thaibeachlovers

I'm taking this one with a pinch of salt. I find it hard to believe that ISIS gives half a toss about Thailand.

If they hit the obvious targets in LOS it probably won't be because of Thailand, but because they're a soft target in Thailand and the objective is to kill/ maim infidels.

That's why they hit Bali- lots of infidels and little security.

Just to be a bit cynical, if that photo is of KSR, the best thing that can happen to it is that it is removed from the face of the planet. It's always been a 'hole, but now it looks like something in the circles of hell.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that you can integrate or assimilate to any meaningful degree in Thailand. Most farangs have come here too late in life. They are set in their ways and unable to change in any fundamental sense. Too old to master the language, or start a family and be anything other than a cash cow for some mercenary woman and her scheming relatives.

Who would want to integrate into the Thai way of life? I see nothing very attractive about it, nor do I see anything about my way of life that needs changing (except perhaps that I should get more exercise).

As for being a cash cow for anyone here: dream on. The closest I want to get to having relationships with Thais is asking them for my bill in a restaurant.

I agree. Why would I want to be like a Thai?

As for being a cash cow to relatives- why? Just say no. Would you be a cash cow to a woman/ relatives back home?

Not having kids is an excellent idea. Too many people in the world already.

Maybe they see you as being intolerant of their culture? Maybe this leads them to not care about you either.

Thailand is not a quiet place. Noise does not bother them as much as it does many of us. Me included. They do not feel they have the right to tell someone else what to do.

If you cannot afford to live in a place that is quieter, maybe it is time to go home. I think if you live in close proximity w/regular Thai people, you are almost sure to have this issue. If you move into an area with older people, a more expensive place, you are less likely to have this issue.

I also live in a village - parties can get noisy but not often or too bad and anyone is always welcome.

Good luck.

Just living in a village is not guaranteed to be quiet. Monks chanting on the PA at 4.30am, the talking petrol pump outside our gate, the unmuffled puk a puk trucks going to the rice fields make it pretty noisy.

I had to leave the village because a lout kept practicing his amplified bass guitar at midnight and it was driving me crazy. We moved to the city, where it is quieter.

As for the OP, if he really needs quiet, move to the gulf coast where there are plenty of unpopulated beaches. I stayed at one where there were only 3 habitations as far as one could see. VERY quiet.

^^ Couldn't agree more. Women that wear attire that singles them out as Muslim and then complain are being foolish. While we should be able to wear anything we like, the REALITY is that we can't, if we want a peaceful life.

Eg, there may be men that would like to wear female clothing in public, but they know that to do so would open them to ridicule, so they don't- they accept the reality, and there is no point complaining about it.

Headlines like this make it seem that only women are victims, that only girls are exploited, and that men are mainly bad people that abuse women and girls. Frankly, I've had enough of it. How about a UN agency that seeks to prevent abuse and violence against ALL people, regardless of gender?

As a white, middle class male, I am assumed by those people to be part of some powerful clique that rules the world, which is complete BS.

Finally, as a male working in a predominately female occupation, I saw women for what they really are like, and some of them are horrible abusers, just as in any male dominated occupation some men are horrible abusers.

You make it sound so simple. But it's not. The vast majority of Palestinians would vote for Hamas over Fatah now and the clearly stated agenda of Hamas is to never accept Israel with any borders, not to mention their openly stated genocidal intentions towards Jews. It's so easy for western "progressives" (many Jews too and shame on them) to favor policies that would basically be suicide for Israel. It takes two to tango. Neither side is blameless but to the obsessive Israel demonizers, it's all Israel's fault. That's total BS. It romanticizes the Palestinians as some kind of noble innocent brown people but guess what, they are not so noble. Especially when they're going at your throat with a knife just for being a Jew.

Agreed that what happens after the two state system wouldn't be simple, but it really is a simple choice,

Either create the two state system and deal with the consequences, or continue on with the status quo. The status quo, IMO, is unsustainable, given that the world is turning against Israel's occupation and illegal settlements, plus there are millions and millions of people surrounding Israel that want to do something about Israel, that won't be good for Israel.

Time and population growth is not on Israel's side.

There is still a small window of opportunity for Israel to do the right thing, but if they do not take it, the outcome is inevitable, and will not be to Israel's liking.

How did we come to believe that only our government could protect us when it's so obvious that they won't and they don't? They are constantly putting us in danger while trying to take away our ability to defend ourselves. We have dangerous immigration issues do we? Well, take away more guns from the law abiding citizens. Huh?

How did we come to believe that an armed guard or policeman would shoot more accurately than a citizen?

My experience is the opposite. I see guys who've never handled a gun before joining the military and the police and many have no interest in guns. At our local range the guys who are lifelong hunters and even competitive shooters can out-shoot any police or military who are there for their obligatory practice and "qualifying".

A problem arises when recruits for the police and military have never handled a gun before their basic training. These guys are never going to be any good because it takes years to become proficient.

Europe is going to get overrun and probably in my lifetime. At what point do the traditional citizens start wanting to defend themselves and their countries? It will happen, but what will it take to trigger that?

Cheers.

Europe is going to get overrun and probably in my lifetime.

Not just Europe. The continuing overpopulation of poor countries that can no longer provide jobs within their own borders will ensure that the movement of illegal economic migrants increases, and to most western countries. When they become a subclass in their new countries the problems will really begin.

I don't know the eventual outcome, but it won't be what the present populations want, and won't be pretty.

Just arming the population won't be much use anyway, as most people have no clue about using weapons, and wouldn't be able to kill anyone anyway.

Personally, I expect to have passed on by that time, or at least I hope so, but I pity the citizens of the future, caught up in a terrible conflict not of their making, other than by not getting involved.

So europeans have no right to protect themselves.

Correct. In the UK you have to allow the criminals to kill or main you, then the police will file a report and maybe the bad person will be tried for the crime. At least that is the reality. Actually standing up to a criminal is likely to end up with the victim being penalised, especially if the scum thug is a minor.

As pointed out countless times, criminals will never have a problem obtaining weapons, but the politicians don't care, as the whole justice ( there's a lie right there ) system industry depends on criminals being able to do their thing. If bad people were actually locked up for very long times ( ie life means life and not a few years ) the crime rate would fall significantly. This was proven in the US with the 3 strikes and you are out system.

I was speaking about BDS. It is not only about occupation. As anyone can discover, the leaders of BDS are against the very existence of Israel in ANY borders. Your Nazi analogy doesn't have any relevance to this discussion. I do understand that many naive supporters of the BDS movement do not fully understand the actual evil intentions of that movement but it would bode them well to learn about it.

The intent or otherwise of BDS is irrelevant. If it gives the ordinary westerner the ability to oppose Israel in even a small way, other than just complaining, many people will take that opportunity, as the actions of Israel have driven so many to wish to oppose them in some real way, given that the UN is powerless to do so because of the US veto. It's called "people power" and is a mighty weapon if mobilised, as was the case against apartheid.

If Israel doesn't want to be boycotted, the answer is simple- withdraw from occupied Palestinian land, stop blockading Gaza and allow the two state solution.

To be expected about time people started to fight back

Fight back?

"The most frequently targeted were women dressed in traditional Islamic attire"

Look, it's NOT ISLAMIC attire. It is cultural attire. Just because it happens to be worn mainly by Islamic women doesn't make it Islamic.

There is NO stricture in the Koran as to attire other than a woman should dress modestly, ie itsy bitsy bikinis are not acceptable, but long sleeved shirts are. It's not even mandatory to cover their hair. Just think how Buddhist women are supposed to dress at the temple and it's the same.

This BS interpretation of what is Islamic by ignorant westerners really makes me PO, as it just confuses everyone.

To be frank, if Islamic women don't want to be targeted, they should just wear "normal" clothes, but if they choose to walk around wearing a tent after a jihadist atrocity, then they should expect to be subject to unwanted attention.

If anything proves that the US legal system is broken, this is it. 15 million for hurt feelings .

In any country with a sane legal system, this wouldn't even be considered.

And how is this example of calculated propaganda aimed at furthering an agenda free of the hate attributed to other posters?

Do tell more about the Palestinian peaceful nature and what exactly they consider their own land.

Currently, meaningful boycotts and sanctions are not a reality, and Israel is far from being the pariah state some of you imagine (or wish) it to be. My guess is that most of the posters countries have full diplomatic and trade relationship with Israel. Since you tied it with the usual falling back on "apartheid South Africa", here's what De Klerk makes of it:

South African president who helped end apartheid opposes boycott of Israel

De Klerk says in Israel Radio interview that boycotts only serve to make the society being boycotted more extreme and to shut out the voices of moderates.

South Africa's last president under white rule said Sunday that he opposes sanctions or a boycott against Israel as sanctions against South Africa had only served to delay reform and hurt the black population more than they hurt the white population.

Speaking in an interview with Israel Radio, F.W. de Klerk said that sanctions "are more counterproductive than helpful to change any country on the course it is taking."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Last-South-African-president-under-white-rule-opposes-boycott-of-Israel-406672

He also rejects defining Israel's current situation as an "apartheid state", while acknowledging that not addressing issues with the Palestinians might lead there in the future.

Yes, and never forget the REAL objective of the BDS boycott Israel movement. It's not about ending settlements. It's about ending Israel. Don't believe it? Believe it:

http://www.peacenothate.com/faces

Boycotting Israel is bigotry, plain and simple. It’s an attempt to economically strangle the only Jewish state in the world.

...

The hate behind boycotting Israel is no secret. Even the founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, admits the end goal of the BDS movement is not peace — it’s the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

(Chopped to allow posting.)

If there are those on this forum that wish for Israel to disappear, one should look no further than the occupation of Palestinian land by the state of Israel and the daily harassment of Palestinians for the reason. By the Israeli unwillingness to grant the Palestinians what they themselves desire ( a state to call their own ) they alienate reasonable people all over the world, even those that would not normally support Muslims or Arabs.

BTW, equating anti occupation sentiment to anti-Semitism is just silly. That's like saying opposing Nazism is being anti German.

Saw my first trailer last night. Looks OK, but hopefully it doesn't suffer from too much reliance on speclal effects and too little plot like a lot of the new big remakes. Seems that when the corporates take over, it's all big bangs and not much character.

While soccer fans are in no way representative of society as a whole.

Unfortunately, I believe the disrespect for the slain Paris infidels is representative of Muslim communities in general...there is no outrage at Muslim people destroying the ME...they are either unconcerned, afraid, or proud of their brother's accomplishments.

The Muslim community has not risen up against IS in a meaningful way...their lack of speaking out against IS atrocities...speaks volumes...

This instance is pretty clearly right-wing / Turkish ultra-nationalist sentiment, not speicifically Islamist and more influenced by their conflict with the Kurds (also majority Sunnis).

Of course, the result of this nationalism helps Daesh because the Turkish government is primarily focused on reducing Kurdish power (who are fighting Daesh).

As far as no outrage by Muslims on the violence in the Middle East... I'm not even sure what this means or what you think some people should be doing and who you think should be doing it.

The violence in the Middle East involves various groups fighting with several layers of proxy wars by regional and international powers... literally dozens of groups / nations acting on what they perceive as self-interests.

The Muslims that are not denouncing IS...that I am speaking of...are the ones that have been enjoying the freedoms of living in Western cultures where they are allowed many opportunities...especially the women...that their Muslim homeland denounces as being pagan and so on...where is the outrage from the Muslim folks who do not live in the ME?...when will they renounce Islamic violence and support their new home country?

when will they renounce Islamic violence and support their new home country?

Probably in about 600 years when Islam develops to the same extent as Christianity. Currently, Islam is about the same as Christianity was in the Middle Ages.

Don't expect a devout Muslim to put their country above the religion, as the religion is everything to them.

Incredible, a couple of guys get drugged and robbed, and the losers on here are all laughing at them. Probably because you've all been taken for more, so you need to have a healthy dose of Schadenfreude.

Come on then, how much did they stiff you for?

Never been drugged, but conned multiple times. Sometimes it takes hard experience to learn. However, because I never have too much money on me, never lost more than I could afford to lose. It's still a bitch to think about though, even many years later.

My first time being conned was in London, and Sri Lanka was the worst for con men that I have ever been to.

They gave back Gazza as well, and look what gratitude they got for that

Gaza was never theirs to give, and they didn't give it willingly. Gazan resistance made it impossible for them to stay. As for gratitude, would you be grateful to live in a ruined land that had blockaded borders? I think not.

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly where Israel's borders are...they have never defined them and they keep moving. That's the crux of the whole conflct.

The actual borders were defined in 1948 and have not been changed by the UN. However, most seem to accept the limits that Israel reached at the end of the 1967 war, with the exception of the Sinai which was given back to Egypt in exchange for the peace treaty.

However, the land in the west bank is occupied territory, and does not belong to Israel, regardless of how many illegal settlements it builds. Jerusalem has never been part of Israel, as that was supposed to be under international rule.

Somehow I doubt if Israel gives a toss about your personal opinions on who is 'bullying' who. The Palestinians refused the 1948 borders and have no right to them.

LOL. You are reinventing history. Israel was given ( legal ) borders in 1948 by the UN, but the Palestinians didn't need to be given any borders, as everything outside the 1948 borders was already Palestinian ( and still is ).

The Arabs didn't agree that a bunch of aliens should be given THEIR land by some western group of politicians that actually had no right to do so, and went to war over it. The Palestinians never refused their borders as they refused to accept that there were any in the first place.

Would anyone accept that the Islamic refugees currently flooding into Europe should be given a country of their own by a grouping of Arabic states, to be taken out of Germany or France? That would be the equivalent of what happened in Palestine in 1948.

Palestinians ,like most Of their faith seem to have nothing but hate in their hearts ,and they prove it day after day after day . They will never be happy until we all worship in their name, evil is as evil does

Complete and utter rubbish.

MOST of the Muslim faith do not have hate, but are just like .....I was going to say "you and me, normal people", but that would be incorrect as you do seem to have hate in your heart for an entire religion.

To say that these posters have hate in their hearts is an oversimplification.

It is calculated propaganda to further an agenda.

Whereas all posters proclaiming unequivocal support for the Palestinian cause or those who seemingly hold that Islam is indeed the religion of peace, exhibit nothing but righteousness, brotherly love and moderation? All those endless posts are not driven by agenda and do not include one bit of propaganda, then?

Don't include me in your "unequivocal support". I don't support Islamist jihadists at all. However, I do think the Palestinians should be allowed to have their own state to live in, and Israel is preventing that, therefore, they are being a bully, and I despise bullies. So when it comes to Israel vs Palestine, I support Palestine's right to exist, and Israel should return to their legal borders as defined by the 1948 UN resolution. If that is unsafe for Israel, it is their own fault for being a bully for the past many years and PO a lot of people on the planet, and certainly many countries.

To the winners of battles go the spoils of war. I think its time for the Arabs to learn this lesson before they lose any more land to the Israelis.

Do you think the Israelis are going to stop taking Palestinian land if they accept occupation?

BTW, it's to the winner of the war that the spoils go to, and the war is ongoing. It's just a few battles that were won by the Israelis, the war is far from over. Ireland's war against the English lasted 600 years.

I guess the Israelis are going to have to realise that just occupying and harassing a population doesn't mean that they are going to lie down and take the shaft. How many years of occupation and it hasn't made Israelis safer, just more insecure.

Time to try something new, or expect more of the same for the indefinite future.

Normal citizens had a very pleasant life before the CIA organized and Saudi/Qatari paid for uprisings...now 11 millions are refugees. It has been caused by the US desire for regime change, not by citizens wanting Assad out of power. Democracy when senators and congressmen are bought and paid for by corporate interests ain't that great....the chance to vote for one of two identical candidates every four years is highly over-rated.

Is that the reason for the civil war? I thought it was distrust in Assad. A brutal crackdown. Being upset with corruption, etc. You should do some research on this. Arab Spring wasn't invented by the CIA! LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الربيع العربي‎, ar-rabīˁ al-ˁarabī) was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and its surroundings. While the wave of initial revolutions and protests faded by mid-2012, some started to refer to the succeeding and still ongoing large-scale discourse conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa as the Arab Winter. The most radical discourse from Arab Spring into the still ongoing civil wars took place in Syria as early as the second half of 2011.

By the end of February 2012, rulers had been forced from power in Tunisia,^[1]Egypt,^[2]Libya,^[3] and Yemen;^[4] civil uprisings had erupted in Bahrain^[5] and Syria;^[6] major protests had broken out in Algeria,^[7]Iraq,^[8]Jordan,^[9]Kuwait,^[10]Morocco,^[11] and Sudan;^[12] and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania,^[13]Oman,^[14]Saudi Arabia,^[15]Djibouti,^[16]Western Sahara,^[17] and Palestine. Weapons and Tuareg fighters returning from the Libyan Civil War stoked a simmering conflict in Mali which has been described as "fallout" from the Arab Spring in North Africa.^[18]

The protests shared some techniques of civil resistance in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches, and rallies, as well as the effective use of social media^[19][20] to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in the face of state attempts at repression and Internet censorship, most notably used by the youth members of the Arab population.^[21][22]

I don't see mention of the CIA...

Before the "uprising" citizen's lives were somewhat better than they are now. As for the reason for the uprising, I can't say who provoked it.

Corruption isn't a reason to take up arms, or half the world's countries would be in a civil war right now.

some Western diplomats have begun talking about the possibility of Assad staying on indefinitely as a ceremonial president, though stripped of his control over the nation's security and intelligence apparatuses.

Some western diplomats are stupid stupid stupid. Short of assassination, Assad isn't going anywhere, but if western diplomats want to pretend they are important, dream on.

"...he warned that overreacting to the Paris attacks would play into extremists' hands. "We will destroy this terrorist organization," he vowed..."

What, pray-tell, is overreacting?

...and just how in hell will we destroy them without ground troops?

Obama needs to bend over backwards and kiss his posterior. He is not qualified to be the "Commander of Chief".

Overreacting is condemning all Muslims and rounding them up as guilty until proven innocent which too many farang would like happen.

ISIS, ISIL, Daesh whatever you call it will be destroyed through intelligence and targeting of their leaders/terror cells -- not through sheer brute force with ground troops with itchy trigger fingers looking for any excuse to unload.

So, how would YOU tell the difference between a Muslim that doesn't want to kill every infidel s/he can find and one that would not?

It was for that reason that all Japanese were interned in the US during WW2.

BTW, good luck infiltrating closed terrorist cells. You think they are stupid?

"...he warned that overreacting to the Paris attacks would play into extremists' hands. "We will destroy this terrorist organization," he vowed..."

What, pray-tell, is overreacting?

...and just how in hell will we destroy them without ground troops?

Obama needs to bend over backwards and kiss his posterior. He is not qualified to be the "Commander of Chief".

Overreacting is condemning all Muslims and rounding them up as guilty until proven innocent which too many farang would like happen.

ISIS, ISIL, Daesh whatever you call it will be destroyed through intelligence and targeting of their leaders/terror cells -- not through sheer brute force with ground troops with itchy trigger fingers looking for any excuse to unload.

Actually, it's that kind of belief in the nearly supernatural that got 130 innocents killed in Paris, preceded by countless other beheadings and various assorted atrocities. ISIS is not some club of nerd zealots holed up in a rural farmhouse. Not only will it most assuredly take ground troops to defeat them, it's going to require quite an adjustment to public attitudes about "hearts & minds" warfare, precision targeting, "zero collateral damage", etc. By letting it get this far, ISIS has been handed the opportunity of pushing the eventual conflict to total war. The longer Obama continues to kick the can down the road, the more of a certainty this becomes. The end game is going to be more like invading Japan at the end of WWII would've been had it not been for the Bomb, than like a raid on some underground meth lab in the jungle a la Tom Clancy. It's now going to take more than Seal Team 6 - as magnificent as they are - to beat down ISIS. Much more.

And the list of needed resource (and required sacrifice) grows by the minute. Tic-toc...

I don't think it's as easy as you think. The west has been busily turning Islamists into anti western zealots that want to kill us all with it's Crusader interventions in the Middle East. Having open the box, it will be more than difficult to close it. Short of killing them all, I see no solution other than banning all Muslims from the west and throwing up the barricades, but that would be a price not many would be prepared to pay. Therefore, I think we will be seeing a lot more atrocities in the future. Just sending more Crusaders to kill Muslims and radicalise the survivors is not the answer.

It's only "over reaction" if one cowers in the White House surrounded by layers of security.

The relatives of those killed certainly don't think that doing something/ anything is "over reaction".