Morch

Mrs. Morch buys most of the pork we eat from a local chain that's connected with a (large) farm in Nakhon Pathom. No complaints, other than that they don't do certain cuts. Every now and then there's an SMS to inform about sales, promotions, closure and openings of branch. I liked that following this news they sent an 'it's-not-us' message.

You've been posting links to dodgy 'news' cites long before that.

Sure. "Lock her up!".

@thaibeachlovers AseanNow is social media. As for the posters.....

I think that political slim pickings are an international thing. Hearing the same from people all over, Thailand for example. Trouble is that such a state of affairs can also promote 'wrong' candidates.

Vinegar mixed with water. Need to be re-applied. Can smell some if too concentrated, might effect coloration of rocks/stones (not sure about that). Though, if you only have to weed it every couple of month, I'd say that's about as good as it gets.

7/10 is a Hamas thing. That you try to make excuses for it, to justify it, normalize it - that doesn't carry much weight. All it does it make a mockery of them other posts in which you claim some sort of balance. All the more so since you cite '16 years of oppression'. That would make the context about the Gaza Strip, and Hamas's rule of. Much of the 'oppression', in this regard, is a direct result of Hamas's own actions and agenda. The blockade came about after Hamas assumed control of the Gaza Strip, it was not a permanent feature earlier.

The same Secretary General of the UN also said that the 'not in a vacuum' thing does not serve to justify the Hamas attack. You and others routinely drop this part out of your comments. As for casualty figures, you're still doing the Hamas thing. 20,000 'innocent Palestinians' does not account for all the Hamas men killed, but lumps all the casualties together, so as to better serve the agenda. Some of the complaints you cite are nothing to do with the Gaza Strip (land theft), or are directly related to Hamas actions and agenda (the blockade). Your understanding of the 'not in a vacuum' concept seems oddly missing in this regard. As singular terrorist attacks go (as opposed to ongoing wars), the Hamas attack is quite out there, regardless of your minimization efforts.

That just a meaningless statement you keep parroting on. The original line of 'reasoning' on offer was, apparently, that only Israel's actions would be discussed and reviewed. This will obviously not be the case. As for Hamas - it's not a state agent, representative or authority - so I'm not sure your comment it even relevant with regard to the ICJ. In the past, when the PA did all these diplomatic maneuvers of joining treaties, international courts and so on, one of the major worries expressed was that it would open itself to legal action (being the official government/representative) even with regard to actions taken by Hamas.

Is that based on polls? Does it refer to any specific opponents? Is it your opinion?

@ozimoron How will these countries be 'pressured'? By whom? The thing with you black/white people is that you cannot imagine a situation which doesn't neatly fall into place. Also, Russia was the aggressor, in the case at hand....7/10 was a Hamas thing.

@ozimoron You assume that there will be such, without providing any reasoning.

@ozimoron Hamas's conduct will certainly be a factor in the ruling.

@ozimoron You don't get it. South Africa's claim is that Israel is doing something very very bad, very very wrong, and out of line with how countries are supposed to conduct wars. This can be approached from two angles - intent and practice. As far as I can understand, the case for 'intent' is very weak, and the the case for 'practice' is relatively easy to do away with on legal and factual grounds. If all that can be 'proven' is that Israel is just 'regular bad', rather than very very bad - the case falls. So as per your 'questions' above - if there is no intent element (and there is none), then what it comes down to is how many on the casualty lists were (a) not Hamas, (b) not used as 'human shields' by Hamas, (c) acceptable collateral damage. That's where facts and reality kick in, rather than your imagination and bias.

Someone protests too much.

If Trump is barred from running, what then? Who's the likeliest Republican candidate? And how does he/she stack vs. Biden? Also, assuming Trump is barred from running - might be an easy face saving way for Biden to withdraw (not saying it would happen) and then same question - who's the likeliest Dem candidate, and how does he/she stack vs. whomever the Republicans might field?

I think there's a difference between people regularly or semi-regularly partaking in these topics, and the 'general population'. Most of those commenting are partisan, many holding extreme views. Generally speaking? I think most people don't actually follow this, not beyond the headlines and the odd news item, major developments etc. It's another international crisis, happening far away, between to not-very-likeable groups of people, and over things which involve a whole lot of details, history and vested narratives.

Got to love comments like 'there are no Hamas supporters here'. There are posters commenting regularly on these, posting Hamas talking points, agenda tenets, figures, arguments and so on. Maybe they are clueless, not informed enough to actually differentiate between Hamas, the PA, and the Palestinians - just picking up soundbites, headlines, links and so on which 'seem' to be 'it'. There are some on here which put forth positions which are clearly not in the interest of the Gazans, but more to do with some notions of 'the cause'. IMO, the 'clueless' angle would have held for maybe 2-3 weeks post 7/10. Anyone parroting the same after that is set on being uninformed - it's not like the differences between agendas, positions, talking points and such weren't thoroughly discussed and expanded on by now. It's a choice. This can be interpreted in many ways - maybe some do support Hamas, or maybe they really dislike Israel, or maybe they just picked a side which seemed 'right' and stick with it, or maybe they just troll. I don't know, and I don't really care that much. It comes down to the same thing. I find it repulsive that people who are nowhere near the ME, and maybe even never set foot there - people who have no real interest in this beyond point scoring on these 'discussions' push some Hamas-based hard line positions, writing cheques that Gazans will pay, as it were.

Rubbish, how? Muddy the waters, how? Just the usual random sentence generator thing, from you.

@ozimoron Coming from someone who constantly makes claims about these topics without reading them....

@thaibeachlovers Guess you missed the sanctions bit, and the identity of Russia's suppliers. Or maybe you didn't.

Guess we need that sarcasm alert emoji.

Seriously? You need an example of posts decrying Israel's guilt on these topics? Too amusing. It's practically the basis of what you and the rest of the anti-Israel brigade are on about day in day out.

@ozimoron There are two issues with your post. (a) Whether or not an injunction will be issued remains to be seen, it's far from guaranteed. And it will not happen right away. Legal proceedings take time. (b) The international reaction you allege is not a given, as you present - but what you hope for. As you often do, carriage before the horses, and an (un)healthy dose of imagination, presented as fact.

Palestine (as in the PA) did not do anything on 7/10. If Israel, or any other party, would have liked to try and take them to the ICJ, they could. It was Israel's choice not to, obviously. So no, not sure what you think 'we all know'.