United States Navy To Build New Training Facility In Thailand

[Jingthing]

Khun Jingthing,

Will Pres. Obama pass the anti gun laws? I am a shooter and NRA member, ststus of gun industry there may effect the supply to this country.

Red herring.

[LooseCannon]

I don't need spoon feeding. I just need a quote from Jesus calling on true believers to kill unbelievers as you claim that he made on a regular basis. However, you don't have one. No wonder you were hiding this:

John 15:6 : "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Where is the meat?

This is what I wrote:

"There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject".

If you take a look at what I wrote you should be able to see that the number of references - plural- relate to what is found in the Old Testament. At no point do I claim that Jesus made statements concerning the killing of unbelievers 'on a regular basis'.

"Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject" - let us take a closer look at this sentence by looking at some word definitions.

From Collins Australian Dictionary Second Edition (1999):

apparent (adj) - seemingly real rather than actually being real.

apparently (adv) - seeming.

quite (adv) - fairly but not very, completely. (Warning - care should be taken when using quite).

The dictionary warns us of the contradictory definition of the word 'quite'. In my sentence the first definition is used (the second definition in the context of my sentence makes no sense).

Hopefully,you should now be able to discern the correct meaning & intent of this sentence - one that is dismissive of this line of thinking, an argument that lacks credibility. Unfortunately 'tone' is hard to convey in the casual written word.

Unsurprisingly, there are people that will argue Jesus advocates the killing of unbelievers & the verse they use is John 15:6. There maybe some others verses, but it is an avenue of research that I have no wish to pursue due to the fact that I consider the argument to be so tenuous that it beggars belief, apart from being a complete waste of my time. If you require more 'meat' I am sure the internet will provide you with plenty of information from both sides of the debate.

The whole point of the original exercise was that selected passages from the Bible, when interpreted in a certain way, with a certain agenda, with a particular mindset, advocates the killing of unbelievers. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote illustrates this point perfectly.

[Texpat]

Hands off my president. You had yours for eight years and your right wing party is dead. Your only base is old Anglo Saxon white men, a small MINORITY. You embrace angel of death Cheney and buffoon Limbag and only make it worse for yourself, a pleasure to watch you self destruct! Learn to cope, losers. If you don't love Obama, leave America! Oh, I forgot, you already have ...

Bush deserved about half the guff he got. Bambam deserves about half the adoration he receives.

Bush isn't my president insofar as I never voted for him. Believe it or not, some people don't align themselves with parties and instead vote based on issues.

I voted for Bill Clinton and John McCain. Never for Obama or Bush (Dubya, I did vote for Bush Sr.) I realize that in your narrow view that means I'm a dyed-in-the-wool racist.

Guess I'll have to work on that.

What do you call a guy who's in favor of gun control, pro choice, non religious -- yet doesn't vote for the Messiah? I know, this doesn't compute with your type -- everyone's gotta be with you or against you.

Sounds familiar.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Texpat

[bonobo]

Bush deserved about half the guff he got. Bambam deserves about half the adoration he receives.

 

I think Bush deserved most of the guff her received and very little of the adoration he received from a sizable part of the nation.  I truly do think he will go down as one of the weakest presidents in history.

As far as Obama's "adoration," a good part of that is simply hope.  People hope for a better country, and they will transfer that hope to the new president.  Let's see after 4/8 years how the population feels about him then.  Only then can you really compare him with Bush.  Obama has had a longer honeymoon than many recent presidents, but it is still the honeymoon.

What do you call a guy who's in favor of gun control, pro choice, non religious -- yet doesn't vote for the Messiah? I know, this doesn't compute with your type -- everyone's gotta be with you or against you.  

And what do you call a guy who is personally anti-abortion but nominally pro-choice, fiscally conservative, pro-free-trade, socially liberal, open-immigration/guest workers, pro-Afghanistan intervention, anti-Iraqi intervention, OK with waterboarding, not OK with capital punishment, anti-isolationism, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, environmentalist, pro-business--and so on and so forth.  If a person does not fit into a cookie-cutter political spectrum, he seemingly is on everyone else's bad side and on no one's good side.

Edited May 26, 2009 by bonobo

[Texpat]

If a person does not fit into a cookie-cutter political spectrum, he seemingly is on everyone else's bad side and on no one's good side.

That's my point. But the Dems are now acting exactly way the GOP did when it was in power.

Any criticism of the government and they blast away calling you a non-believing devil. Or a racist.

I will never subscribe to a party platform unless I can decide every issue myself. Too many wonky ideas on both sides for me to consider myself red or blue. When I vote, it's nearly always for the least evil.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Texpat

[bonobo]

If a person does not fit into a cookie-cutter political spectrum, he seemingly is on everyone else's bad side and on no one's good side.

That's my point. But the Dems are now acting exactly way the GOP did when it was in power.

Any criticism of the government and they blast away calling you a non-believing devil. Or a racist.

I will never subscribe to a party platform unless I can decide every issue myself. Too many wonky ideas on both sides for me to consider myself red or blue. When I vote, it's nearly always for the least evil.

I agree with most of what you write here.  But for this election, I actually felt that I was voting for the best choice of two capable, honorable men.  During the last election, though, I certainly voted for whom I considered to be the lesser of two evils.

[Jingthing]

bonobo And what do you call a guy who is personally anti-abortion but nominally pro-choice, fiscally conservative, pro-free-trade, socially liberal, open-immigration/guest workers, pro-Afghanistan intervention, anti-Iraqi intervention, OK with waterboarding, not OK with capital punishment, anti-isolationism, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, environmentalist, pro-business--and so on and so forth. If a person does not fit into a cookie-cutter political spectrum, he seemingly is on everyone else's bad side and on no one's good side.

An Obama supporter. Most of those positions are Obama positions. A person with your politics would have to be nuts to go for the dead right wing party. Very few people agree with any politician on ALL positions. You think you are so special or unique in that? You are not at all.

In my case, I am mostly OK with Obama's positions except personally I favor dropping all sanctions with Cuba, legal federal gay marriage (but we will get that anyway from the supreme court within a decade), universal single payer health care (off the table because the health care industry has bought off Washington), stricter gun control laws, decriminalization of drugs, tougher policies on illegal Latino immigration, no tax breaks for any religious organizations, investing is massive public transport projects in all cities working towards reducing automobile dependence and creating economic crisis jobs and stimulus, throwing out the impossible tax code and replacing it with a simple no paperwork system, required military or civil service for all younger Americans for a minimum period of two years (so that patriotic service isn't radically skewed towards the underclass as it is now) ... none of these are Obama positions.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[LooseCannon]

dave_boo

We are going round in circles here - you are trying to convince me that your point of view vis-a-vis the commandment to 'kill disbelievers' relates only to the Israelites. Now you are adamant that your point of view is the correct one, for my part, I do not know whether you are correct or incorrect, I just cannot say with any certainty what is the correct interpretation. But what I am arguing is that another person can take these same passages from the Bible & interpret them to mean something that is entirely different from your interpretation. These differing interpretations can be used, in the same manner as the verses you reference in the Koran, to indoctrinate, brainwash, manipulate, call it what you want, a person to carry out similar atrocities.

I agree with you that the wording in the Koran leaves very little room for ambiguity in its interpretation, but this does not negate the fact that there are words in the Bible exhorting the believer to kill, words that can still be manipulated to achieve a desired end.

Many Christians have taken the Bible & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

Many Muslims have taken the Koran & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

As stated earlier, the Christian scripture has been used for just that purpose. And the Church has apologised for that. When is the last time that has happened? Where are the calls in the Christian churches for similar actions? Has the Christian scriptures not changed over time, which is inherently impossible with the Muslim scriptures?

Going back in history acts of killing have been committed in the name of the Church & with the blessing of the Church. I will take your word for it that apologies have been made. As to similar type acts occurring in the future? I doubt that this is likely from one of the mainstream churches. But there is a very real possibility that a 'fundamentalist church' could conceivably use the passages mentioned above to create the same sort of mayhem as the Muslims. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on nutcases.

I've said it over and over, I don't believe either one is right. However currently Islam is the dangerous one.

Yes, we have reached common ground here - although with this qualification - Islam is the more dangerous one.

It's also interesting that you want me to defend my position with quotes and links, and yet when someon challenges you to do the same you retreat under the "If you require spoon feeding I suggest you get a nurse." Nice and articulate.

Thanks - it's OK, he's a big boy.

Thread seems to have gone off track. back to bases?

[Zeppo]

I clicked on this thread (last page) to read what was/is up with the Navy building training facilities in Thailand. Much to my surprise/dismay I am reading assaults on Christians & Jews, quotes from the Old & New Testament as well as the Koran, bashing of Bush, Cheney & Obama, the Dems and the GOP. You people sound like a bunch of old bitty's.

Where is discussion about the Navy's construction & it's purpose. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read 9 pages of this mess to see where this got completely OFF TOPIC.

Moderator, why do you let this off topic crap continue & how on God's green earth does this bickering have anything to do with LOS?

I come here for info about what is happening here, not discussions of religion & politics (that are not Thai based). Guess I'll delete my bookmark yet again. When will I ever learn not to waste my time coming here?????

[Jingthing]

I clicked on this thread (last page) to read what was/is up with the Navy building training facilities in Thailand.

We are all so busted! I think the first few comments were about the topic but most people weren't really very interested. Its kind of obvious. Thailand and the USA are long term military allies ... so it really isn't very surprising news. Now if Iran or North Korea were building a base here, that would be big news.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Hopefully,you should now be able to discern the correct meaning & intent of this sentence - one that is dismissive of this line of thinking, an argument that lacks credibility. Unfortunately 'tone' is hard to convey in the casual written word.

After reading your argument, I would interpret it as, "Jesus probably said to kill unbelievers, but I am hedging my bets and not stating it as a fact, because I have nothing to back it up". Is that about right?

[bonobo]

An Obama supporter. Most of those positions are Obama positions. A person with your politics would have to be nuts to go for the dead right wing party. Very few people agree with any politician on ALL positions. You think you are so special or unique in that? You are not at all.

 Well, I guess I am not nuts, then.

But I have to disagree with you on your second point.  I do believe that a significant portion of the population has a core belief in place, and whether that aligns with the Republicans or Democrats in the US, they then tend to "toe the party line," and adopt mopst if not all platforms in the party.  I remember talking to a woman once who told me she was against abortion, but since the Democrats were pro-choice, she had to be pro-choice, too.  I believe that there are alot of people out there like her.

Of course, many people also can evaluate and decide their positions on various areas of disagreement without regard to party affiliation.  Heck, Bush's position on immigration was hardly in line with the party faithful. And Obama is finding out that his positions are not making everyone in the Dems happy.

And finally, yes, I do think I am at least somewhat unique in my views.  Call that a simple egocentric cry into the void that I am different and unique, or call that a reasonable evaluation that my views can seem to be diametrically opposed or at least illogical to most people.  I would guess that most people would think that being fervantly against the death penalty but OK with waterboarding makes no sense at all, that it is illogical.  But it makes perfect sense to me, and when I vote, what makes sense to me is what matters.

[Jingthing]

Sure there are voters who don't think about issues. But anyone who does think about specific issues is not likely to fully agree with one party/candidate or another. You pick the closest. There are issue priority voters. I would never vote for a party with an anti-gay platform, ever, never, ever, happily I disagree with the dead right wing party on most things, so no problem.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[dave_boo]

dave_boo

We are going round in circles here - you are trying to convince me that your point of view vis-a-vis the commandment to 'kill disbelievers' relates only to the Israelites. Now you are adamant that your point of view is the correct one, for my part, I do not know whether you are correct or incorrect, I just cannot say with any certainty what is the correct interpretation. But what I am arguing is that another person can take these same passages from the Bible & interpret them to mean something that is entirely different from your interpretation. These differing interpretations can be used, in the same manner as the verses you reference in the Koran, to indoctrinate, brainwash, manipulate, call it what you want, a person to carry out similar atrocities.

I agree with you that the wording in the Koran leaves very little room for ambiguity in its interpretation, but this does not negate the fact that there are words in the Bible exhorting the believer to kill, words that can still be manipulated to achieve a desired end.

That's what I have been trying to point out for the last few posts! You want to argue the point that the Christian scriptures could be interpeted to make them just as evil as the out and out commandments in the Muslim scriptures. You have provided no examples except for an outdated one that has already been retracted by the Catholics. Vis a vis your argument is patently false in its attempt at refutation of my statement.

Yes, we have reached common ground here - although with this qualification - Islam is the more dangerous one.

Thanks - it's OK, he's a big boy.

Yes, but it's still petty. I'm sure you're a big boy also, but if I called you an unhinged nutcase, would that help my stance?

Thread seems to have gone off track. back to bases?

[LooseCannon]

That's what I have been trying to point out for the last few posts! You want to argue the point that the Christian scriptures could be interpeted to make them just as evil as the out and out commandments in the Muslim scriptures. You have provided no examples except for an outdated one that has already been retracted by the Catholics. Vis a vis your argument is patently false in its attempt at refutation of my statement.

You seem to be struggling to understand the point I was trying to make in post #160. Please have another read of it.

I will say again from post #193

"There is no requirement for me to demonstrate anything to you. I have provided some verses from the Bible that advocate killing non-believers which you have interpreted in a manner that suits your agenda".

I repeat again - there are people that can take selected passages from the Bible, interpret them in a manner that suits their agenda & indoctrinate, brainwash, manipulate other person(s) to carry out similar atrocities to those committed by the Muslim extremists.

Simple, straightforward & concise.

I am not trying to convince you that their arguments are valid, logical, have legitimacy or are even sane.

I am telling you there exists bodies of argument & points of view that contradict your own. The people that hold these views are as adamant, insistent, rigid & uncompromising in their belief that they are right as you are in your belief that you are right.

I do not hold, accept or subscribe to any of these interpretations, points of view or beliefs.

[LooseCannon]

Hopefully,you should now be able to discern the correct meaning & intent of this sentence - one that is dismissive of this line of thinking, an argument that lacks credibility. Unfortunately 'tone' is hard to convey in the casual written word.

After reading your argument, I would interpret it as, "Jesus probably said to kill unbelievers, but I am hedging my bets and not stating it as a fact, because I have nothing to back it up". Is that about right?

If it suits your own bias & personal prejudices, meets all your prerequisites & standards for analytical thought, & you have reached a conclusion that you are happy with, why do you need me to validate it?

[Ulysses G.]

I don't. I already know the answer. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[LooseCannon]

I don't. I already know the answer. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?

While you may or may not know the basic definition of 'rhetorical question', you are certainly clueless as to it's correct usage.

A 'rhetorical question' is asked not to elicit a response but to make a point, with the expected answer usually being a 'yes' or 'no'. The expectation is that the answer is obvious & inexorable. The most important element of a 'rhetorical question' is that it invokes an answer that supports your argument or statement. For the poser of the 'rhetorical question' there can only be one possible answer.

The 'rhetorical question' tacked on to your misrepresentation of my explanation, a statement distorted either deliberately or through inherited nescience, was never going to get your desired response.

Probably better to put more effort into constructive argument than whether to select the 'rolling eyes' or the 'idiotic grin' smiley.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't. I already know the answer. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?

While you may or may not know the basic definition of 'rhetorical question', you are certainly clueless as to it's correct usage.

A 'rhetorical question' is asked not to elicit a response but to make a point, with the expected answer usually being a 'yes' or 'no'. The expectation is that the answer is obvious & inexorable. The most important element of a 'rhetorical question' is that it invokes an answer that supports your argument or statement. For the poser of the 'rhetorical question' there can only be one possible answer.

Sorry, but you are the clueless one. The rather obvious, only honest answer was YES!

Edited May 28, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Literary Dictionary: rhetorical question

rhetorical question, a question asked for the sake of persuasive effect rather than as a genuine request for information, the speaker implying that the answer is too obvious to require a reply, as in Milton's line

For what can war but endless war still breed?

Grammar Dictionary: rhetorical question

A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[LooseCannon]

Sorry, but you are the clueless one. The rather obvious, only honest answer was YES!

Interesting that you should bring up honesty after you post such a deceitful & self-serving interpretation of what I wrote. I suggest that you examine your true motives for continuing to maintain a position that is flawed & illogical, a position that only exposes a mind stunted by intellectual dwarfism.

Literary Dictionary: rhetorical question

rhetorical question, a question asked for the sake of persuasive effect rather than as a genuine request for information, the speaker implying that the answer is too obvious to require a reply, as in Milton's line

For what can war but endless war still breed?

Grammar Dictionary: rhetorical question

A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point.

I am no idea why you felt the need to post this.

Superficial & basic. If you really want to understand what 'rhetorical questions' are & how they should be used, I suggest you read a book on linguistics.

The following example is a variation of the idiomatic rhetorical question "Does a bear sh*t in the woods?"

"If a bear sh*ts in the woods, should I have another beer?" Anon.

It meets all the conditions of shared prior commitment to a similar & obvious answer. A truly redundant question that completely serves to synchronize 'Speaker' & 'Addressee' beliefs.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but you are the clueless one. The rather obvious, only honest answer was YES!

Interesting that you should bring up honesty after you post such a deceitful & self-serving interpretation of what I wrote.

It may have been self-serving, but it was still honest and more importantly it was correct. YOU said that Jesus was "quite vocal" about calling for non-believers to be killed and I asked you to prove it which you ignored over and over again, but you have no proof at all and your silly word games don't impress anyone but you.

By the way if you want to look up definitions in the dictionary, the word honesty would definitely be a good place for you to start.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[Huey]

Hands off my president. You had yours for eight years and your right wing party is dead. Your only base is old Anglo Saxon white men , a small MINORITY. You embrace angel of death Cheney and buffoon Limbag and only make it worse for yourself, a pleasure to watch you self destruct! Learn to cope, losers. If you don't love Obama, leave America! Oh, I forgot, you already have ...

LOL Well said. Though I Love Obama but I left during Bush

[LooseCannon]

It may have been self-serving, but it was still honest and more importantly it was correct. YOU said that Jesus was "quite vocal" about calling for non-believers to be killed and I asked you to prove it which you ignored over and over again, but you have no proof at all and your silly word games don't impress anyone but you.

By the way if you want to look up definitions in the dictionary, the word honesty would definitely be a good place for you to start.

I am sorry that you felt your shrill calls vying for my attention were being ignored.If you require obsequious panderings & instant gratification, I am sure you know where to go.

Your convenient omission of a keyword prompted me to offer this:

"Ulysees runs a bookstore, apparently he is well read."

Relate it to what I have written about you, analyze it & reach a rational conclusion. Try & remember 'rolleyes' & 'idiot grins' are not supporting argument.

[Spee]

"Ulysees runs a bookstore, apparently he is well read."

Better that than all of this gushing, slobbering, genuflecting for the great Barry-O who is .... well .... red!

[Ulysses G.]

"Ulysees runs a bookstore, apparently he is well read."

Get rid of the "apparently" , and you will be right on the money for a change.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[LooseCannon]

"Ulysees runs a bookstore, apparently he is well read."

Better that than all of this gushing, slobbering, genuflecting for the great Barry-O who is .... well .... red!

Is that Barry O the wrestler (Preferred Spectator Sport of the Right) or Barry O the Magician & Ventriloquist?

Better Read than dead.

[LooseCannon]

"Ulysees runs a bookstore, apparently he is well read."

Get rid of the "apparently" , and you will be right on the money for a change.

I can live with that.

[Ulysses G.]

Peace!

[Bakeman]

A shame for Thailand to support a country which starts wars all the time and murders civilians.

Not long time ago there was an article in the german press about a guy tortured in an secret US jail in Thailand. They tested on him new strategies to torture people