richard_smith237

Phase 1: The Mai-Pen-Rai phase.... Phase 2: The Nid-noi pomphen phase... Phase 3: The mee tang mai? phase... Phase 4: The khee-giat phase...

That’s not accurate - and it’s not “media conditioning” to recognise context. I’ve spent a huge amount of the past two decades across the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and everyday speech among Muslims is far more likely to include phrases like Alhamdulillah and Inshallah - those are part of normal, daily conversation. Allahu Akbar is a legitimate religious phrase used in prayer and religious contexts. But it’s part of regular conversation, and that distinction matters. In today’s world, after years of it being used in extremist attacks, the phrase has taken on an additional association. That’s not about labelling all Muslims - it’s about recognising how repeated real-world events shape public perception. Thats not islamaphobia - thats just your attempt to deflect through accusation. If someone suddenly shouted “Allahu akbar” loudly in a crowded mall in places like Bahrain or Dubai, it would alarm people - not because the words themselves are inherently bad, but because of how and where they’re being used... using that term insights fear - switch the script and "praise be to Jesus" would not insight he same fear in locals in shopping centres across the Middle East or in Europe or the USA. Context matters. Behaviour matters. And pretending those associations don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear.

I'd like to straighten something out... The UN’s own investigations after the 2014 Gaza war confirmed that weapons were stored in UN schools and that those facilities were likely used by militants. That’s wasn't “propaganda” - it was proven and documented. So when people talk about Hamas operating in civilian areas, it’s not some fringe claim. It’s a pattern: - Rockets launched from residential neighbourhoods - Weapons hidden in schools - Fighting embedded in densely populated zones Hamas using civilians as shields - whether people like the wording or not. If we try and flip the situation for a second - If Israel stored missiles in its own schools or fired rockets from hospitals, the global reaction would be instant and absolute outrage. There would be nonstop headlines, sanctions, protests - no nuance, no “context”, no excuses. But when it’s Hamas, for 'some' people suddenly everything becomes complicated, justified, or ignored. You can criticise Israel all day long - and many do - but if you can’t also acknowledge this reality about Hamas, then it’s not about human rights anymore. It’s about selective outrage.

I’m starting to wonder if JimCM’s IP address traces back to Mosul - and he’s single-handedly trying to re-establish the caliphate from his living room....

“This ‘peaceful religion’ you speak of… When someone shouts ‘Allāhu akbar’ in a crowded place, the mood changes instantly - people tense up, eyes scan, that split second of fear kicks in. Yet if someone shouts ‘praise be to Jesus’, people would just roll their eyes - another loud believer, maybe a bit unhinged, but not a threat.

October 2nd, 2627, so it should be good for the next fifty eight years. How'd you get 58 years ???

That depends on the amount of alcohol consumed - given the above comments (posts above this) - the 'reasonable' limits seem rather low. Have two points, trip over, smack your head or break and ankle and the insurance pulls the booze clause if they can get away with it (according Tarteso's comments) - though I find it hard to believe travel insurance companies could get away with not paying out for such a low cut off. It still begs the question - what is a reasonable amount - most tourists will get happily sloshed - does that void the travel insurance if they trip over ?? If you believe LL - it would be your own fault for not adhering to the terms and conditions of the insurance companies - though he has mentioned they pay out 95% of the time.

Which is less than two points - hardly 'reasonable' consumption then.

Nicely vague - just like their 'dangerous activities' clauses. What exactly is reasonable consumption ?

Thats different - Vegas is actually engineered to avoid balcony access (not all - but for the most of the hotels).

In threads of years past - (some) forum members have boasted about using pools in hotels at which they are not residents..... "just act like you are staying there" type of approach. This would appear to be the same thing.... Not a big deal, as in not a major crime - but still a big pish take...

Alcohol is probably only part of the story. ... and sadly, if the insurance company can prove that alcohol was in play, they decide that voids her cover. I still struggle to comprehend how someone falls off a balcony, drunk or sober.... do drunk people decide to sit on the railings ??? Seems to happen a lot in tourist destinations. Sounds like a long road to recovery - I hope she isn't left to hang out and dry by her insurance company.

Indeed... the soul of wit - not a substitute - Try harder.

Richard's kid at 8 PM says "Tell me a bedtime story Daddy". Richard complies Wife comes in at 1 AM -- Dear you can stop your story the kid fell asleep 4 and a half hours ago. Classic ad hominem - attack the person, ignore the argument. Not even clever enough to land an intelligent blow... Try harder.

Well, you’d object even if you agreed - that’s the point... (stripped it to the basics - dumbed it down just for you).

The line was: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. The Democrats sat -- it was a grade school setup as, if Democrats stood, Trump was prepared to pivot to "Well then why don't you?" instead of "Isn't that a shame? You should be ashamed of yourself not standing up" I agree - it was a complete 'grade school setup' - the 'why don't you' option was still the better option, but emotion and judgment of the man superseded the comments... If the Democrat stood they would have presented short-term loss, but longer-term control. - Would look like they’re agreeing with Trump - even if they’re not. - Would have blurred their opposition - weakened their messaging. - Would have given him a soundbite: “even Democrats support this”. But… - It would have avoided looking cold or disconnected from the issue itself. - It would have kept the focus on policy rather than personalities. - I would have Given them room later to say: “we support the principle, not his approach”. Standing would have been more strategic and disciplined. As they remained seated, short-term satisfaction was chosen. long-term risk. - Signalled clear opposition to Trump whatever the comment or policy. - It Played well to their own base. - It was emotionally and morally consistent at least. But… - It Created poor optics - It looked like opposing the idea, not the man. - It handed Trump the perfect clip to weaponise. - It reinforced the narrative of division and stubbornness. Remaining seated was the weaker play, and that’s why I used this as an example. At that level, emotion should not call the shots - in a no-win situation the politicians should be taking the shallowest hit. Instead, they allowed it to be about Trump and not the policy - a boycott of the man driven by emotion over judgement - IMO that’s a mistake people at that level shouldn’t be making. It’s why I believe that even if some of his policies are genuinely solid, certain people simply can’t bring themselves to view them objectively or through balanced optics - judgement is already made the moment Trump is mentioned.

That question is way too binary... Politics in the US has become so tribal that everything gets reduced to “which side are you on?”, and then there's Donald Trump, who doesn’t just exacerbate that divide - he blows it apart (seemingly) deliberately, just by being himself. Take the 2026 State of the Union. The immigration segment everyone talked about - the “stand if you agree” moment. That wasn’t just a line in a speech, it was a clever setup. A political trap, plain and simple. Republicans stood. Democrats stayed seated. And just like that, the whole thing stopped being about immigration, or policy, or facts - it became a loyalty test. Very clever - it highlighed the real issues... .... not just in the US, but globally. People react to Trump the personality - the theatrics, the ego, the sometimes outright ridiculous public behaviour - rather than separating that from the actual policies. Now, is he an idiot? Clearly not. People love to say that, but idiots don’t build empires, win elections, and hold power at that level. But at the same time, he plays the fool in public far too often - and that undermines everything else he does. It muddies the waters. IMO there's a truth thats too uncomfortable for some - some of his policies were solid. Not all, not even close, but some were pragmatic, effective, even necessary depending on how you look at them. Others… not so much. Some were badly executed, others driven more by ego than strategy. So do I approve of Trump? No… and also yes. It depends what you’re asking about. Which policy? Which decision? Which version of the facts - because let’s be honest, those get twisted on both sides until I can barely see the original shape. Stripping away the noise - the media spin, the outrage machine, the blind loyalty and the blind hatred, just looking at things case by case, he can be viewed with a better balance. I think for some, they are too locked into their 'judgment' and double down - the idea that Trump may have done some positive things is not comfortable place to go to, because it forces you people admit something most people don’t want to admit: They can disagree with the man… and still agree with some of what he did, or vice versa. Most people won’t say that out loud though.

Outstanding area of natural beauty - Go for it... ....will you live in a remote area in the wilderness without internet ?? Asking for a friend...

This might be one of the daftest takes I’ve seen in a while, and thats saying something - the logic is fundamentally flawed. You’re basically arguing that the solution to instability is… more instability. That giving nuclear weapons to more countries in one of the most volatile regions on earth somehow creates peace. That’s borderline insanity. Mutually assured destruction only barely worked between two superpowers with tight control systems - not a region full of proxy wars, militias, and governments that openly fund armed groups. Iran isn’t Switzerland - It has a long track record of backing and arming terrorist organisations across the region You want to give nuclear capability to a state that already funds groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and others - and just hope none of that influence ever spills over into something far worse? IMO thats gambling with civilisation. MAD relies on rational actors. Terror networks aren’t rational in the same way states are. Even analysts point out that nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear terrorism or loss of control over materials So not... perhaps is not a good idea to take region already full of proxy wars, ideological conflict, and instability… and add multiple nuclear arsenals into the mix. What could possibly go wrong ??? Your argument / logic does not support peace - its simply delays a bigger disaster.

Bang on... The US throwing MM-DD-YYYY out there just confuses everything. Business should really be using DD-MON-YYYY (as in 24-Mar-2026) to avoid any confusion. As Berin Pharma is a Thai company - it will use DD-MM-YYYY - So the Expiry date is: 2-Oct-2027

Yes. Absolutely. You are an exceptional being according to your own judgement. Perhaps stay off the internet for a while, disconnect your phone to accompany your brain - Practice for being in North Korea.

Why not move to NK then ?

That you have internet access and freedom to make such comments showcases an outstanding degree of ignorance, the only conclusion is that the acoustics in your head must be incredible.

Where would you prefer to be meeting them ?

Careful - LL will start quoting the article at you...