Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Seems a pretty bigotted statement to me.

No noticeable change in the security-level at the airport, when I did a pick-up, yesterday evening FWIW.

No noticeable change in the security-level at the airport, when I did a pick-up, yesterday evening FWIW.

Terrorists never fly AA because of the add-on charges for bombs, knives, etc. The operation would get to expensive.

David

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Would you care to give us the countries that make up the American Empire.

Or are you just a disgruntled citizen who like many of us can not get a visa for are partners?

So you just make up absurd statements.

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Would you care to give us the countries that make up the American Empire.

Or are you just a disgruntled citizen who like many of us can not get a visa for are partners?

So you just make up absurd statements.

Simple answer to all your questions: No.

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Seems a pretty bigotted statement to me.

I struggle with this one, given that the -- or at any rate a typical -- definition of bigot is '

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.' But I imagine you were just trying to grab and apply a word that seemed to you would make your statement a proper denunciation.

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Seems a pretty bigotted statement to me.

I struggle with this one, given that the -- or at any rate a typical -- definition of bigot is '

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.' But I imagine you were just trying to grab and apply a word that seemed to you would make your statement a proper denunciation.

How about "poseur"?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Seems a pretty bigotted statement to me.

I struggle with this one, given that the -- or at any rate a typical -- definition of bigot is '

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.' But I imagine you were just trying to grab and apply a word that seemed to you would make your statement a proper denunciation.

Perhaps you are correct....... I struggled for quite a bit, but out of respect for this forum, I didn't want to say a$$hole comment. Your statement was way out of line. ....... and bigotted does in fact fit perfectly. ..... now..... go a-courtin and you do ride , sword and pistol right by your side.

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Seems a pretty bigotted statement to me.

I struggle with this one, given that the -- or at any rate a typical -- definition of bigot is '

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.' But I imagine you were just trying to grab and apply a word that seemed to you would make your statement a proper denunciation.

I think the reason your statement might seem bigoted is that the way you've phrased it could be taken as ambivalence for support on an attack on the embassy. I trust you didn't mean it that way, but at first blush I was also a bit taken aback. Perhaps it was your undefined use of the word "dilemma", which primes the following statement to be read as if an attack would only be unsavory if innocent (again, undefined in this case - the embassy staff, or passers-by?) folks were blown to smithereens. Surely an attack on an embassy is a tragedy, even if no one is killed. But again, I'm confident that's not what you meant.

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Yes, I'm appalled with this statement, too. Also one in the "news" portion of this forum where someone said it would be a "win-win" proposition to close down the American consulate here. Clearly, people making these posts haven't used their "American citizen services" and seen what good, caring people they are.

Before I had occasion to interact with the Am. Consulate in CM, I'd always thought the joke about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" applied to all branches of U.S. government. Nope, it's really true with the folks at the Consulate; they do help numerous U.S. citizens in need and CM wouldn't be as good a place for retirees without their presence.

Edited February 14, 201313 yr by NancyL

Interesting dilemma. However much one might be pleased at the prospect of the destruction of outlying symbols of the American empire, one finds oneself concerned by the prospect of collateral damage hurting innocents.

Yes, I'm appalled with this statement, too.

Not as appalled as the many innocents killed during US occupations of their countries. Adding 'freedom' to the name of forced occupations of oil rich countries only fools fools imo.

though many folks disagree with the actions of the US, attacking an embassy is akin to shooting the messenger. let's not confuse one for the other. if i don't like a thread on thaivisa, do i throw tomatoes at their office? well, i might if they were suffering a severe tomato shortage inside, but otherwise, not.

The discussion is completely absurd.

I know!! And so unlike Thaivisa. Weird..

A friend of mine would go for a walk every day and stop at the Mosque they were building in the Night Bazaar area. A lot of the workers were Muslim. I asked him if in one ever bothered him he said no a few were friendly but there was a couple who made it clear he was not welcome there.

This shows some really peculiar assumptions. We had a business partner visiting from the Middle East recently, who is a devout Muslim (yet open minded, and interested in other cultures) so we've been exploring Mosques and Muslim areas and Muslim food over the past two weeks or so, indeed visiting well known Ban Haw mosque in Chang Klan Soi 1, and people are MOST welcoming and very friendly. This includes visiting all the little Halal eateries in that area and elsewhere and people are friendly and interested. (Also when I was there with a non Muslim girl earlier). Actually got talking about some socio-cultural stuff for Muslim Thais, and how certain things differ from other Thais. Learned a few things.

They're almost more friendly than other Thais, if that's possible.

I know this is off-topic, but so is scarist ignorance, so let me add some sanity.

Edited February 15, 201313 yr by WinnieTheKhwai