Patong2021

No. If an Indian citizen acquires foreign citizenship, they are required to renounce their Indian citizenship. The Indian government mandates that citizens who take up foreign nationality must notify the Indian authorities and surrender their Indian passport. This is because, under Indian law, acquiring foreign citizenship automatically results in the termination of Indian citizenship. Yes, I am aware that citizenship can be revoked for dual nationals on the morals and good order clause. However, if an individual only has one nationality and it is a Thai citizenship, is Thai because a parent was a Thai, and they are residing in Thailand, their citizenship cannot be revoked . Thailand cannot create a stateless person. If that was the case, it would have revoked the citizenship rights of the Thaksin clan long ago following the multiple military coups. Describing someone as Thai-Indian is a biased colonial approach. Someone is either a Thai or an Indian national . They may have an ethnic origin of Indian, but that does not make them any less a Thai.

Nonsense. If he his part Thai, he can not be stripped of his legal citizenship.

This suggests that this was their own motorcycle; The pair were travelling southbound from Mae Hong Son, intending to return to Malaysia. Rather odd that they would drive 2000km though.

The rebels are at war with the Myanmar military junta. The regime is an ally of China and is its largest trading partner. China is pushing its China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC). Although China has reportedly obtained a ceasefire between the Myanmar military and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), this was for Shan state only. The Kayin state which is below Shan, and where the Karenni are fighting are not supported by China. Singapore will not help because it will not go against China. Malaysia is already dealing with the Rohingya migrants. Japan is already a large donor in the region. It provided an additional US$37million to UN aid agencies in Thailand and Myanmar in 2024. Brunei? Seriously? It mostly restricts its aid to muslims via the Islamic Development Bank and other Islamic "charities". It has no concern for the plight of the Karen people.

Trump isn't there to serve the world. He is there to act in the best interests of the USA. Whether or not some of his policies do that is another story. It is time that many countries in the world put on their big boy pants and started taking care of themselves and not relying or demanding foreign aid.It is called taking responsibility. I do not agree with proposed suspension of aid. One of the most successful health programs initiated in the past 25 years was George Bush's HIV treatment and prevention program in Saharan Africa. However, the burden of social assistance has slowly been t transferred to western nations (and Japan), particularly the USA. China, Russia and India have had a free hand to benefit from the generosity, but they have contributed relatively little. There has been a lack of gratitude and appreciation for all that the USA has done, and for the generosity of other nations too. No one owes many of these countries anything. Let China and Russia with their self described powerhouse economies step up and show some leadership.

This is reading like a Dickens morality tale, with foreigners demonstrating their lack of understanding of the socio economic characteristics of their host country. Many are already suffering. Limited education, subsistence living. How much more are you going to do to them? Beat down a disenfranchised population and eventually they rise up in revolution and poof will go the hedonistic delights of places like Pattaya. Lean from history and what happened to Saigon and Havana. They are forced to borrow from loan sharks, driving impoverished people further into debt and the exploitation that accompanies such a predicament. Your method has been tried previously and it has not worked out.

It is not about oil consumption, but OIL PRODUCTION. Norway has already admitted that its energy sector provides the oil that is responsible for a large proportion of global emissions. Norway is pumping out the product that is causing the climate crisis and is profiting quite nicely from it, all the while, pointing its finger and moralising. Norway is just as responsible for the global climate crisis as are the customers of its oil. Now personally, I don't have a problem with fossil fuels since use it to operate my motor vehicles and need it for my regular air travel. The difference here though, is that unlike the holier than thou Norwegians who carry on as if their sh*t don't stink, I admit to my carbon footprint (and try to mitigate it through support of carbon recapture through forest regeneration.) So, when you claim that Norway's great contribution is so large by its per capita donations, but then ignore the source of those funds, it is an exercise in hypocrisy. It is no different than the Hell's Angels who hand out toys at Christmas. Well, they paid for those toys through their wrongful activities.

How do they make a living and support themselves? These people live hand to mouth. If you do what you propose they will turn to crime to survive, and their children may go without food etc. That's how dire the economic conditions are for some of them.

What do you expect when the locations are used for military purposes?

How do you propose collecting money from people who have no money? Most of the bad drivers don't have 1,000 baht extra.

Why not ask the Thais why they are discharging the patients? Where is the compassion?

Using a per capita format for a country with a 5.5 million population size exaggerates and inflates the Norwegian contribution. It may be factually accurate, but it is misleading and inappropriate for a comparison of this kind. Norway's funds hardly make a dent in the damage that Norway has inflicted on others. Norway earns in excess of $US170 billion from its carbon generating, polluting oil sector. As we all know, the carbon byproduct is a contributor to global climate changes. Those climate changes have resulted in weather catastrophes around the world, including droughts in Africa which have resulted in disease epidemics and famine . It has also resulted in rising sea levels which will harm vulnerable nations who can least afford the impact. The day Norway covers the cost of damage done to others, then you can sing the praises of Norway.

Unless you are in the top 10% income tier, your tax dollars most likely do not cover the cost of services and benefits that you currently receive from the US government. The reality is that 80% of US taxpayers receive more from the federal government than they contribute. Of the remaining 20%, only half of them, literally 10% of the US taxpayer population pay more than they receive. It is not only tiresome to hear these self aggrandizing claims of "my tax dollars being misspent" but obnoxiously arrogant. The likely reality is that you are being supported by a small number if US taxpayers. US tax dollars do not pay for military intelligence or satellite mapping to help locate hospitals targeted for destruction. Israel has its own satellites and aerial reconnaissance capability. On the contrary, the USA uses Israeli technology. In any case a hospital or a school used for military purposes becomes a legitimate military target. There is no apartheid regime in Israel, except in the Arab controlled PLA and Hamas territories, where the Arabs forbid Israelis and jews. The US Treasury sanctions have been applied to Syria and Iran. According to you they stand up to ethnic cleansing and genocide, when in fact they are the perpatrators. What did you call Assad's torture prisons, holiday camps or educational facilities? Spewing unsubstantiated claims isn't going to convince rational people. Why not just have the courage to be honest and just say what you really want to say? You hate Israel and/or jews. You want Israel destroyed. If you started out with some honesty first, you would have some credibility. Ok. Why then do one of the people going on and on about the plight of the Gazans, never ever have any concern for the people of Darfur, or Yemen or Syria? 10,000 Yazidis were slaughtered by by Islamic ISIL and not a word of protest from these people. There is no consistency in their claims.

Conspiracy claims are like a bad case of diarrhea: It is best to not present yourself in public, because of the resulting gooey, mess that oozes everywhere and results in a smelly embarrassment.

This will do wonders for the Korean tourism sector. If this incident is picked up by Korean social media and news outlets, TAT will have a dumpster fire on its hands. South Korean social media spreads like a California wildfire. South Koreans typically obey their traffic laws and would not be aware of the irresponsible disrespect for pedestrian crossings in Thailand.

On the contrary, it is you who does not understand judicial process and the necessity of politicians to not make prejudicial statements when there are ongoing court proceedings. Inappropriate statements are an accepted basis for the dismissal of a charge(s). This is why MPs are NOT allowed to directly comment on a specific case. The sub judice rule prevents MPs or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case. Detailed information is set out in the Appendix of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The sub judice rule, was confirmed by previous "all party" resolutions in 1963, 1972 and 2001. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/sub-judice/

Calling the deaths of Hamas and other Islamic militia members a genocide is intentionally false. They were killed while engaged in an act of war. Calling the deaths of people acting as irregular military personnel carrying out the activities of command and control, logistics, communications, intelligence gathering, and sabotage a genocide is intentionally false. The Islamic militias use "civilians" for these activities. This includes persons aged as young as 8 years old. Calling the deaths of the family members and others who were incidental casualties when a missile firing site, or munitions depot, or command and control center was neutralized is intentionally false. The military activities were intentionally placed in these locations and the people were intentionally located there to act as human shields. The use of ambulances and UN designated vehicles to transport military personnel and ordinance, has resulted in the their being neutralized. Calling the resulting casualties genocide is intentionally false. Calling the incidental human casualties that have arisen when Gazan military targets hidden amongst schools, residential buildings and medical facilities have been neutralized is intentionally false. The casualties while sometimes unfortunate, is a direct result of the Gazan intent to create as many incidental casualties for propaganda purposes. There is a reason why so many of the neighboring arab nations didn't really get as angry as expected. They know what they are dealing with. After all, the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the o12 other militant groups have all engaged in acts of violence against other arab nations. Out of curiousity, why are you not as concerned with the Syrian mass murders, you know; 14 million refugees, 600,000 deadm the Assad torture prisons, the use of chemical weapons etc.? Why no concern for the genocide in Darfur? What makes the Gazans more worthy of concern?

No politician should opine on a criminal case. They can prejudice a case. That's how criminals are let off. The fact is that PM Starmer was right and his position resulted in a very strong sentence for the murder.

They suffer from the same affliction as other societies: A loss of restraint, and an erosion of politeness. Ever since Covid, I find that people are much nastier and ruder. There has been a deterioration of respect for others. The man sounds like he is mentally unstable. Oh seriously? Why do you have to interject your political bias? Moderator’s edit - reply to a deleted comment has been removed.

The OP phrasing was open ended, particularly when Trump has stated that he believes that he can run again. Trump 'Not 100% Sure' He's Barred From Third Term Trump has repeatedly alluded to the possibility that he might go beyond the current two-term limit for US presidents -- but while he often strikes a light-hearted tone the remarks remain provocative. https://www.barrons.com/news/trump-not-100-sure-he-s-barred-from-third-term-c8a1185c Why do you assume that anyone who does not accept the inaccurate information associated with Trump is a "liberal loser". I am counting on Trump ruining the US economy and causing a spike in interest rates. My investment income will improve and I have no debt.

Ok. However, I believe his intent was to draw intention of the event. The next time he presents, you can present your opinions in pantomime form.

No he did not. Trump won by a slim margin and did not even receive a majority of the presidential vote. Popular vote Trump- 77,302,580 Harris 75,017,613 Percentage Trump 49.8% Harris 48.3% And just when did the US Constitution change to allow Trump to run for office again when his 85 years old? He is subject to a term limit.

The article refers to a Russian couple. (Maybe they were not) The massage parlor person assumed her customers were Israelis. (Maybe they were not) Too often people assume that some accents are specific to certain countries. Most of the service industry Thais have no idea of where some countries are located or the languages that are spoken there. My friend some years back, thought I was a German , despite knowing me at the time for 10 years and knowing the city I was born in.

I believe that there is merit in the observation. He can read the political tea leaves. He does have his principles, and nothing he said or did deviated from a pragmatic common sense approach that he has always had. However, he does have common sense and that is to waste energy fighting over something that he cannot change. What he can do is to try and protect the interests of his constituents, many of whom voted for Trump, and who are now at risk of suffering serious negative consequences from the policies that Trump will enact. He is going to stand back while Trump digs a big hole for the Maga collective to fall into, all the while being respectful and co-operative.

There is no genocide in Gaza. If you wish to take up the cause of victims of a genocide, please direct your attention to the Darfur where 100,000+ black Africans have been slaughtered by muslim arab militias with no protests from people like you. It is unfortunate and morally reprehensible. However, the question you should be asking is why the Africans, who have been the primary beneficiaries, have not funded this program themselves now that they have hundreds of millions of $/Euros that have flowed in since the Chinese started investing in Africa. Trump has not stopped supplies to any refugee camp in Syria. Why is it the USA's responsibility anyway? Assad was an Arab. The Iranians, Russians and Hezbollah Palestinians all supported the Assad regime and created the refugee problem. Ask them to pay. Better yet, ask the Arabs with their oil fortunes to support the refugees instead of financing terrorists as Qatar does. They already do. Really, it should be China, Russia and India who should be contributing more.