Do You Consider Thailand A Neutral Environment ...

[Jingthing]

Well, for more obvious reasons, I'm sadly still avoiding "Iranian spaces" in Pattaya. But even more so, I am also avoiding Israeli spaces which I perceive as dangerous now. See what I missed? I could have dined with the visiting bombers. Big regrets. I am missing the food though. BTW, noticed the Iranian restaurant in the City Walk walkway has closed. I would be surprised not to see similar closings in the months ahead as Pattaya seems to have an oversupply of such places given the current travel trends from Iran.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[TheyCallmeScooter]

In my case, and maybe this is irrational (I am not sure yet), I have started to avoid all Iranian businesses in Pattaya that I normally want to go to (I still do). Not out of a political statement to boycott Iranian businesses, but because I feel I MAY be unwelcome at such places now.

In any case, this is always a situational kind of thing, with many layers of complexity. Definitely not black and white. Anyway, short of doing a poll, do you think it is irrational (or crazy if you like) or not now for Americans to avoid Iranian spaces in Thailand (regardless of their political views)? I have made this decision and probably can't be persuaded to change it now, but I really don't know if it is logical.

As nothing about war is logical or sane, you could describe humanity in terms very similar. Because we live in creepy worlds where some feel there is a pressing 'need' to drench little boys in emotionally-charged propaganda campaigns; romance and nationalism and self-sacrifice for Queen, God and (never for) Country, from Impressionable Moment #1) - then obviously, simple game theory suggests you are being appropriately shrewd.

But one has a duty to resist such manipulations; and it's clearly in your best interests to disassociate yourself from the Warlords who are banging out a rather predictable beat on that those well-worn drums, once again. It's an interesting question, but I can't help but feel you're firing the first volley in an all-too-predictable Arms Race of Fear. You should be defending your interests with an offensive campaign; of charm. It's counter-intuitive but impossibly logical. Surely there is little to zero risk? Easier said than done, I accept; we've all been made to be keen (on some level) by endless campaigns of mean (fear Fear FEAR!); but it seems to me the truly optimal play here has (unless I've missed it?) simply been passed over in favour of commencement of hostilities (albeit more frosty than hot-tempered).

You seem less interested in their opinion than appears logical? I appreciate you have mild to moderate reservations; I imagine primarily out of a desire to avoid awkwardness or unpleasantness. But in my experience, a business losing its customers will not likely go bankrupt for patriotic reasons alone.

As far as 'war' goes, I'm not anti-War so much as anti-Reason. As no one has ever given me an example of a War that was in the best interests of those who were dragged into it - I guess I would be anti-War, but not on principle. I simply have no desire to kill and rape (or be killed or raped); or motive to profit from all that 'opportunistic' post-destruction reconstruction.

Unfortunately, alcohol-fuelled fodder will generally find 'reason' in irrationality when girls are involved. That's where the genuine fault-lines are going to be, and where you'd either be drawn to if you were looking for action; or - if you're looking for peace and quiet waiting for the bleak hangover of yet another "morning-after" (junkies addicted to power are the worst) - you'd be advised to steer clear of such places; and nightlife in general. You cannot talk reason to clowns who have been emasculated (in their own minds); and few clowns are more likely to get emasculated in their own minds than drunks getting high smoking the crack-pipes of nationalism.

I'm awkwardly trying to say, I fail to see how tempers would fray in a Persian cafeteria in the early afternoon...? Hours after sundown, you might run into some interesting characters with vaguely unconvincing protestations of neutrality...but only if you're impossibly lucky...

[Jingthing]

Cool writing style, dude!

[necronx99]

Fraternizing.

With the enemy. It's distasteful, if not treasonous.

[Jingthing]

I think the point now after recent current events is that Thailand is LESS of a neutral environment than some people have imagined or hoped for.

[StreetCowboy]

Fraternizing.

With the enemy. It's distasteful, if not treasonous.

I think that is exactly the viewpoint that JT is afraid of... Personally, I don't see why he associates Iranians in Thailand with the regime in Iran - particularly given the introspective and insular nature of that regime, though to be fair, there's none as staunch as those that don't have to suffer the consequences...

I think the point now after recent current events is that Thailand is LESS of a neutral environment than some people have imagined or hoped for.

So which side do you think Thailand is on? Given that they have mobilised the might of their security forces to find the terrorists? Let's face it, when people pick fights in public places, generally speaking the place itself remains neutral. Now if Thailand was occupied by one side or the other, or allied to one side and not the other, then we might conclude that it was less than neutral.

SC

[Jingthing]

The topic is not about what side Thailand may be on. Clearly, Thailand is playing a neutral game in the current Iran-Israel thingie. It is about nationals (and allies) from opposing sides being present in Thailand and what that implies. My main personal interest in Iranian spaces here is that I love to eat wonderful Iranian food and also I have noticed there are some interesting Iranian gay men visiting Pattaya, which I reckon represents freedom city for them.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

The topic is not about what side Thailand may be on. Clearly, Thailand is playing a neutral game in the current Iran-Israel thingie. It is about nationals (and allies) from opposing sides being present in Thailand and what that implies. My main personal interest in Iranian spaces here is that I love to eat wonderful Iranian food and also I have noticed there are some interesting Iranian gay men visiting Pattaya, which I reckon represents freedom city for them.

My point was that "non-neutral" suggests partisanship, one way or another. Perhaps "safe" would have been a more suitable adjective.

I'm not sure why you associate Iranian businesses here, or Iranian gay men, with the Iranian regime in Tehran.

SC

[Jingthing]

The topic is not about what side Thailand may be on. Clearly, Thailand is playing a neutral game in the current Iran-Israel thingie. It is about nationals (and allies) from opposing sides being present in Thailand and what that implies. My main personal interest in Iranian spaces here is that I love to eat wonderful Iranian food and also I have noticed there are some interesting Iranian gay men visiting Pattaya, which I reckon represents freedom city for them.

My point was that "non-neutral" suggests partisanship, one way or another. Perhaps "safe" would have been a more suitable adjective.

I'm not sure why you associate Iranian businesses here, or Iranian gay men, with the Iranian regime in Tehran.

SC

I never said I did. I never said my avoidance of Iranian spaces has the slightest to do with an impulse to boycott.

[StreetCowboy]

The topic is not about what side Thailand may be on. Clearly, Thailand is playing a neutral game in the current Iran-Israel thingie. It is about nationals (and allies) from opposing sides being present in Thailand and what that implies. My main personal interest in Iranian spaces here is that I love to eat wonderful Iranian food and also I have noticed there are some interesting Iranian gay men visiting Pattaya, which I reckon represents freedom city for them.

My point was that "non-neutral" suggests partisanship, one way or another. Perhaps "safe" would have been a more suitable adjective.

I'm not sure why you associate Iranian businesses here, or Iranian gay men, with the Iranian regime in Tehran.

SC

I never said I did. I never said my avoidance of Iranian spaces has the slightest to do with an impulse to boycott.

My apologies - what I meant was that why would you expect Iranian exiled resterateurs to excoriate you as an American because the United States is on the brink of war with the regime in their country?

It would seem that your behaviour is exactly what the terrorists and war-mongers are seeking to achieve; suspicion of foreigners, and a break-down in our tolerant, free and egalitarian civic society. Perhaps in the war on terror, we can do our bit better by refusing to be terrorised, rather than by escalating the violence through military action (easy for me to say, of course, living here in a peaceful country a long way from the front line...)

SC

[Jingthing]

I was thinking more about Iranian customers. Let me spell this out. If Israel does decide to bomb Iran, I will support Israel. Iranians, no matter their political thinking, I am sure almost all do not want their country to be bombed by Israel and lets face it probably most would feel hostility towards people who are supportive of that (if Israel decides they feel the need to go ahead). We are building up to that possibility/probability now. Also the severe sanctions from the west, which I fully support, are indeed hurting probably most Iranian people in their wallets. I can't believe that most Iranians would feel neutral about that. Thinking about that stuff does not stimulate my appetite. Eating out should be fun. There is another aspect that I have always felt about most Iranian restaurants, even in the U.S. They tend to be on the grim/severe side atmosphere-wise even before this political crisis cropped up. OK, the ones that serve alcohol are much better. I do avoid Israeli places here because I do think Israeli places are potential terror targets in Thailand, and I can get humus at Arabic places (safer!).

Edited February 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[necronx99]

I was thinking more about Iranian customers. Let me spell this out. If Israel does decide to bomb Iran, I will support Israel. Iranians, no matter their political thinking, I am sure almost all do not want their country to be bombed by Israel and lets face it probably most would feel hostility towards people who are supportive of that (if Israel decides they feel the need to go ahead). We are building up to that possibility/probability now. Also the severe sanctions from the west, which I fully support, are indeed hurting probably most Iranian people in their wallets. I can't believe that most Iranians would feel neutral about that. Thinking about that stuff does not stimulate my appetite. Eating out should be fun. There is another aspect that I have always felt about most Iranian restaurants, even in the U.S. They tend to be on the grim/severe side atmosphere-wise even before this political crisis cropped up. OK, the ones that serve alcohol are much better. I do avoid Israeli places here because I do think Israeli places are potential terror targets in Thailand, and I can get humus at Arabic places (safer!).

I think the answer to your original question will be "It depends". It would depend on why the war is being fought and who is fighting it.

If, for example Indonesia invaded Australia in a blatant war of conquest I would, if abroad in a neutral country, consider every Indonesian I met to be my mortal enemy, and an act like eating in an Indonesian owned resteraunt would be aiding and abetting. I would be much more likely to firebomb his place than eat in it.

In the recent Iraq debacle I would not feel that way about an Iraqi I might meet but would still avoid them as they may well feel that way about me!

I think your problem in this question is that should such a situation arise, it is very likley to be your country who is the agressor and the war is more likely to be a political powerplay than a just war.

[StreetCowboy]

Do you consider this forum (TV) a neutral environment?

http://www.thaivisa....__fromsearch__1

SC

EDIT: abbreviation replaced to avoid ambiguity

Edited February 20, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[Jingthing]

...

I think your problem in this question is that should such a situation arise, it is very likley to be your country who is the agressor and the war is more likely to be a political powerplay than a just war.

Sort of. I do think if it escalates to bombing nuclear facilities it will be Israel who starts that. I also understand Iranians buy into the line that Israel and the U.S. are one. They are of course not, but they are closely allied. So Iranians, of I think most political backgrounds, would quite understandably feel hostility to American policy and actions (and likely do already), and I am sure for many of them (no way can anyone know the percentage) that would bleed into American people in general. Thailand isn't taking sides on this, and it hosts nationals of these conflicting sides. Not sure how rational it is to voluntarily put oneself into an environment where there is a high chance of hostility from the crowd, in my case just to satisfy a food craving.

Also, it really doesn't make much difference in the case of Israelis or Americans about whether or not they support Israeli and US policy now or in a potential escalation. During the hotter days of the Iraq war, which I was always against starting, I experienced overt and blatant hostility against me by Muslims just when finding out I was American (with no interest in my political position).

Edited February 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[necronx99]

...

I think your problem in this question is that should such a situation arise, it is very likley to be your country who is the agressor and the war is more likely to be a political powerplay than a just war.

Sort of. I do think if it escalates to bombing nuclear facilities it will be Israel who starts that. I also understand Iranians buy into the line that Israel and the U.S. are one. They are of course not, but they are closely allied. So Iranians, of I think most political backgrounds, would quite understandably feel hostility to American policy and actions (and likely do already), and I am sure for many of them (no way can anyone know the percentage) that would bleed into American people in general. Thailand isn't taking sides on this, and it hosts nationals of these conflicting sides. Not sure how rational it is to voluntarily put oneself into an environment where there is a high chance of hostility from the crowd, in my case just to satisfy a food craving.

If I was American I would keep a low profile.

Perhaps http://www.persianrecipes.net/ ?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I was thinking more about Iranian customers. Let me spell this out. If Israel does decide to bomb Iran, I will support Israel. Iranians, no matter their political thinking, I am sure almost all do not want their country to be bombed by Israel and lets face it probably most would feel hostility towards people who are supportive of that (if Israel decides they feel the need to go ahead). We are building up to that possibility/probability now. Also the severe sanctions from the west, which I fully support, are indeed hurting probably most Iranian people in their wallets. I can't believe that most Iranians would feel neutral about that.

I apologise for my obtuse failure to recognise there was a third party involved, when responding - for whatever reason, I was viewing the issue as limited between Party 1 (you) and Party 2 (the restaurateurs). Belligerent customers are an entirely different kettle of fish, which I am embarrassed to admit I simply failed to consider.

Still, is it not worth at least canvassing the restaurateurs' opinions on whether your custom would be appropriate or not? I'm a huge proponent of frank and open honesty; because I find people secretly crave honesty in this vile world of deception and polite 'cordiality' and insulting 'small talk' and lying for the sake of diplomacy and all the insanity we take for granted but which has always made me stare at people trying to make sense of their insanity. I mean, I like people - I like interesting people, and it's so easy to be interesting, you don't even need to make an effort. You just need to be...real. But this is a world of moronic 'coy'; people who play their boring cards close to their chest; morons who know something you don't know nah na nah na na and they're not gonna tell (?? - that's brilliant, I'll make sure to return the favour?). I think this world is secretly screaming for the madness to end; at least, I find people responding surprisingly well. I believe I'm not the only one who finds the endless lying for the sake of 'propriety' to be nauseating. Surely, sanity dictates the trend will head in this direction - god I hope so.

Of course, some people are just vile. But then that is valuable Intel garnered relatively cheaply; so it's win-win imo. I have found people respond remarkably unemotionally even if they disagree - and if they disagree, I am genuinely interested in hearing them make their case. For all I know, I could be tragically mistaken - christ knows I'm lied to so often, none of my positions are even sandbagged, let alone entrenched. If the case can be made - convincingly, that I needed to die for a cause, then I would welcome anyone making that case to me. It would need to be a little bit more convincing than "Coalition of the Willing" stuff, but then that's why I 'conscientiously' (hah, as if my conscience was involved) objected to dying in an invasion of a nation which I couldn't really care less about. No force projection capability? What the hell are we invading for - I asked the god dam_n flag officers in both the RAN and the RAAF this question, and - um - suddenly I knew I needed to get out, honourably or dishonourably because there was no honour in the racist moronic drivel I received from the those tasked with defence of a nation which - just quietly - I only signed up for because it's strategically ridiculous to even consider attacking Australia. I mean, we do so much to induce an attack but we'd almost have to berth a carrier fleet in Darwin or something to even give ourselves a legitimate potential of becoming a target.

But then I forgot, that people are vile. And suddenly, I'm getting orders to start getting 'my' men ready for WWIII. They weren't my troops, I was the laziest (and worst, but ironically perhaps the best) SoB Officer in military history. My troops met me once, and when I asked what these amazingly random machines were, my Warrant Officer patiently tried to explain their function to me for 20 min before I cut him short and leveled with him. I lost interest at the 8 min mark. And I was not fit to even be wasting his time. "Would not the best interests of the nation be served if I just got the hell out of your way and let you run what we both know is your Section?" I'm a sneaky little creep, I just saw an opportunity to play truant - my intentions weren't remotely noble; but then things got a bit awkward. I mean, I knew the entire system was ridiculous but I didn't fully appreciate how horrifically corrupted and moronic it all was until a grizzly 54 yr old Warrant Officer was almost killing me with a bear hug, tears streaming down his face.

I'm not entirely irresponsible. I read all their files. This was a WO with almost 40 years of unblemished service. He created the section, he'd run it with a passion without missing a single day of work in a decade; and I read the reports on his performance from my predecessors who raved about his ability to present his opinion without seeking to override their "final decision", even when he disagreed. Hah. As if a 20 year old kid disagreeing with a WO who lived and breathed his job - would EVER be correct in a disagreement. I wasn't trying to be decent or anything; I just hate redundancy. I was never going to disagree with him, so why did I need to be there. And I wonder, if he had ever cried before - I doubt it. I understood, perfectly - once I recovered from the emotional outburst of relief. They trained us at ADFA to 'stamp' our 'authority' early; and I snickered. Without realising no one else was snickering. And I realised, my lazy immature useless irresponsibility was - ironically - optimalism this fine hero must only have dreamed of, in decades of humbly deferring to snotty little arrogant morons, who I knew well. They were all my friends. I understood. But then he bruised my rib with his bear hug. I'm really not built for war.

I was so chuffed with myself I was positively nauseating. I just wanted to bum around, which I did. For an entire year I would blush as various COs gushed about the quality of work coming out of my section. "Oh you've got it all wrong", I'd tender weakly, "I just get in the way - it's my 2IC who's running the entire show. I'm a liability, trust me." And they'd laugh and slap me on the back, thinking I was just being 'humble' or 'gracious'. Such is the arrogance of the Commissioned v Enlisted system of insanity. But I digress into total irrelevance.

I think my point was supposed to be something like:

So much of the misery and chaos and madness in this world is almost - exclusively - the result of moronic obsessions with 'tradition' and idiotic deference to what we just automatically assume is expected of us without ever really thinking our way through the insanity of our actions. I cannot be the only person in the world horrified at the insult that is small talk. You want to fake interest in a total stranger, you want to insult me with the pretence that you could possibly care about my welfare when we've never met and never will again - in this elevator, or whatever. Fine. But then try answering one of these creeps honestly; and watch the insanity. Because why are they faking their caring in the first place? To be polite right? Because they think it's rude to leave me in peace when I'm reading my paper or book or whatever. I understand. They think I'm crazy and liable to be offended and maybe lose the plot if they don't engage me. That's cool. But here's a little tip for morons:

If I'm insane, you really shouldn't roll your idiotic eyes at me when I respond with honesty - to your insulting feigning at pretence to care. Ask me a question about my welfare, I will respond - cordially - and explain I was doing fine, but then I was interrupted by this guy who I'd never met. Who seemed to be asking some personal questions. I ask them if they want the truth or if they want me to insult them with a "fine thanks, and yourself - oh that's grand - well cheerio"...? And they just look at me as if I'm nuts, roll their eyebrows, exhale / whistle as if to say "wacko". And I just laugh. Because if I was a sociopath....you know....is that intelligent behaviour? Maybe one of you small talkers can explain the insanity of this madness to me. Because I am insulted by morons endlessly; and my refusal to insult them back makes them lose their minds. I'm not a sociopath. I just shake my head. But do you see the crux of their insanity? Maybe I"m missing something. But I doubt it.

People are just insane. But then, I'm not saying this for redundancy's sake. I believe people don't want to be insane. They're just confused. I beg you to canvass the proprietors of these restaurants; I'm genuinely interested in hearing what their thoughts are on the issue!

If you'd prefer not to, I'll understand perfectly. We all - humans, I mean - are conditioned to err on the side of silence (almost invariably an error, imo - when we do this). We are all so ludicrously afraid of each other, for perfectly understandable (yet irrefutably irrational) reasons. We're blasted with fear from cradle to grave by Spam - but it’s so tragic because literally no one has a motive to hurt anyone - unless one or both parties are made to fear each other. When the simple reality is that they couldn’t possibly have motive to fear us as how could we have a motive to be a threat to them - for what possible purpose or to what end? And vice-versa. It’s terrifying really, how easily we lose sight of the fact that no one really has any genuine motive to harm anyone. But creeps addicted to power or creeps with an interest in spreading confusion (in order to sell the insanity of "Faith") endlessly whip up that fear, and suddenly everyone is perfectly justifiably terrified. Because logic - quite rationally - dictates preemptive strikes are optimal. But then logic can be a slippery little sucker, if emotion takes over. And bland pragmatism has stormed out of the building.

My point being, this entire world would be infinitely better off if we just - leveled - with each other. I will never agree to disagree with someone who refuses to even make the case to persuade me that their actions are in their own best interests. However, if they insist on being insane about it; I will not waste time trying to help them see things FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. All I can do is try to get them to see that our interests are mutual. In a sane world, the interests of 7 billion humans would be synchronised because we all want the same things.

It’s so obvious, it’s tragic. Show me a human who doesn’t want to be happy. Show me a human who wants to be afraid.

And yet, 7 billion are unhappy. Because 7 billion are irrationally afraid. What a world.

The Gods must be crazy. And by Gods, I mean the Middle Men who pretend to be Delusions self-appointed Go-To Guys, on the ground. But then, I ask to see their IDs, some paperwork. How do I know they're legit? They don't like those questions. I don't like how they don't like them. So then I get a bit more pointed and demand they explain to me - exactly - what function or purpose their existence even serves? The day I need Middle Men to play Chinese Whispers with my Delusions, is the day I need to be sectioned. They should get out the way of humans and their god/s that - ostensibly - desire a personal relationship with each of us.

I ask them why they're even in the way. Get out of the way, I demand - when they cannot justify their prescene as 'humble' 'vessels' standing in the way. Humans should move them out of the way. Or force them to explain why they are insulting us by implying God - in all his omni(x) - cannot manage to communicate with each of us, directly.

Oh they don't like that line of argument. That's why they're the most vile of all creeps alive. They're really impossibly offensive. I couldn't even begin to respond to their offence, proportionately. I have no interest in corrupting children. How do you respond proportionately, to that?

nb. sorry if my terrible writing hasn't made the connection clear between my firm understanding of why we're all led to be afraid and confused. Middle Men of Vile, endlessly getting in the way.

[Jingthing]

Frankly, I think it would be bloody stupid to make a public show about being American at any Iranian space in Thailand these days. On the other hand, I am sure that most Iranian business owners most definitely do welcome paying customers of any nationality. This was never about the lack of desire of business owners for money from any source, or my complete lack of interest in boycotting random business owners. What it is about I have already amply described. BTW, yes another Iranian restaurant closing in Pattaya. BTW, years ago a local Iranian owner made a deal about finding out my nationality and made a big show of making it clear I was enthusiastically welcome at his place. Well, the trouble is his food sucked. Even if it didn't, it's not about the owner or his welcome to me, again as I've amply explained. Don't have any problem with others seeing this differently of course. Its a personal choice.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I think the answer to your original question will be "It depends". It would depend on why the war is being fought and who is fighting it.

If, for example Indonesia invaded Australia in a blatant war of conquest I would, if abroad in a neutral country, consider every Indonesian I met to be my mortal enemy, and an act like eating in an Indonesian owned resteraunt would be aiding and abetting. I would be much more likely to firebomb his place than eat in it.

I'm just going to be potentially offensively honest; but Indonesians aren't exactly the sort of people who impress me. Period. I mean, I studied two years of Bahasa Indonesia which I only just realise has no real bearing on my argument because I only remember how to swear in Bahasa now so that was two years of study down the useless drain - but I learned a great deal about their peculiar brand of vile whilst feverishly studying their language (by vile, I'm mostly referencing the government of course, not the victims - quite - as much). Their filthy contradictions that are the hallmark of religious states are just...they can make a pacifist like me sympathise with your sentiment about firebombing but of course, I simply couldn't. The risk of a single innocent...but I understand where the sentiment is coming from.

These animals butcher the victims of their own corruption. They execute tragically victimised mules who are sacrificed to make the authorities look like they're occasionally getting results. It's too horrific to dwell on. And the filthy contradictions of their routine, highly politicised show trials of occasional Australians who get hung out to dry in a manner which may not horrify many - but then those many are perfectly horrifying when they say stuff like "they knew the risks, screw em". Morons.

As if you can even know if they're remotely guilty? Morons who know nothing about law, who just assume that those who are held up in show trials must be guilty of what the most vile people are accusing them of. You morons can take their word for it. I'll side with Sanity. What did that model have? Allegedly a quarter of an estacy tablet? If memory serves, that pretty model's life was very nearly (and could well be, for all we know) completely ruined but she had brilliant advisers who understood the sickening vile of the corrupted process, perfectly. God that was impressive how that was handled. It could have gone horribly bad for that poor girl who was caught up in some political mess with the guy she was with; or christ knows what's going on when you have police who are so corrupt, they just execute mules who are sacrificial lambs purely to give the impression they're 'proactive' and/or getting results.

And that 15 year old kid or whatever, I mean - do morons think he's some kind of unique drug user on an island where (I'm reliably informed by idiotic friends who routinely visit and routinely take drugs there) is literally overrun with easily accessible drugs?

So what - in the name of decency - is going on when they pick up some poor kid or some pretty model (I couldn't care less about Chapelle - sue me, but trailer trash be trailer trash and you cannot possibly be sympathetic of someone who is so braindead they holiday in Bali 8 times in a year despite being unemployed?) I mean, come on. See, that is stupidity which is incomparable to the poor CHILD in possession of some pot. He could have just been trying to impress a girl, for christ's sake. I still felt sorry for Chapelle until I saw Mercedes start cussing out the authorities and her mother who was almost as bad and I thought "Oh my, you cannot feel sorry for idiocy like that."

It's still an outrage, of course. Because these are vile - vile - people who whip up anti-Australian sentiment, which results in exploding body parts (my brother was in Bali when that happened, actually - he said the the most horrifying thing was the smirks on the faces of the locals upon hearing the good news). You see these morons are so freaking idiotic they smirk at....their livelihoods about to go down the drain? These are morons almost beyond capacity to feel sympathy for. They're so full of hatred it's just hard to even care about the fact that they are - of course - primarily victims of The Religion of Peace).

But I just read about NATO and this little stuff going on in Afghanistan. My blood is boiling at Evil this horrifying - NATO is APOLOGISING for an accidental burning of a book so offensive I literally cannot print the evil because it's so vile it just shouldn't be reprinted. NATO is fawning over the 'disrespect'. I almost threw up. But then I'm starting to understand what this world is all about now. These are morons - such morons - it's all going to go horribly bad for this shrewd crafty 'geniues'.

But then NATO did bring FREEDOM to Lybia. Who knew, that FREEDOM looked like Sharia Law? Pretty sure, Afghanistan was invaded largely for valid reasons relating to Sharia Law's evil. But then cutting deals with the Taliban? If I was a parent of a soldier who died prior to the payoffs of the Taliban fighters to chill out with the killing for a bit, I'd scream for the heads of traitors - but then you know, if it's okay with Americans it's really none of my business. Pfft.

Thinking about this sudden love of Islam by the US government and NATO made me think a random thought which might be one of the most insightful (or utterly ridiculous) ideas I've had of late....

Sort of. I do think if it escalates to bombing nuclear facilities it will be Israel who starts that. I also understand Iranians buy into the line that Israel and the U.S. are one. They are of course not, but they are closely allied.

Previously you mentioned the "severe sanctions of the West"...you realise, those sanctions are targeted expressly at the victims, right? The leadership of Iran are flooded with cash because we're supposed to believe the greatest military power this world has ever seen is somehow 'powerless' to convince or compel SWIFT into - not - continuing to shovel billions of USD directly into the accounts of Iranian tyrants.

I'm sorry, but if you believe that you are chomping down on the Idiotic brand of Freedom Fries. Does SWIFT dictate to the US or does the US dictate to SWIFT. You realise that's how Power works right? The US government is claiming that they are the bitches of SWIFT.

I find this hard to believe. SWIFT has no standing Army. Or nuclear weapons. So how is NATO suddenly the bitches of a freaking bank?

But this line of thought led me to a potentially intriging random thought about Israel. The more I contemplate it, the more valid it seems. Because, you know that INTEL powers the entire world, right? I'm not nearly technical enough to speak with authority but if INTEL seriously didn't - think - to code the ability to remotely shut down an entire nation's computers with a giggle and a flip of a switch, then they are morons who need to hire someone like me. I mean, I'm no genius but they couldn't possibly be that retarded not to give themselves that power.

Of course, if it's not obvious, I would wager at odds of 1/100 on that they did give themselves that power. Which - if I'm correct - is a sobering thought. Are we supposed to believe that Iran's country is operating on their own unique secret microprocessor chips? What a joke. Of course they're all using INTEL systems. So....

a) either INTEL was too stupid to give themselves the power to remotely flick the switch on the motherboards of the entire nation (this is implausibility too ridiculous for me to accept)

or....

b ) has the power to do so, but isn't doing so. Which begs the question of why.

-----------------

This is only a prelude to my potentially brilliant / potentially retarded idea. I only recently became aware of just how ridiculous the exploitation truly is; where Westphalian states just ruthlessly exploit their own. I had read before about US strategy being broadly aimed at creating conflict rather than creating stability / promoting democracy; but I never really took that stuff seriously because I assumed it was just misguided anti-US rhetoric.

But when NATO brought Sharia Law FREEDOM to Libya, the realisation hit me that I should probably look more closely at the idea that the US government isn't interested in bringing peace to the world; but rather the opposite. The evidence supports this theory in ways that really kinda scream the seemingly Obvious. The US pays hundreds of billions to guys who whip up anti-American sentiment; and I have been horrified by this for years now watching their actions in Pakistan and across the Middle East. But I assumed it was incompetence. I no longer assume any such thing. The evidence speaks for itself.

The US government directs assets into warzones and then they leave the nations in utter chaos, after creating 'competition' where no competition previously existed. The motive? I would think it's obvious, no?

This is classic Warlord stuff. Or more accurately, classic Overlord SoP. Support the underdog in a violent conflict. Create a ruthless civil war. Withdraw. Sit back and ship the ever-increasing orders for arms.

Warlords aren't exactly original; they tend to really go with the tried and proven SoP. Microsoft has been doing something similar for years. Sorry I'm still working up to my point, but if you look at the evidence it's almost overwhelming and irrefutable - the US goes into warzones, or the CIA goes in surreptuitiously, and when they leave - invariably they have completed their mission: VIOLENT CHAOS.

-------------------

Here is my random thought - apologies if it's retarded. But has anyone considered the possibility that Israel might be the victim of this broad US strategy?

If I'm right - and I might be - it's highly possible that Israel could legitimately be the victim of this unfathomably un-American global military 'strategy', which the US appears to have been conducting since....WW2? Please understand I'm not remotely accusing Americans of anything but victimisation in believing (as I once did) that CNN and FOX News represented the poles of the political spectrum that would "keep the bastards honest". Each other, the government, the billionaires, etc.

I was a moron of course. But then I'm embarassed about that. Of course, those who give politicians a billion dollars to - run - for office, are going to have had the 'genius' idea to buy up the media a very long time ago. I'm attacking the US government, not Americans - who I'm a huge fan of. But then they are very stupid in ways I was stupid until I saw Dan Rivers on CNN almost make me vomit in horror in mid-2010. This is un-American policy conducted at the expense of US interests by the successively traitorous US warlords which appear to have dominated every single administration since Nixon started The War that Will Guarantee Wars Will Never End - you know the War I'm talking about. The War that keeps getting 'lost' but yes the media largely doesn't focus on it? The war that was justified by Scientist Nixon's rather convincingly technical assertion that pot fries your brain like eggs, sunny-side-up. Which is highly possible; I know stoners. But how is that relevant? Since what moronic moment in history do we PRE-EMPTIVELY arrest people on the - chance - they might commit a crime?

And if this is logical, why are we not arresting every politician who even THINKS about talking to a lobbyist. Seriously, Americans? You're brilliant in ways the rest of the world is retarded but you can't connect the dots on lobbyists + politicians = TREASON. period. It should be a crime to even be caught having a social drink with a lobbyist. I don't care if you're friends. Friendship goes on hold for 4 years, if you can't stay away from each other, be freinds in PRISON. It's treason.

But PRE-EMPTIVELY arresting innocents on the - chance - they might commit a crime? Only in the Land of the Free. And, you know, in every copycat treasonous government that goes monkey see monkey do when corruption gets ingenious. But I'm drunk and drifting away from my potentially insightful realisation about Israel.

Could it be that Israel is the US government's idea of...funding Libyan jihadists to bring chaos and Sharia to Libya (albeit reversed, obviously)? So much conflict has been the result and where are these nations getting their arms from anyway. It's not Russia and China, not always. I think I'm onto something here. Or else I'm onto nothing. Cost of doing drunk business. But you cannot deny that for a very long time now, the broad but brutal aims of successive US administrations has not remotely been empire-building or imperialist - on the contrary. It's been FAR more vile. The US government isn't interested in building a global empire (the concept or theory of which, would likely be welcomed by much of the terrorised globe if the intent was genuine globalisation rather than - out-and-out - sponsorship of tyrannical regimes; and their tyrannical opponents). Hah. The US government funnels hundreds of billions to leaders all over the world who brazenly whip up anti-American sentiment (for political 'currency' of course - just like they're presently doing in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mexico, and right across the entire Middle East). And no one seems to be talking about the insanity of that - peculiar - policy. Call me crazy, but if I was helping a friend out with cash and all they did was bad-mouth me with vile slander and lies; I'd cut off the flow of funds to that filthy rat.

And yes, the US does not. In fact, they almost exclusively support anti-American politicians.

Ever since Nixon, the strategy has not been Divide & Conquer but rather Divide & Withdraw with Smirks (leaving the Unconquered Warlords to Fight it out Between Themselves, Remaining Loyal Customers of US / European Arms Dealers.

I'm writing abysmally presently but seriously I've looked at a lot of data and this is a legitimate theory. Either the US government is incompetent to the point of urgency that demands the immediate arrest and detainment of every flag officer and probably all their intermediate ranks as well - or the US government is purposefully conducting what amounts to Creation of Chaos. At the expense of US interests. What do I know? I'm just a humble reality theorist.

But I'd bet my life whomever gave 1 billion to Obama is mixed up in it somehow. And is mixed up in Mexico somehow. Or maybe you just think some billionaire got sucked in by Obama's rhetoric about Change in Washington as well? snicker.

[lannarebirth]

Interesting, but again I don't think this issue is really about supporting or not supporting our nation's foreign policy. Rather it is about mixing of nationals from nations at conflict in non-aligned third countries like Thailand. I think there is potential for unpleasantness there, and why ask for trouble?

Actually im going out now. I will be visiting a area where there are lots of iranians. If i have the chance to ask them tonight i'll report back tomorrow.

Hope i dont get attacked, just kidding. But if i have the chance i will ask there opinion.

Its always interesting to know both sides.

Thanks for that. I would be very curious to hear the opinions you hear. I reckon they will be varied though and you'd have to talk to a LOT of people to get a good picture of it. As far as the economic crisis in Iran now, I am sure some will blame their own government, some will blame the west and Israel, and some will blame both.

One aspect of being informed by "news media" is that you have totally wrong picture of what is going on. The American Empire couldn't care less about any country, save those that firther its interests.

We have two goals in the Middle East.

1) Is to spend as much money as we can ( as Dr. Naam has pointed out), every bullet, tank, plane shot down, death with benefits, adds to our GDP. Without "WAR" spending, it would have been clear to every economic observer that the USA was in an economic depression

2) Destabilize the region. Don't allow for any pan Arabic/Muslim entity to take shape. That threatens our economic interests. As far as that goes it's probably "mission accomplished" and time to bring the cannon fodder home.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Frankly, I think it would be bloody stupid to make a public show about being American at any Iranian space in Thailand these days.

It's tragic but it's getting to the point where I'm willing to concede that it might be bloody stupid to make a public show about being American at any place in any country these days. I'm not sure it would even be advisable in the US but then I'm not entirely sure that makes as much sense as your comment or my first sentence.

I mean, I seriously doubt anyone has been more genuinely frustrated than I have been for a decade of traveling the world and hearing people bad-mouth the US. I was an idiot, because I knew a lot of Americans. I tried to explain to Europeans, and South Americans, and Australians - that they had it all wrong. The US was the victim of smear campaigns, I explained. Their military makes mistakes sure, but then would they rather Chinese or Russian imperialism...I posed, soberly. Like a moron.

People looked at me as if I was a moron.

Then one day the realisation hit me that Dubya wasn't representing the best interests of the US. I was still the most vocal defender of Americans I'd come across; but I would make it very clear that the actions of the US government shouldn't be confused with the intent of Americans; who weren't in control of their government and who were - by and large - some of the finest people on the planet. But god it is hard to make that case to people who have been given reason to hate Americans - unwilling to tolerate my arguments. Because they would make a valid point; either Americans start arresting the traitors or they take responsibility for the actions of those whom they may or may not have elected - but if they're not going to bring them to account for their crimes....you know, that's a tough argument to counter.

I only managed to counter that argument brilliantly, once. Actually, this was maybe the 2nd or 3rd finest piece of writing I'd ever done (and I used to be a little less terrible than this, of course). God this was a fine essay; the sort of thing that changes the opinions of everyone who reads it. I couldn't reproduce it but then I tried to a dozen times and failed.

Wish I could have gratutiously and shamelessly shown off my capacity to fluke readability; but alas. My friend posted his hatred of "Americans" on my page and I wasn't going to stand for it. I wrote a couple of essays bascially admonishing him for falling into the sucker's trap of confusing Americans with their government - I explained it's what their government wants people to do (Dubya v France - Freedom Fries - "You're either with us or against us" - Axis of Evil").

I mean that filthy murderer of Americans literally responded to perhaps the single finest moment in French history, with hatred so childish it was ludicrous. He effectively called France (a top 5 global power, with nuclear weapons) part of the Axis of Evil. They were only trying to save the lives of Americans. Well...you know, mistakes are easy to make. But then if you can't rectify them, you end up with people like Sarkozy. Who stare into cameras and deadpan lecture the globe about duty and honour as French bombers were simultaneously breaching Libyian airspace. I couldn't care about Libya. But there is a country half hour south of Libya (as the Mirage flies) where 1.5 million? women and children are fighting the DUMBEST war ever. They're so stupid, it's almost laughable.

Check this out. They're taking their heads up against machetes. Is that hilarious or what! I mean, you'd think they'd give up on that tactic but they've been sticking with it for 15 years. It's just not a winning strategy, and tactically it's just...I mean, they're morons. Headbutts against machetes? Do they really expect they're going to win? I could have told their dumb headbutting heads that. They're such morons, children. And women. Oh, fyi all the men are dead. But lol @ the strategy of heads v machetes, this is comedy. It's even worse tactics. Such morons.

But then that's probably why we could have helped them. 1.5 million defenceless women and children. No interest. 200 Islamic jihadists fresh from Iraq where - surprise surprise - they were killing American 'infidel' invaders; in grave danger of running into Libyan Law & Order. Oh noes. Obama unilaterally orders a nuclear carrier group to steam to save them. And that villain Sarkozy stares into my living room and has the NERVE to talk about Honour and Duty. I'm a pacifist but you shouldn't put me in a room alone with someone like that, I might come out looking a bit sheepish. Jesus Christ. These villains are just horrifying. But anyway, Freedom Fries? Sigh. A decade later the CIA says "well, you know, about that...the French were right". Yeah I mean, if anyone didn't realise France had no interest in fabricating lies there - that's logical failing at levels that really call for a double serving of Freedom Fries.

---------------

I was not writing dribble like this. I was writing something more akin to Fitzgerald prose. Facebook wouldn't care if I dribbled the above. But then you'll have to take my word and the evidence for it; but this was some magical writing. Like, poetic. and shit.

Facebook hates Americans. Sad, but true.

They then locked me out of my account. This was curious because I had the correct password but was using 2-step verification. That's a risk you might wish to consider avoiding. Because I mean, I can show evidence of 3 weeks of Facebook refusing to SMS that 2nd step. Google were sending SMS verifications instantly. Facebook apparently couldn't deliver. No response to emails of course. I'm sure it was all a big misunderstanding; just like the accidental deletion of the most pro-American essay I argue has ever been written.

Facebook hates Americans. Or - they cow to tyrants. Which, I'm pragmatic enough to concede, I would probably do the same in their spot. But god I'm such a terrible writer, when I do fluke a masterpiece it's just not....cricket.