fasteddie

Israel is using a sledgehammer to crack nuts...

Yeah, so what...?

 

 

What a sensitive and understanding contribution to the debate.

You must be so proud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
What does Gaza have to do with 47 borders?
 
What does Golan have to do with Gaza?
 
And what does Golan have to do with Fakestinians? Golan is Syrian territory

So no compromise then? It all has to do with the '47 borders and Israel's constant land grabbing. The Golan heights are under Israeli occupation for their strategic value and access to water, so what I propose is to let them keep them in the spirit of compromise.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 

As far as Gaza goes it is already along the 47 boarder line, Israel hasn't taken any land from the Gaza area.

 

 

 

Yes it has!

 

 

Oh no it hasn't!

 

 

 

It is less than a quarter of the original land designated for Arab occupation by the UN in '47.

 

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the ...

 

 

 

And then blockaded them and controlled them to the point they even rationed their water. Gaza has never been free to control their own affairs, it is no more than an internment camp. If Israel would make proper consessions like withdrawing to the agreed '47 borders, perhaps less the Golan heights, then they would take the high ground, so to speak, and leave the Arabs with little ground for complaint.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 
What does Gaza have to do with 47 borders?
 
What does Golan have to do with Gaza?
 
And what does Golan have to do with Fakestinians? Golan is Syrian territory

So no compromise then? It all has to do with the '47 borders and Israel's constant land grabbing. The Golan heights are under Israeli occupation for their strategic value and access to water, so what I propose is to let them keep them in the spirit of compromise.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 

As far as Gaza goes it is already along the 47 boarder line, Israel hasn't taken any land from the Gaza area.

 

 

 

Yes it has!

 

And then blockaded them and controlled them to the point they even rationed their water. Gaza has never been free to control their own affairs, it is no more than an internment camp. If Israel would make proper consessions like withdrawing to the agreed '47 borders, perhaps less the Golan heights, then they would take the high ground, so to speak, and leave the Arabs with little ground for complaint.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 
What does Gaza have to do with 47 borders?
 
What does Golan have to do with Gaza?
 
And what does Golan have to do with Fakestinians? Golan is Syrian territory

So no compromise then? It all has to do with the '47 borders and Israel's constant land grabbing. The Golan heights are under Israeli occupation for their strategic value and access to water, so what I propose is to let them keep them in the spirit of compromise.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 

 

What does Israel expect ?  They invaded the country, and enslaved the resident population..

Really? There has never been an Arab country called Palestine. The Arabs were the ones that started the conflict and they elected Hamas - a terrorist group - to govern them. I'm pretty sure that if they were "slaves," somebody that was not shooting rockets at Israel would be in charge.  
 

 
Israel is occupying thier land  and all this terror would stop if they gave up their  illegal occupation
 

 
You mean like when they turned over Gaza to the Palestinians? That worked out real well. 

And then blockaded them and controlled them to the point they even rationed their water. Gaza has never been free to control their own affairs, it is no more than an internment camp. If Israel would make proper consessions like withdrawing to the agreed '47 borders, perhaps less the Golan heights, then they would take the high ground, so to speak, and leave the Arabs with little ground for complaint.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Thailand is fast becoming like the west please the nanny states really dont make life any better for the innocent.

Yes. Those who commit offences are usually in a small minority. The majority, if allowed to carry weapons for self defense would only think of using them for self defense not attack; and indeed, most would hope never to have to use them.

So the states answer is to remove those tools from you. But the criminals, the ones who are likely to use them for the wrong motives don't give them up.

Removing the right and ability for good people to defend themselves doesn't seem to correlate to preventing bad people from attacking you - but many Western governments force this situation. And then reduce the effectiveness of the police due to budget cuts.

Most Western states reduce the options for their citizens to protect themselves and also fail to provide adequate prevention, detection and punishment of the criminals.

The Americans knew what they were doing when they included the Second Amendment. Despite all the attempts to undermine what they knew to be a fundamental realism.

"The Americans knew what they were doing when they included the Second Amendment. Despite all the attempts to undermine what they knew to be a fundamental realism."

Of course they did! that's why there's no crime in America.

Of course! that's the answer, that'll stop all heinous crime just like it has in the USA, and China, and Iran et al.

I travel by rail frequently and aside from this horrible crime, I don't see any issue with the rail service.

Its an inexpensive means of transport serving many locations throughout the country.

It is popular amongst Thai and farang alike. It offers an economical means of transport.

This was a horrible incident. The entire country is rightfully in shock; however, the outlet for that anger should be directed at the assailant and not the SRT.

Of course the guy is the cause... but nepotism and bad background checks are part of the problem too.

Get rid of the governor of the SRT as a show of force then reform top down.

If Thailand is going to start firing department heads and business leaders for every instance of nepotism and cronyism within their organization then replacements won't even hold the job through lunchtime on their first day.

As a poster above suggested, fire the employee who deleted the criminal record of his relative so he could get this job. Firing the Governor isn't going to stop people from hiring their relatives, but risk of them getting fired themselves will.

Hardly surprising in Thailand. The last Thai government was almost entirely based on nepotism and cronyism.

And all the ones before it!

Message to General Prayuth:

Please reform SRT. Re form it please.

reform it ? Needs to be given to the private sector for new investment. The whole structure and stock is 50 years out of date

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Ah yes, the good old private sector, halve the staff and quadruple the prices to make profits for the rich pigs.

Nationalise everything!

I travel by rail frequently and aside from this horrible crime, I don't see any issue with the rail service.

Its an inexpensive means of transport serving many locations throughout the country.

It is popular amongst Thai and farang alike. It offers an economical means of transport.

This was a horrible incident. The entire country is rightfully in shock; however, the outlet for that anger should be directed at the assailant and not the SRT.

It was the SRT's policies and lax management that resulted in the hiring of this hideous individual, which ultimately led to a youngster's untimely end.

While I may agree with you that the responsibility for one's actions lies with one's self, the SRT is an organisation that did not enforce not drinking alcohol during work hours, allowed questionable people to get hired through 'contacts', allowed a long history of corruption, all of which contributed significantly to the death of an innocent young girl.

Tell me one thing. If an airline lost an airplane full of passengers because the pilot was drunk, who should be held responsible, the said airline or the pilot ?

The pilot, obviously.

'Gotta admit. It's quality whining!

Spelling mistake? Surely you mean winning.

Sent from my XT1033 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Dumb EC, a pathetic idea even for them.

It is time for other countries, especially my own home country, the USA, to quit criticizing the coup, and realize that while not the best response, it has allowed the rule of law to begin a recovery in Thailand. Corruption and intimidation have been the norm under "democracy", and while I am not sure that the improvements in law enforcement will be long lasting, it is refreshing to see crimes actually being investigated, instead of swept under the rug with the payment of a few baht.

I agree. May I suggest an Email to your elected representatives voicing your thoughts?

Already done last week to my Congresswoman and both state Senators. I also sent snail mail, voicing the same opinion. Unfortunately, they are all Demorats, so I don't think it will do much good.

Damn them Democrats, supporting democracy, how dare they.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cance

And 10% said they were not happy and are now languishing in gaol.

We all know that the Thai reported news is not always clear. You had to read the sub heading twice. You are aware of recent events, hence you can make sense of the reporting, but any person who is not up to date with recent events in Thailand will surely read it as it is written, and will clearly think that, - the members together with YL were ousted in the military takeover-. That is the correct interpretation of the first sentence to any English speaking person

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

.

No, just simply a missing comma.

Damn it! Chalerm is still walking.

So is suthep. so what?

One is a criminal hiding behind his boss in Dubai and the other kept the hope for freedom alive long enough for the army to deliver it.

any more dumb questions?

"and the other kept the hope for freedom alive long enough for the army to deliver it."

The army has delivered freedom? what parallel universe are you from?

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

There you go again Bb, you big party-pooper. Ruining an otherwise perfectly good story with the truth.

The article does not say that Yingluck was ousted by the military. Brush up on your reading skills before trumpeting about the truth...

Prbkk - please read the first line of the op -

"Members of the Pheu Thai Party including former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, ousted in the May 22 military takeover"

Kinda sounds like Yingluck was ousted by the military, at least to me.

I must admit I thought it might be wrong although not a serious error but on reading it again I think I'm going to have to side with Prbbk.

It says members of the Pheu Thai Party, of which Yingluck was still one at the time, were ousted in the takeover and also mentions that she was a former prime minister. It might have added clarity if there were a comma after 'party'.

Exactly!

Yingluck Shinawattra was not ousted by the military. She was ousted by a court for acting illegally for nepotistic reasons.

Thaksin Shinawattra was not the PM or even the lawful caretaker PM when he was ousted following his illegal seizure of power.

Interesting how many chose to say things differently or suggest a different scenario.

What drivel !

As I recall it Thaksin won 2 elections with an overwhelming majority. In fact he was the first Prime Minister to achieve an overall majority in free elections (in 2001). He would have won a third time had not the Dems decided to they didn't want to play and decided to boycott further elections, thereby helping to precipitate the 2006 coup.

So in what way was Thaksin's seizure of power illegal? Or do you just define free elections as illegal per se?

And before you squawk about me being a Red Shirt, I personally disliked the Thaksin government intensely, but I'm not Thai and it's not up to me to tell them who to vote for.

Certainly, my then girl friend and her neighbours down in Chantaburi province, not up in Isaan, thought he was wonderful, regardless of what the Farang might say!

That's quite a rant you 'squawked', you clearly should read more, you might learn something....

"you clearly should read more, you might learn something".

Why's that? You clearly never did.

Marge Thatcher was called the Iron Lady because she put on a personna of being tough. They should have called her the 'Pewter Lady' because she gave in on giving HK to the Chinese. She didn't have to. The Chinese military at that time (1990's) would have been no match for combined US and British forces. In late 19th century, the Chinese royals had a signed agreement which ceded the most important parts (Victoria and Kowloon) to the British 'IN PERPETUITY.' - source - What about 'in perpetuity' did Thatcher and British brass not understand? The problems cropping up now, in HK, were inevitable, and it's surprising they haven't shown up sooner. Hate to say it, but worse is on the horizon.

And what gives you the idea the yanks would have backed the Brits?

Are you kidding? Since 1814 the US and Brits have always backed each other - in major conflicts.

Vietnam? Suez? Falklands?

Marge Thatcher was called the Iron Lady because she put on a personna of being tough. They should have called her the 'Pewter Lady' because she gave in on giving HK to the Chinese. She didn't have to. The Chinese military at that time (1990's) would have been no match for combined US and British forces. In late 19th century, the Chinese royals had a signed agreement which ceded the most important parts (Victoria and Kowloon) to the British 'IN PERPETUITY.' - source - What about 'in perpetuity' did Thatcher and British brass not understand? The problems cropping up now, in HK, were inevitable, and it's surprising they haven't shown up sooner. Hate to say it, but worse is on the horizon.

And what gives you the idea the yanks would have backed the Brits?

Give Puket a miss and go to Pattaya which is much safer and has more to Offer to all travellers.

There are beautiful beaches, great hotels, lovely women and trannies and much more Tourist police looking after tourists. A great place for solo travellers and families too with great shopping and sight seeing too. Paradise on Earth

No need for sarcasm!

Sorry the link doesn't appear to work so here's the gist.

"There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke."

Now if you're thinking a university like Stanford has fixed the results, up to you.

Passive smoking is a non-issue because a study failed to find a link? Why do governments have passive smoking legislation - did they somehow miss the study? Can I exhale a lungful of smoke into your open mouth?

"Why do governments have passive smoking legislation"

So in your opinion, governments are always right?

"Can I exhale a lungful of smoke into your open mouth?"

Don't be so childish!

You are right he doesn't smoke.

I am not up to date nor interested enough to follow up on it but seems to me there was researchers about 8 years ago claiming second hand smoke was just as bad for you as first hand smoke. I guerss I could go on the internet and find a bunch of studies that say that is right. Also a bunch saying it is wrong. Myself I don't care I am not around it that much. I have a friend who smokes and if we are out and he wants to smoke he will go out side with no complaints. He even goes out side at his home.

I am not a hypocrite but I do like to say negative things about it. When I quit my 30 year 3 pack a day habit I swore if I couldn't be around smokers I wouldn't quit.

I agree about the dangers of passive smoking, but read the thread - the OP obviously doesn't like smoke and goes to lengths to avoid it. He presumably does not live in a house full of smokers. Passive smoking is highly unlikely to kill him, as he doesn't passive smoke.

"I agree about the dangers of passive smoking,"

Study finds no clear link between lung cancer and second-hand smoke - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Well that's the passive smoking myth put to bed then. I certainly hope you emailed the link to the WHO.

Sorry the link doesn't appear to work so here's the gist.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke."

Now if you're thinking a university like Stanford has fixed the results, up to you.

You are right he doesn't smoke.

I am not up to date nor interested enough to follow up on it but seems to me there was researchers about 8 years ago claiming second hand smoke was just as bad for you as first hand smoke. I guerss I could go on the internet and find a bunch of studies that say that is right. Also a bunch saying it is wrong. Myself I don't care I am not around it that much. I have a friend who smokes and if we are out and he wants to smoke he will go out side with no complaints. He even goes out side at his home.

I am not a hypocrite but I do like to say negative things about it. When I quit my 30 year 3 pack a day habit I swore if I couldn't be around smokers I wouldn't quit.

I agree about the dangers of passive smoking, but read the thread - the OP obviously doesn't like smoke and goes to lengths to avoid it. He presumably does not live in a house full of smokers. Passive smoking is highly unlikely to kill him, as he doesn't passive smoke.

"I agree about the dangers of passive smoking,"

Study finds no clear link between lung cancer and second-hand smoke - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent