Embassies In Bangkok Receives Attacking Threat

[iwan]

it looks like that Spain and Honduras got out in time

you give in to terrorist they will run your life, do you sit when they tell you to sit, i feel sorry that spain make the wrong move, it should get tougher and not giving in.

are we entering stage two ... muslim's world war?

this is not about muslim or any kind of religious, it about terrorist, killer, and muderer.

If it is not religious why do the Muslims call it a "holy War".

"Holy War", isn't that an oxyMORON?

End of the day, someone wins the battle but nobody wins the war. Best thing is give them a 747 and load them all to holy land, one way. Then let them mind their own business. And the world mind theirs.

i still want to believe everyone loves peace.

[Pink Mist]

The following is an excerpt from William Blum's book "Killing Hope"

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

When a range of years is given, the effort to overthrow was not necessarily an active operation each year of the period.

* = successful ouster of a government

Australia 1973-75  *

Surely he is taking the p*ss?

Any forum members want to shed some light onto this one?

How on earth was the U.S. possibly trying to oust the Aussie government between 1973-1975? (Whitlam era from memory, Kerr sacking the PM etc)

There was a rumour that the CIA were involved in Whitlam's demise, cause he was anti septic. He stopped conscription those sorts of things. His sacking was a bit shady kerr and fraser had secret talks b4 Whitlam was summoned to gov. house, very shady and seedy.

Would be hard to prove.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Thanks for this Bronco,

As you said, would be hard to prove.

Just as I thought, another seppo writing a trumped up book with pisspoor 'facts' in it. So much for credibility in opposition!!

[Nareena]

the current world bank president has tried to loosen its policies to focus on help for the poor cos he thinks the scariest person is one who's desperate (according to the ny times i read this morning)..., it's been years but more's said than doen as usual. however, tis' still a happy thought to know someone is trying.

I'm in the states...in a very wealthy community. there's so much money here than i could ever imagine...funny thing is they don't even "feel rich". I get it now when i hear people say 'the poor are the most blessed' but sad part is the poor also have nothing to lose.

killing is wrong no matter how you justify it , tis' too sad to think some people doesnot deserve to live simply because u disagree with them.

[thinman]

It's not that you don't agree, it's that they are trying to kill you or yours.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

The following is an excerpt from William Blum's book "Killing Hope"

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

When a range of years is given, the effort to overthrow was not necessarily an active operation each year of the period.

* = successful ouster of a government

Australia 1973-75  *

Surely he is taking the p*ss?

Any forum members want to shed some light onto this one?

How on earth was the U.S. possibly trying to oust the Aussie government between 1973-1975? (Whitlam era from memory, Kerr sacking the PM etc)

E G Whitlam came to power in December 1972 and was dismissed by the Governor-General in November 1975. At the election in 1975 the Whitlam Government was not re-elected.

[Pink Mist]

The following is an excerpt from William Blum's book "Killing Hope"

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

When a range of years is given, the effort to overthrow was not necessarily an active operation each year of the period.

* = successful ouster of a government

Australia 1973-75  *

Surely he is taking the p*ss?

Any forum members want to shed some light onto this one?

How on earth was the U.S. possibly trying to oust the Aussie government between 1973-1975? (Whitlam era from memory, Kerr sacking the PM etc)

E G Whitlam came to power in December 1972 and was dismissed by the Governor-General in November 1975. At the election in 1975 the Whitlam Government was not re-elected.

There was a bit more to it than that Doc, but whether the seppos were involved nobody will ever know.

[mbkudu]

Bronco, Seppos are the masters of instalation and removal of favorable leaders who inevitably turn unfavorable.

[Up2U]

To diverge from the LOS topic even further, but to keep to the CIA bit -

In 1969 the then King of Libya, King Idris, was overthrown.

The Brit's supported Idris, had Malta as a former colony, good relationships around the Med. The septics had none of this, but wanted their 'share'. Having failed in Egypt (1956 - Nasser -v- Brits, French and Israelis, with US supporting Nasser) the septics backed a disciple of Nasser in Libya. Name of Muammar Ghaddaffi. MG succeeded in throwing out Idris and, later, the British Army. Mobil got oil contracts, the Americans got little else, besides trouble. (Sorry, Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton, got the job of overseeing the Great Man-Made River, through their subsidiary, Brown and Root)(Started 1982, still going through Phase III now)

[Foggy Bottom]

I would suggest any of you who have formed your opinions of what is going on through prime time news to do a little more research before declaring war on "Muslims"

If you hadn't noticed, this 'war' is much more about Poor vs Rich, and Rich nations trapping poor nations in cycles of poverty. Also just poor being poor .. South asia, the middle east, north africa, and even in the south of SEA .. poor, hard lives. Bored teenagers with nothing watching TV and wondering why they are getting screwed. In the harsher parts, watching their brothers and parents suffer and die (ie. Palestinian refuge camps). Getting angry, desperate.

The Muslim faith among it's many features is one that by nature provides a large safety net, hence, the support it receives in poorer areas.

The excuse of terror in most places is Palestine, which under any investigation what so ever, is a terrible travesty of justice. The creation of the state of Israel, and the violent, racist, fearful and paranoid attitudes has caused imense amount of suffering, kicked millions of innocent people out of their homes and off their land.

If Israel were to be forced to show some compassion, the terrorists would be robbed of their Justification, and I believe would rapidly deflate.

Ok now i feel better. If you care to form opinions about this issue, please go and get the facts before making public comments against 'Muslims'. Terrorists might make .0001 percent of all Muslims in this world, and have successfully hijacked the muslim label. That's sad.

Islam is a very respectful and respectable way of life that has nothing to do with terror.

As anyone who has spent time in refugee and displaced persons camps will tell you - the majority of people in them don't really care about the rich v poor arguements, or the east v west, north v south, religion v non-believer etc arguments. They just want to get back to their own lands, be surrounded by their own family and friends and get back within the normality of an environment they understand.

Muslim radicals continually refer to infidels in the same way that Christian radicals refer to heathens, and the Spanish Inquisitors referred to heretics. The problem IS that a fanatical few stir up the masses to promote their own ends without regard for the losses and misery it causes. Yes Muslim extremists may be calling for a jihad or holy war, but the majority of muslims I meet here in Chiangmai state they want no part of it and just want to be left alone to enjoy their daily lives, run their businesses and worship their God in a peaceful and devout way.

All the great "prophets" from Buddha through Christ to Mohammed endorsed peaceful co-existence with others and conversion of the unbelieving through daily example of how things should be. None of them preached armed conflict or revolutionary terror - even Christ stated, "render unto Caesar ....."

In Iraq, the way I read and hear the news reports, it is radical clerics who think they are important internationally who are stirring all the ruckus. For them the transition to self rule does not appear to be moving fast enough or in the right direction - they want Islamic totalitarianism because it legitimised their power structure and authority - ergo, they are acting for selfish reasons and not those they are taught / teach from the Koran.

England's Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots (her sister) had a similar Catholic v Protestant struggle centuries ago that led to one of the UK's bloodiest periods in history. "Let those without guilt cast the first stone"

The UK government brought the IRA to the negotiating table by effectively gagging them - they were not permitted a public voice and over the course of a decade it reduced their support and activity to a point where their political wing was eventually permitted to negotiate with government for a solution to the whole affair.

If the world security forces were to employ a similar tactic with Bin Laden and co. it may take a bit longer to achieve, but it could also be the route to closure - terrorists only want one thing - publicity for their "cause". Stop the publicity and their cause loses validity and the people will shut them out.

[Foggy Bottom]

The true terrorist state is Israel and Sharon has always been a major terrorist.. They want us all to live like they do.

W. is now helping that along.

Most of the problem stems from the aftermath of WWII and the creation of artificial nations.

Now that I DO agree with - whether referring to the eastern Mediterranean coastlands, wider middle eastern Arabia, the Indian sub continent or even the Burmo-Thai border and the lack of an independent homeland for the Karen and Shan peoples (as promised by the UK for their help in ousting the Japanese). The US is not blameless either - viz the Montagnards in the Cambodia/Vietnam border areas or the Laotian Hmong who assisted CIA attempts to stop communism engulfing Laos.

Our western governments had too many centuries of using and abusing native forces then abandoning them when life got too tough. Hong Kong was the latest example - if it was such a jewel in the Empire's crown, why didn't the UK negotiate harder for another lease? At least then the residents who remained would not have the problems they're reportedly encountering today.

[Guest chingy]

i was down at the American services in bangkok this week to add more page to my PP, somehow they don't allow you to walk right in anymore, you have to stand outside the compound, only 5 people are allow in at a time, i mean before if you were an American and need service you just walk right in, only people that need visa to the US would have to wait in line, i don't mind waiting in line like everybody else, but the only thing freak me out is, what if some moron wanna bomb the place, he11 i would stand right in his way, wouldn't that give a scare too. after all the bomb threat is going around.

[Dickie]

If it is not religious why do the Muslims call it a "holy War".

They don't. The nutters who are causing the trouble invoke 'Holy War' to con impressionable people into supporting it "for Allah". Most muslims see it for what it is: terrorism.

[Pink Mist]

Bronco, Seppos are the masters of instalation and removal of favorable leaders who inevitably turn unfavorable.

I know that mate and there was a lot of rumour an inuendo flying around at the time, but to prove manipulation by the CIA would be hard.

Maybe they bought some votes to block supply, who knows.

As I said b4 kerr and frazer did their secret mens business in the morning and Gough was sacked in the afternoon.

Why were the liberals appointed as the kerrtaker goverment, only kerr knows that.

[Lifelover]

A really good read for a change. Great contribution Notus and right on the button. Gaz CM too. Thanks for raising the standard of debate.

As the list Notus reprinted testifies, the USA has always been a militaristic power and one that has been intent, overtly and covertly, to change regimes worldwide to suit its own agenda. What is new more recently is its move toward straightforward imperialism in the name of anti-terrorism.

Anyone with an interest in what is happening in Iraq (and Afghanistan) today should familiarise themselves with Britain’s last disasterous attempt to colonise the country. In 1920 Britain had more military on the ground in Iraq than the US has there today. Then, as now, they faced a revolt against colonial rule from an enemy that consisted of undisciplined militias. In 1920, the British eventually ended the rebellion through a combination of aerial bombardment and punitive village-burning expeditions. After the revolt had been crushed the British installed the Hashemite prince Faisal as king, but in fact Iraq did not become formally independent until 1932 and British troops remained there until 1955. With US and world public opinion today rapidly turning against continuation of the occupation of Iraq and a Presidential election looming, talk is now centred on handing over formal power to the Iraqis, but those lucrative oil and construction contracts and the strategic military gains that have come from establishing a foothold in this region will not be safeguarded unless American troops remain to keep order well after the nominal turnover of power. So expect history to repeat itself and don’t for a moment pretend that what is happening in Iraq today has anything to do with defeating terrorism.

So what about the religious debate? This is not about religion, it is about imperialism. It is not about Islamic terrorists, it is about emotion and psychology and the political factors that subjugation and overbearing dominance give rise to. America and Americans are hated universally (in this context, not by everyone) not because they are a predominantly Christian people, but because they feel they have the right to flex their might wherever they think they are right. And more insidiously, to export their culture around the world at the expense of others, usually without any understanding, still less regard, for what they are displacing.

An article published by Marianne Williamson this week put the real problem into focus. She wrote: What the United States government doesn't seem to understand is that you can't just go around destroying people you don't like, and expect all your problems to be over. Behind every Viet Cong there was another one behind the next tree. Behind Saddam there now appears Moktade al-Sadr, and once we've dealt with him, the consciousness he represents will morph into another leader just as troublesome. Until we recognize the importance of our relationship to the hearts and minds of the people of the world, we will continue to inspire enmity despite whatever good intentions we actually bring to the table. You cannot impose your will on other people -- even if your will is for their higher good -- and not expect them to resent you. A nation is a collection of individuals, and individuals are deeply influenced by their feelings. Imposing your will on others is a basically disrespectful stance, and showing disrespect --- particularly to an Arab male, whose culture so focuses on honor and respect -- is psychologically and emotionally inept.

Governments tend to approach life from a left-brain, rationalistic perspective - which is fine, except that most people don't. In l997, an Egyptian diplomat in Agra, India, told Marianne:

"I do not mean this as a criticism of the United States," he said. "I know the Americans are good men and women. But please try to make them understand; many people in my part of the world feel they have been forced to try to keep up with you, in a race we do not really care to run. Your technology is amazing, but America seems spiritually polluted to many of us. Your ways are not our ways, and while we were tempted for a while to think that your ways should be our ways, we do not think that anymore.

This is the problem, Ms. Williamson, and there will be terrible consequences in the world if Americans do not come to understand this. Islamic terrorists have had such success - if you would call their campaigns a success - because they have been able to persuade millions of peasants that America is bad. It was not too difficult to do, Ms. Williamson. All they have to do is describe the television programs you export to this part of the world, and people are horrified.

Your government does not understand. They do not see how the people feel. We need the American people to understand. Perhaps you will bring more Americans to our part of the world. If they come to understand us, then they will respect us. We would feel that respect, and then I don't think the terrorists would have such success. This is not a job the CIA can do. It is only a job which people can do."

[Notus]

Reply for Bronco & SeaVisionBurma et al..

Your comments:

There was a rumour that the CIA were involved in Whitlam's demise, cause he was anti septic. He stopped conscription those sorts of things. His sacking was a bit shady kerr and fraser had secret talks b4 Whitlam was summoned to gov. house, very shady and seedy.

Would be hard to prove.

Thanks for this Bronco,

As you said, would be hard to prove.

Just as I thought, another seppo writing a trumped up book with pisspoor 'facts' in it. So much for credibility in opposition!! END OF COMMENTS

Another "seppo", "piss poor facts"? - hey, try a bit of listening (reading) and learning.

Point of information...

The Australia CIA/ALP debacle has already been substantiated, check out these (plus about another 30000 sites with similar accredited information)http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue43/articles/1975_australia.htm

For a bigger list of US "extra-judicial activity" see http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/usbomber.htm

The first website mentioned starts like this:

1975, Australia: Overthrowing Whitlam's Labour Party

Chris Boyce, a cipher clerk at TRW, a California-based aerospace corporation, claimed during his espionage trial that he started spying against the U.S. after learning of the CIA's role in the downfall of the Australian Labour Party (ALP) government in 1975.

Australia was a very important part of the CIA's world-wide intelligence network. Thousands of CIA employees were stationed in Australia. It is a vital part of the early warning and nuclear war fighting system. The major U.S. bases in Australia - Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North-West Cape - were of very high importance to the U.S. during the 1960s and 1970s. END OF EXCERPT

It's a good article and worth reading, preferably with eyes open.

Why no comments about the US' persistent use of funds over the years to destabilise or overthrow governments, or to maintain terrorist networks (eg via Noraid)? Isnt that a classic definition of terrorism ie to achieve economic, political or social advantage through violence or the threat of violence? I havent checked but I think thats pretty close to the FBI definition of terrorism.

Thanks to Lifelover and others for the more cautious and considered contribution to these world issues.

Notus

[SeaVisionBurma]

Reply for Bronco & SeaVisionBurma et al..

Another "seppo", "piss poor facts"? - hey, try a bit of listening (reading) and learning.

The Australia CIA/ALP debacle has already been substantiated, check out these (plus about another 30000 sites with similar accredited information)

Thanks, I checked out a few of your "30,000 sites with similar accredited information", and duly read a number of them "with my eyes open"

As stated before, another seppo writing a trumped up article with piss poor facts. This reaks of conspiracy theory.

I might have given the articles a second glance, except that many from completely different websites (all with obscure origins)

CONTAINED EXTRACTS OF EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING.

ie they seemed mostly plagiarized from a common source.

Give me a break. Elvis is still alive, Diana was murdered and Harold Holt owns a couple of pubs near Alice Springs after the Chinese submarines dropped him back home.

Proper facts = proper acceptance (ie if you can substantiate with some credibility I'll believe it.)

Otherwise get stuffed.

[BlackJack]

the som tum lady told me that "fear is the mind killer"

i said "use the fork Luke" and "may the fork be with you"

she never replied

[mbkudu]

If you would like to become a terrorist just enroll at the School of the Americas.

They'll teach you everything you need to know to brainwash, propagandise and ultimately overthrow a country by force and intimidation.

[Moving]

Lifelover and others...I'm really on dangerous grounds, don't like religious forums (betrays my ignorance of religions)....However,

Good posts, a plethora of issues and contributing factors that cause us all to examine whether terrorism (murder) is the result of a religious agenda or the result of some form of covert "imperialism"...some may say "nationalism".

It is OK for Muslims to kill innocent men, women and children in the name of religion?

Is it OK for governments to do the same (covertly or overtly) under the name of "national" security?

Is the perceived threat to a religion more important than the perceived threat to a nation?

The founders of the US felt it very important that there be a separation of Church and State.

The fact that there are many Muslim countries and NOT a single Muslim country is largely due to greed (money) and the amount of control enjoyed by the ruling factions...Don't think that this is solely a trait largely attributed to "imperialism, capitalism, colonialism, or any other particular 'isms"

Until we have a global solution I would ask this QUESTION...

How many Christians, Buddhist, or Hindus have recently flown planes into public building that killed thousands? How many have climbed on board a bus with women and children and blown themselves up? How many have place bombs aboard a train and killed hundreds of innocents? How many have place bombs outside Embassies (worldwide) and killed hundreds? How many have burned schools and killed soldiers, policeman and Monks in Thailand? AND have done so with premeditated malice and intent!!!

For the most part Muslims factions have claimed responsibility for the murders...Be it a small percentage of Muslims...I don't know, but I believe that as many of the forum posters have stated...If the Muslim community REALLY believes that this terrorism is MURDER and that it is being committed by Muslims in the name of Islam/Mohammad than THEY, as believing members of the faith, are responsible for stopping it !!!!!!!!!!! Either be the solution or the problem.

[phazey]

Until we have a global solution I would ask this QUESTION...

How many Christians, Buddhist, or Hindus have recently flown planes into public building that killed thousands? How many have climbed on board a bus with women and children and blown themselves up? How many have place bombs aboard a train and killed hundreds of innocents? How many have place bombs outside Embassies (worldwide) and killed hundreds? How many have burned schools and killed soldiers, policeman and Monks in Thailand? AND have done so with premeditated malice and intent!!!

For the most part Muslims factions have claimed responsibility for the murders...Be it a small percentage of Muslims...I don't know, but I believe that as many of the forum posters have stated...If the Muslim community REALLY believes that this terrorism is MURDER and that it is being committed by Muslims in the name of Islam/Mohammad than THEY, as believing members of the faith, are responsible for stopping it !!!!!!!!!!! Either be the solution or the problem.

That depends on your perspective.

What would happen if (insert superpower here) invaded india/china/thailand ?

Think about the first "terrorist" bombing in Isreal...it's just about opposition of occupation....

./P

[Moving]

Agree...depends or one's perspective/definition...invasion, occupation, opposition...which justifies which and which came first.

Knew I shouldn't have sent that post...now I'm getting a headache. Should have stuck with what I do best...Wine, women and song.

[phazey]

Agree...depends or one's perspective/definition...invasion, occupation, opposition...which justifies which and which came first.

Knew I shouldn't have sent that post...now I'm getting a headache. Should have stuck with what I do best...Wine, women and song.

ELVIS ????

[Moving]

OK, OK, OK....can't sing either....

[hansco]

So much for security!

  the security car parked outside had the back door wide open with with a shotgun laying on the back seat while the guard chatted 6 feet away! I could have walked up, grabbed it and blown half the embassy away if I was a terrorist. 

Simon

Are you sure it was loaded?

Don't mean to state the obvious but didn't check, it was a pump action shotgun and I could have had a few shells in my pocket!!!!!!

There were 2 armed guards, one was sitting in the shade reading the paper and the other one was standing 6 feet away talking to the another unarmed security person!

I will be writing to the embassy concerned!

Say no more!

[Notus]

Hey SVB

it's really good to have the opportunity to discuss topics sensibly with an articulate and well-informed world citizen!

"Get stuffed" - is that a recipe?

So, you are still unconvinced about the CIA/USA involvement in Government destabilisation around the world since WW2. Fair enough, given what you have written already it's mosy unlikely you would suddenly experience an epiphany of insight and understanding. Or...maybe you agree with all the others, but not the Oz incident? Up to you of course.

Any room for a response on the very specific charge that the US through its actions (usually the spending of large sums and the subornment of individuals via the CIA) has sponsored terrorism to achieve regime and other changes over the past few decades? This is surely a hard one to ignore or argue against as most of the claims have been directly accepted by the CIA or previous CIA operatives. Often of course through the release of Government papers after the 30 or 40 years period. But I realise your quandary in replying to this so I am preparing myself to get stuffed in advance.

Phazey's post is worth comment, he makes good rhetoric but asking important questions. I find that most of the discussions depend on the time horizon selected by the individual - and most correspondents with this forum choose the time period of 11th of September and afterwards. Not that there were no atrocities prior to then: hijacking used to be a popular terrorist activity though usually for less grand schemes and not for changes in the global structure. But other correspendants use longer time horizons and ask the question - what happened to drive a community (terrorist or national) to conduct bombing campaigns such as that on 11th September? Terrorism (and the Imperialism it usually fights against) has been around for a long time: Christian Crusades were taken to the Muslim lands to enforce the western viewpoint; American aboriginal natives (including US red Indians) were slaughtered to make way for the more, well white, incomers; the Likud terrorist group bombed the King David Hotel to try to force the UK to support the UN in granting the state of Israel; what about Oklahoma and Timothy?; and locally we have the country of Laos as testament to international terrorism. Many more examples of course but is it safe to say that the US dropped more bombs on poor Laos than have ever been planted by terrorists since?

In this company, one has to say that I do not and never have supported terrorism - by any group or country, ever. I believe the attacks on NYC were appalling; those on Madrid just as awful. I say "in this company" because if one argues against the US many correspondents just knee-jerk that you are on the side of the terrorists. I am not on the side of the terrorist in any way. Nor is Michael Moore on the side of the terrorists but he, other celebrities and so many ordinary US people are against the US foreign policies but have no voice. Anyway, I feel that recent terrorist activity is no worse or better that that for example, perpetrated by the provisional IRA in UK (or before that by the British police on Irish Republicans). It is so tragically ironic though that both Al Quaeda (Osama) and the IRA were substantially funded via the USA in earlier years.

Well SeaVisionBurma, I dont expect you to agree or even to reply. And as I am already preparing to get stuffed, you need not send any insults either. Just think for a minute, are those who are against recenty US involvement in world affairs, are they all mad, idiots or terrorism sponsors, or is it just possible that they may have an argument? Are you sure they are anti-USA, that seems to easy an option for you to take? Certainly you may not like what I and others say but are you so sure you are always right and they are always wrong?

Notus

[SeaVisionBurma]

So, you are still unconvinced about the CIA/USA involvement in Government destabilisation around the world since WW2.

Or...maybe you agree with all the others, but not the Oz incident? Up to you of course.

Got it in one, you patronizing clever little person you.

I was referring to the Oz incident ONLY - nowhere in any of my posts in this thread have I once made comment on all of the other conspiracy-driven allegations you seem so bent on pushing.

Most of the bright forum posters already know that US foreign policy, whether open or secret, has laid off many a government around the world in the past 6 decades. However I wanted to have a stab at the Australian conspiracy theory without dragging the thread down into a bunch of over-indulgent, 700-odd word replies as you seem to want to do.

Now, read my original posts again, and then read your last post - and tell me if you were perhaps just a little too quick to jump in with your monster.

My post

Surely he is taking the p*ss?

Any forum members want to shed some light onto this one?

How on earth was the U.S. possibly trying to oust the Aussie government between 1973-1975? (Whitlam era from memory, Kerr sacking the PM etc)

refers to Australia 1973-1975 only

Where in this have I asked you to put your two cents worth in about:

conduct bombing campaigns such as that on 11th September....... Christian Crusades..... taken to the Muslim lands to enforce the western viewpoint............. Likud terrorist group bombed the King David Hotel.........American aboriginal natives (including US red Indians).............the country of Laos as testament to international terrorism..................what about Oklahoma and Timothy?

What do these all have to do with my question about Australia? Stuff all (therefore Get Stuffed actually doesn't sound that bad afterall, does it - incidentally- it is not strictly speaking, an insult. It implies disbelief in a statement in this instance)

Rather than sarcastically implying that I am not an articulate or well-informed citizen, you should perhaps remember that the forum is a place for anonymous banter, and you don't know the first thing about anyone else here. So if responding to someone else's particular post - stick to the content of their post.

as for my views on US foreign policy - you seem to have assumed I am pro-US!!! if only you knew.

cheers, and enjoy the stuffing.

SVB

[Notus]

Dear SeaVisionMyanmar

Your posts: anonymous? Yes! Banter? Not in my book. You swing between sarcasm, condescension and insults.

However, I do feel bad about writing long posts aimed at you and bronco but the rest of the members have to read or skip. So no more overlong posts.

Lest we forget: the thread started with the most recent Embassy terrorist notifications and the forum twaddle that started afterwards, generally denouncing Muslims, Spain, anybody that didnt openly support the US of A. My original post was to point out that the US has been the worst terrorist organisation around since WW2 - through subornment and violence; and that the world should not be focused on providing carte blanche to the US to respond however it liked, seemingly in pursuit of such terrorist. Take Iraq (and the US did I guess) as an example. Take Oz as another - but thats the one you disagree on and have focussed on the exclusion of all else in my posts. Up to you. Now it has just become personal and not worthy of further comment. Never mind, if I thought you were an idiot I would never have replied.

Bye

Notus

[Mai Krap]

I think the point here is simple,,,,,,,,, Will the problems in the south make it to Bangkok,,,,,,, I think it is likely...... The reason being is easy targets...... If you go to the mall in the Phillipines every person and every bag is checked and there is only one entrance and all the exits have armed gaurds...... Recently I carried a very heavy box weighing around 70 pounds that could have been anything onto the sky train...... It was all taped up and the security never even looked up..... I have a large beard and have been asked by thais if I was Lebonese,,, Palistinian,,, and such .... In general the security level here is very lax and reactionary.....

[phazey]

Dust off and nuke the site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.