.
“sandniggers”
In Thailand.
I can’t believe I suffer fools like you as much as I do.
excellent idea. why give terrorists the advantage of being without a “uniform” to slaughter civilians. It’s a new war today, with new rules and apparently the innocent are being blown apart by twisted ideologies and not countries.
Maybe it is time for a change in strategy.
“In the course of his two terms in office, Fujimori was credited by many Peruvians for ending the fifteen-year reign of terror of Sendero Luminoso and the arrest of their leader, Abimael Guzmán. As part of his anti-terrorism efforts, Fujimori granted the military broad powers to arrest suspected terrorists and to try them in secret military courts with few legal rights. The justification given for this abridgement of the usual guarantees of open trials was that under previous governments, the judiciary was too afraid to charge captured terrorists; afraid of terrorist reprisal against them or their families. At the same time, he armed rural Peruvians to form the groups known as rondas campesinas (“peasant patrols”), to which part of the success of the fight against terrorism was attributed.
Insurgent activity declined from 1992 onwards, and Fujimori took credit for this development, claiming that his campaign had largely eliminated the terrorist threat.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori
Funny, the posts talking about the US constitution and about Mississuaga aren’t getting attacked on the grounds that this is only about Thailand. And that’s what I was responding to.
How long has Mississauga been in Thailand, Kate? Care to fill me on on that one? No; finish eating your cake first. Just remember that you can’t have it, too.