What Historic Bangkok Bars Do We Have Left?

[Scott]

Inflammatory post reported and removed.  

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Getting accused of being biased by you is something of a honour given our past spats in which you’ve ranted over my support for open and transparent trials / open transparent government.

 

I guess I’ve earned the ‘Biased Star’ with ‘The Usual Suspects Ribbon’.

 

Politicians wishing to ‘sound tough’ has a habit of winding up with innocent people getting killed.

 

Away with you and your ready excuses.

 

Ah, so once more (as in the irrelevant instance you falsely describe) you make a bogus comment, then getting riled up when its nonsensical nature is pointed out - and being unable to reasonably or factually support your "opinion", all that's on offer are lame deflections.

 

Still no forthcoming explanation as to how the Israeli comment is "warmongering", in the context of Iran's forward deployment of ballistic missiles to a another country, and into the hands of a non-government player (which your "opinion" managed to completely ignore). Yeah, I think bias fits the bill, whether you like it or not.

 

As for your other "opinion" - more hyperbole and generalized nonsense. Politicians often make such comments, whereas actual wars materializing as follow-up are not the norm. Considering the neighborhood and the usual rhetoric coming out of the other side - yet again a case of wilful blindness and standing bias.

 

My supposed "ready excuses" are a reasoned, fact based explanation of my take on things. Yours, in contrast, are a couple of nothing biased statements ignoring reality or painting it in a bizarre manner.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, so once more (as in the irrelevant instance you falsely describe) you make a bogus comment, then getting riled up when its nonsensical nature is pointed out - and being unable to reasonably or factually support your "opinion", all that's on offer are lame deflections.

 

Still no forthcoming explanation as to how the Israeli comment is "warmongering", in the context of Iran's forward deployment of ballistic missiles to a another country, and into the hands of a non-government player (which your "opinion" managed to completely ignore). Yeah, I think bias fits the bill, whether you like it or not.

 

As for your other "opinion" - more hyperbole and generalized nonsense. Politicians often make such comments, whereas actual wars materializing as follow-up are not the norm. Considering the neighborhood and the usual rhetoric coming out of the other side - yet again a case of wilful blindness and standing bias.

 

My supposed "ready excuses" are a reasoned, fact based explanation of my take on things. Yours, in contrast, are a couple of nothing biased statements ignoring reality or painting it in a bizarre manner.

 

You’ve already offered the excuse that the politician wishes to sound ‘tough’ in the run up to an election, now you are going back to it being a response to Iran’s alleged ‘forward deployment of ballistic missiles’.

 

I take it the individual concerned has no control over any military response, but of course may wish to sway public opinion.

 

So what is it, no election, no sabre rattling (warmongering) rhetoric from a politician who seems to believe warmongering is a vote winner?

 

To argue it is not the norm for wars to materialize when politicians use aggressive, warmongering rhetoric is an acceptance that they can and do.

 

Politicians using aggressive warmongering rhetoric in any conflict situation is dangerous and inexcusable, that you suggest this particular politician does so for his electoral reasons only makes his behavior more reprehensible.

 

It takes a particularly stubborn form of bias not to accept that.

 

 

You should not make any judgement on the fact that I have not made mention of ‘the other side’, you merely do not have my views on the matter.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[ezzra]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:18 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

“just because they are there at the invention of the Syrian government, doesn't mean that they're welcome into this already boiling hot and troubled area“

 

It does suggest the Syrian Government welcome them.

 

I guess that’s not a sovereign right of the Syrian Government?!

 

 

As much as the Syrian has the sovereign rights to systemically gas, bomb and murder their people and exile millions more, sad to learn that there actually people on this forum that condon and agree with the Syrian murderous regime...

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, ezzra said:

As much as the Syrian has the sovereign rights to systemically gas, bomb and murder their people and exile millions more, sad to learn that there actually people on this forum that condon and agree with the Syrian murderous regime...

What..what..what....whataboutery!

 

[Morch]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve already offered the excuse that the politician wishes to sound ‘tough’ in the run up to an election, now you are going back to it being a response to Iran’s alleged ‘forward deployment of ballistic missiles’.

 

I take it the individual concerned has no control over any military response, but of course may wish to sway public opinion.

 

So what is it, no election, no sabre rattling (warmongering) rhetoric from a politician who seems to believe warmongering is a vote winner?

 

That wars do not always materialize when politicians are not the norm is an acceptance that they can and do.

 

Politicians using aggressive warmongering rhetoric in any conflict situation is dangerous and inexcusable, that you suggest this particular politician does so for his electoral reasons only makes his behavior more reprehensible.

 

It takes a particularly stubborn form of bias not to accept that.

 

 

You should not make any judgement on the fact that I have not made mention of ‘the other side’, you merely do not have my views on the matter.

 

No, that would be you either misreading my posts or intentionally misrepresenting them.

 

That you consider a reasoned explanation grounded in local politics an "excuse", as opposed to your based-on-nothing-much biased opinion bears little weight.

 

There is no contradiction between the statement being used both as warning to regional opponents and as means to bolster political image at home. Rather routine with many politicians in many countries, even if you choose to pretend otherwise.

 

And through all your repeated nonsense riling about "warmongering" still not a word as to Iran's actions being on a whole different level relative to hyped statement.

 

Please stop spinning my words to fit your bogus arguments. There was no "acceptance" in the sense you imply. Politicians routinely issue worse statements than this, without any follow up. Iranian politicians and generals often comment along such lines (and worse), without you getting all worked up about it.

 

 

I think that blatantly ignoring "the other side" or the context, or the fact that this is pretty much routine - while making faux hyped  up one-sided posts is a good indication of "views".

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

No, that would be you either misreading my posts or intentionally misrepresenting them.

 

That you consider a reasoned explanation grounded in local politics an "excuse", as opposed to your based-on-nothing-much biased opinion bears little weight.

 

There is no contradiction between the statement being used both as warning to regional opponents and as means to bolster political image at home. Rather routine with many politicians in many countries, even if you choose to pretend otherwise.

 

And through all your repeated nonsense riling about "warmongering" still not a word as to Iran's actions being on a whole different level relative to hyped statement.

 

Please stop spinning my words to fit your bogus arguments. There was no "acceptance" in the sense you imply. Politicians routinely issue worse statements than this, without any follow up. Iranian politicians and generals often comment along such lines (and worse), without you getting all worked up about it.

 

 

I think that blatantly ignoring "the other side" or the context, or the fact that this is pretty much routine - while making faux hyped  up one-sided posts is a good indication of "views".

 

Again:

 

If Israel fealt the need to take military action they would do so and I doubt very much they would make an announcement before hand.

 

So the question is why make a statement like this?

 

As you yourself suggested, he’s doing so for personal political reasons.

 

Your inability to accept criticism of a politician warmongering for personal political reasons within the context of the ‘tinderbox’ of the regional politics is inexplicable other than being blind bias.

 

Until the sin of omission is added to the forum rules don’t make assumptions of my views on matters I have not discussed.

[Srikcir]

16 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

They cant even feed their own people

An active export trade can provide the State with the means to feed its people.

But by design U.S. policy to deny Iran oil revenue is an existential threat to the survival of the Islamic Republic.

The Islamic Republic’s crude sales dropped by 600,000 barrels to 1.68 million barrels per day (b/d) in the first half of August, a 20% decrease from the same time in July. Exports are down a whopping 62% since May.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2018/08/29/irans-oil-exports-plummet-600000-bd-as-u-s-sanctions-force-key-buyers-to-seek-alternatives/#14946ab9247e

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again:

 

If Israel fealt the need to take military action they would do so and I doubt very much they would make an announcement before hand.

 

So the question is why make a statement like this?

 

As you yourself suggested, he’s doing so for personal political reasons.

 

Your inability to accept criticism of a politician warmongering for personal political reasons within the context of the ‘tinderbox’ of the regional politics is inexplicable other than being blind bias.

 

Until the sin of omission is added to the forum rules don’t make assumptions of my views on matters I have not discussed.

 

I guess that as you do in such instances, you'll just endlessly repeat the same bogus comments, regardless of replies.

 

Quote

If Israel fealt the need to take military action they would do so and I doubt very much they would make an announcement before hand.

 

Ain't supported by much in the current context. Israel broadcasted many times it will "not accept" this or that with regard to Iran's regional actions (arms deliveries to Hezbollah, deployment of systems to Syria, presence near border etc.). Israel proceeded to take action on all counts. Your pronouncement on this is counterfactual.

 

Quote

So the question is why make a statement like this?

 

Other than the "question" raised being based on the bogus previous assumption, you already got a two-fold answer. In one context, the statement can be seen as a warning, drawing yet another red line, or trying to increase international pressure to curb Iran's efforts. You ignore this angle, and focus solely on the domestic politics level (which you initially rejected, even).

 

Quote

Your inability to accept criticism of a politician warmongering for personal political reasons within the context of the ‘tinderbox’ of the regional politics is inexplicable other than being blind bias.

 

The point made, and which you continue to ignore is one of context and proportion. Your attempt to hype the statement, and yet ignore the contest in which it was made, or the fact that it didn't actually quite amount to portrayals on this topic. In comparison to Iran's actions, the statement is rather lightweight - and yet, your line of commentary and finger-pointing is reserved to one side. But do go on about "blind bias". Apparently, statements are more dangerous than actions, in your "'tinderbox' of the regional politics".

 

Quote

Until the sin of omission is added to the forum rules don’t make assumptions of my views on matters I have not discussed.

 

I didn't realize that you have the authority to issue directives on this forum. If you missed it the point made is exactly hyping one aspect of the OP,  while blatantly ignoring the other.

 

Try harder.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

An active export trade can provide the State with the means to feed its people.

But by design U.S. policy to deny Iran oil revenue is an existential threat to the survival of the Islamic Republic.

The Islamic Republic’s crude sales dropped by 600,000 barrels to 1.68 million barrels per day (b/d) in the first half of August, a 20% decrease from the same time in July. Exports are down a whopping 62% since May.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2018/08/29/irans-oil-exports-plummet-600000-bd-as-u-s-sanctions-force-key-buyers-to-seek-alternatives/#14946ab9247e

 

 

Yeah.....and the Iranian regime spending billions of regional extra-curricular activities doesn't help much either. But let's spin it all as the US's fault. Iran ending up under sanctions did have something to do with its own choices and actions.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, car720 said:

Why borrow.  They have their own.

 

Really.

 

4 hours ago, car720 said:

nor mine but I will give them freely if I am asked nicely.  

 

Seems kinda futile in light of your previous comment.

[candide]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:46 PM, Nyezhov said:

Im not going to engage in the debate as to whether Israel is right or wrong. Its like Donald Trump. If he was to walk on water, folks would criticize him for not being able to swim.  But I do ask what business does Iran have in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else? They cant even feed their own people and have the need to export...missles and soldiers?

 

But regardless, they will have full support from  us as it is good training and tactical development for F-35s.  Thats why the US has a base in Israel. A strike on Iranian missles would lead to lessons and tactics that our boys in Blue may need to use against the Russians and Chinese. Or the Iranians. 

 

And the latter is coming faster than you may think.

 

 

So Israel, it's like Trump! I'm not sure all Israelis would appreciate this qualification! ?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts with the intent of hijacking the topic into other discussions have been removed. 

[metisdead]

Posts containing conspiracies have been removed.