Membrane

I second that "safety valve" comment, Boon Mee. It's keeps the a$$holes with an axe to grind and an agenda to promote out of the rest of the discussions on Thailand and it's wonderful people, beaches, food, etc.

Let's keep those areas distinct and quarantined from the likes of Butterfly/gent.

Yeah, I kind of have to agree with a lot of what G-P just said in the preceding post.

The reason the forum came about was because, once upon a time, there was a poster here named Butterfly, who ran around all the threads, posting very hateful anti-American sh!t. And this was before the Bear Pit. He and a few others, would post crazy conspiracy theories and other musings such as "do you think the United States is trying to crush Thailand's economy by creating SARS"---things like that. Obvious attempts to sway peoples opinions against the U.S., or at the very least they were trolling, looking to pick a fight with an American like me. Well, up to that point, I was a lurker here, only coming to ThaiVisa.com to find info on Thailand, how to get a Visa, that sort of thing. But when I found that virtually EVERY ASPECT about my country was being lied about, I became very involved in taking on Butterfly, fighting him in about every post he created--(and I kicked his butt too, I believe). Actually what happened is I sort of made it my personal mission to dog him as much as the admin's were allowing him to dog me and my country.

Then one of the admins (######) kicked us both of for a while for being "unruly" (and a few other choice names, but I don't really care about that now, as it's ancient history). At any rate, apparently that took the wind out of poor Butterfly's sails as he kind of stuck his tail between his legs and disappeared.

I had requested several times, that these political postings be either banned or they should be quarantined to one area. It's possible the admins were already thinking about that, but one way or another, that's how the Bear Pit came to be. G-P came on board and became active for the same reasons that I did--my fight with Butterfly and that we both hate to see a lot of distortions and lies and anti-American propaganda, especially in these days when there is a very real evil in this world, and that evil is called fundamentalist Islamic extremists, whose goal is to terrorize and ultimately destroy western civilization, to roll back the clock to the middle ages and convert every living human being to being a Muslim--or they die.

Personally, I think that criticism of American politics has no place on a website having to do with obtaining a Visa to Thailand. Sure, there's always two sides to everything, but as long as it's here, I'll be a part of it and represent the truth about my country.

So that's why I'm here... After Butterfly disappeared, along came the Gent. And now that he's gone, there will be someone else to take his place. Mark my words, the Bear Pit will be quiet for a while, then someone else will come along and take his place and the argument will continue.

Thanks to Membrane, Boon Mee and, last but not least, the Great Georgie-Porgie, I'm beginning to see the light.

I was so wrong all those years.

Will you ever forgive me ?

Yes, we will. But your avatar needs to see an orthodontist first. Yeesh!

Hmmm... trouble in paradise?

Some of 'em have scratched each others eyes out. Just waiting for new eyes to grow, Some mother's do have 'em.

Gee, I can only guess as to who the gentlemen were, that were doing all the scratching??

Hmmm... trouble in paradise?

I don't think it would comfort me at all if my kid had died supposedly defending his country from an immediate threat which never existed -- and which our government knew damned well didn't exist.  What a waste of human life.

No, PvtDick. The intelligence that we had indicated that Saddam was a much bigger threat than he turned out to be. And he wouldn't allow the U.N. inspectors to do their job, so we could find out for sure. He was a ruthless, bloody mass murderer, that--just by himself--qualified as a "weapon of mass destruction", with or without nukes.

Just because we have now gone in and removed him from power and we haven't found any WMDs, doesn't mean they never existed. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have hidden them or moved them to Syria. It doesn't mean that the U.S. government intentionally went in knowing they didn't exist. It doesn't mean that Bush wanted to kill our men and women in uniform. It doesn't mean that Bush wanted to kill Iraqis either.

It just means that Saddam wanted to be a bully in the middle east, he wouldn't cooperate with the U.N. and thought that he could bluff his way through everything and GWB called his bluff. He's now removed from office and the MAJORIY of Iraqi are glad he's gone, glad that the U.S. invaded and they understand the sacrifice that was required to get this prick out of office.

I completely agree, 100%.

I'm very curious though... I'm waiting to see how anyone can defend the terrorists or give a solid, concrete excuse for any of the things they do. And don't tell me that because you think the U.S. is "evil", that that's why one should stay hidden or that's why you shouldn't negotiate or that's why you shouldn't make your grievances known, or any of the rest--because all 6 things I posted are completely crazy--and yes, evil.

In other words, I'm waiting for ANYONE to actually stand up and defend the terrorists.

1) Why is it that the terrorists never want to sit down and negotiate?

2) Why is it that the terrorists want to remain hidden?

3) Why is it that the terrorists want to kill innocent men, women and children?

4) Why is it that the terrorists never clearly make their demands known?

5) Why is it that the terrorists can't seem to allow others to worship the god they wish to worship?

6) Why is it that the terrorists can't allow any to have a different political or religious view other than their own?

i see

most people are still stupid

and don't get it

...[snip]

So tell us, oh wise one:

WHAT IS BETTER? WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS BEST, in your humble opinion?

Answer to question #1:

Here's the Truth: according to the BBC poll...

The MAJORITY of Iraqis are GLAD the U.S. invaded their country and ousted Saddam!

They understand the sacrifice that was necessary to carve out the cancer that was saddam, to flush him out permanently out of their lives, and bring that mass murdered and theif to permanent justice. I think it's now safe to say that neither he (nor his sons) won't be raping, stealing from or murdering any more Iraqis any time soon.

Response to "questions" 2 and 3:

The "Great Satan" label comes from the religious nuts over in Iran. Maybe some of them echo that in Iraq, but you're thinking of the fundamentalist extremist religious fascists in Iran primarily.

About the nuclear contamination claim, that's probably greatly exaggerated. And since you provide no links to reliable, trust-worthy websites where it would be possible to confirm that--until you do, I have to label that as more of your anti-American disinformation, progranda, filth and trash--posed as an innocent "question".

NOW--the question TO YOU BOZO is:

Do YOU understand the sacrifice that was necessary to get saddam out? Since no one else came in and had the balls to do it, don't you now see that it took the United States of America to do it?

Well, one thing is for sure, they didn't ask the Al-Qaeda operatives (and other related middle eastern terrorist organizations) that are working in the country, trying to sabotage and drag out the restoration process the U.S. is trying to do, so we can finally leave and allow the Iraqis to enjoy their new-found freedom.

The cancer that was the dog saddam hussein, had to be cut out. It is most unfortunate that there were casualties. But sadly, there were, and on both sides. But saddam is now gone--and the U.S. will finish it's work.

And just for the record, to answer your tongue in cheek question--but just to drive it home, one more time, just for you Gent:

The first poll, by Oxford Research International, was the biggest survey of Iraqis ever undertaken.

..

The second poll was jointly sponsored by the BBC, ABC News, German network ARD and NHK in Japan, with field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England.

..

The poll consisted of in-person interviews conducted from 10 to 28 February with a random, nationally representative sample of 2,500 Iraqis.

..

Interviews for the survey were conducted from 223 randomly selected sampling points across the country.

Is this for real? He is pulling his "articles" that he posts on this forum from THESE sites?? whoa.... no wonder he wouldn't put the web address where he got his stuff!

It wasn't an insult. Don't Go Away offended. Just thought you were... sheesh!

Bozo:

Your "questions" are nothing more than not-so-cleverly-worded distortions and convoluted lies, resulting in twisting the truth to your desired outcome: that the U.S. is the bad guy, blah, blah, blah.. etc., etc., etc...

Here's the Truth: according to the BBC poll...

The MAJORITY of Iraqis are GLAD the U.S. invaded their country and ousted Saddam!

(Getting back to the topic of this thread)....

First of all, it's spelled "Iraq", not "Irak".

Second of all--are you for real? Do I really need to try to address the "questions" you pose? Due to the bias hidden in your questions, you've obvioulsy already made your mind up. It's obvious you're not really ASKING, you're simply posing your rhetoric as questions in order to get your (dis)information out.

Be the first to change her mind Thaiquila. We'll forgive you!

yawn.. this silly back and forth is getting old.

1) I wonder how much Saddam gave the families of his victims?

2) HEY GENT--Why don't you EVER include the URL, so all of us can go back and view the original website the "article" was on? You need to start doing this, or we'll suspect these "articles" aren't really real...

If I am not mistaken it was you Membrane, who said - you cant take polls seriously - was it not, but now things are different?

No Gent, I think you're mistaken (again). But feel free to do a search on my name and wade through all my posts and prove me wrong.

If I said anything along those lines, it was more that you have to be careful to which "polls" you listen to. Obviously, if the poll was only voted on by you, Thaiqila, Kwiz, Ajarn, and Butterfly, then the results of the poll would be skewed.

That's why you need a large enough sample, to make it more statistically accurate.

Understand?

I'd like to see the actual tapes, if they exist. And I'd like to see the actual website this "article" came from, if it exists.

That's like saying that Osama Bin Laden has been seen dining with Ariel Sharon and they both went to see "The Last Passion of the Christ"--yes! It was even on CNN....

Show me the proof. Give me the website address, so I can see it for myself. The gent never does this. I suspect because it would show his sources as being VERY heavily biased websites, one that no one in their right mind would believe (unless you are the gent).

Question 1: why this deliberate lighting up of Islam specifically, at a global scale, while there are Muslims in every country of the World ?

Answer: Because the Islamic extremist terrorists are stirring up more problems and violence. That's there way. Bullying methods--you either do as they say or they blow you up, or kill your children.

Question 2: why are such current actions deliberately provoquing insecurity at a global scale, leading to an increase of the controlling influence & the reduction of individual freedom for everybody ?

Answer: Because the Islamic extremist terrorists are stirring up problems and violence. To try to restrict their actions, it's necessary to restrict access for all. Unfortunate but true.

Question 3: wouldn't a complete control of human beings on this planet (see "1984" by George Orwell), that seems on the right tracks, look like the safest guaranty of stability for those who control this global religion ?

Answer: Yeah--but who wants that? I sure don't!

Question 4: who controls this global religion?

Answer: Well, there is no "religion". But if you are referring to greed and the love of money, then it would be all of us, right? It's part of human nature unfortunately, or at least one of our vices that pops it's head up too often...

100% pure horse shit. More propaganda from the terrorists and their sympathizers.

Where do you dig this crap up, gent? Why don't you EVER include the URL, so all of us can go back and view the original website the "article" was on? You need to start doing this, or we'll suspect these "articles" aren't really real...

Membrane - perhaps these figures will shed light into that dim recess of a cranial cavity that Taiquila calls a brain and make him think?

Doubtful, but one can hope!

How interesting... It seems that the MAJORITY of Iraqis are GLAD the U.S. invaded their country and ousted Saddam!

HERE'S PROOF FROM THE IRAQI PEOPLE!

From the BBC:

BBC poll finds most Iraqis say their lives are better. At home, there is a narrow majority supporting the war

Date : 16.03.2004

To mark the first anniversary of the war in Iraq, the BBC has commissioned two major polls.

The first, by Oxford Research International, is the biggest survey of Iraqis ever undertaken.

One year on from the war, more than 2,500 Iraqis were asked about their lives today.

Overwhelmingly they say life is good right now, and more of them support than oppose the war.

The second - a poll of British public opinion by ICM for Newsnight - shows a significant level of support for the Prime Minister, with a narrow majority in the UK now in favour of the war (48% in favour; 43% against).

Of the people who expressed an opinion, it was very close as to whether people thought the war was legal or not (37% thought it was legal; 39% who thought it was illegal).

When asked which of the three main political leaders the British public would most trust to make the best decision next time Britain has to take military action, more said they supported Tony Blair than either Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy.

There will be full coverage of the findings across BBC News from BBC ONE's Breakfast and Radio 4's Today programme onwards.

Iraq war - right or wrong

"Thinking about the build-up to the Iraq war and everything that has happened since, do you think that taking military action was the right thing to do, or the wrong thing to do?"

Right 48%

Wrong 43%

Don't Know 9%

Did the Government lie about WMD?

"In the run up to the war with Iraq, do you think Tony Blair and his Government…"

Told the truth about WMD 29%

Exaggerated but did not lie about WMD 40%

Lied about WMD 22%

Who would you trust to decide next time?

"If the British Government had to decide again whether to take military action, who would you trust to make the best decision?"

Tony Blair 32%

Michael Howard 22%

Charles Kennedy 17%

None of them 13%

Don't know 15%

Source: BBC/ICM, 10-12 March 2004, sample 1,014

The UK poll conducted by ICM will feature in One Year On: Iraq - a Newsnight Special on BBC TWO today (Tuesday 16 March) at 9.00 pm.

The second poll was jointly sponsored by the BBC, ABC News, German network ARD and NHK in Japan, with field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England.

The poll consisted of in-person interviews conducted from 10 to 28 February with a random, nationally representative sample of 2,500 Iraqis.

Interviews for the survey were conducted from 223 randomly selected sampling points across the country.

The Iraqi people are optimistic about their future with 70% declaring that life today is good.

The poll results show that a majority (57%) of Iraqis think things are better now than before the war.

However, 85% said regaining public security was the major priority and only 25% had confidence in the coalition forces.

More Iraqis (49%) still believe that the coalition invasion was right compared to those (39%) who thought it was wrong.

When asked about what Iraq needs at this time, whilst 86% answered "an Iraqi democracy", 81% also mentioned "a single strong Iraqi leader".

The highlights of the Iraq survey are as follows:

• Overall, 70% of Iraqis say that their life these days is good, compared with 29% who say their life is bad.

• Compared with just before the war in 2003, 57% of Iraqis now say their life is better overall, compared with 19% who say it is worse and 23% who say it is about the same.

• 71% of Iraqis expect their lives to be better in a year from now, compared with 6% who expect life to be worse and 9% who say life will remain about the same.

• Half of Iraqis (49%) believe the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition was right, compared with 39% who thought it was wrong.

• Opinion was evenly split on whether the invasion humiliated Iraq (41%) or liberated it (42%). Almost one in five respondents (17%) refused to comment.

• Asked about conditions where they lived, 69% said the availability of jobs was bad and 64% said the same about the electricity supply. 72% said conditions in local schools were good but respondents were evenly split on the whether the local security situation, supply of clean water and availability of medical care was good or bad.

• In terms of the top three priorities in Iraq over the next 12 months, regaining public security rated by far the highest (85%), followed by holding elections for a national government (30%), ensuring the majority of Iraqis can make a decent living (30%) and reviving the economy (28%).

• Among those who had heard of them, Iraq's religious leaders scored the highest level of confidence (70%). But they were closely followed by the police (68%) and then by the new Iraqi army (56%). At the other end of the scale, only 25% expressed confidence in the US/UK occupation forces and 28% in both Iraq's political parties and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

• When asked about what Iraq needs at this time, whilst 86% answered "an Iraqi democracy", 81% also mentioned "a single strong Iraqi leader".

• In terms of the future structure of Iraq, 79% wanted "one unified Iraq with central government in Baghdad", compared with 14% who wanted regional governments with a federal government in Baghdad. Only 4% favoured dividing Iraq into separate independent states.

• When asked what political actions by other people would be acceptable, whilst the overwhelming majority of respondents thought any violence was unacceptable, some 17% said attacks on coalition forces would be acceptable, 14% said the same about attacks on the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and 10% thought attacks on foreigners working alongside the CPA would be acceptable.

• In terms of the continuing presence of the coalition forces in Iraq, 39% of respondents supported their presence, compared with 51% who were opposed to it.

• As for what would be most effective in improving security in Iraq, 96% said that creating jobs would be most effective, 93% said training and hiring more Iraqi local police and 87% said transferring all political authority to an Iraqi government.

• Whilst 15% said the coalition forces should leave Iraq immediately, 36% said they should remain until an Iraqi government was in place and a further 18% said "until security is restored".

Tell us why then Membrane, you and Dr Evil, only come up with confrontation, when a point is made - how about a few answers now and again

Tell me why you and "Habib Al Thaiquila" always post day after day of anti-American and anti-Supreme Court and anti-Bush, etc., etc., etc., rhetoric?? Misinformation, propaganda, distortions and lies. Plain and simple.

I will post and reply any way I see fit. I will continue to point out your lack of logic, your insane and ridiculous one-sided view of the U.S. and world events because I know you are on an agenda and so is "Habib Al Thaiquila".

One more point: Neither you nor anyone else will instruct me on how I will post.