Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jspill

  1. 14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

    It wasn't occupation. It was liquidation. 

    These lame attempts to conflate the holocaust with Israeli government policies are antisemitic by definition. 

    By the definition of the ADL, a very dubious organisation, not by the definition of many Jews who have said exactly the same things I have in this thread, Norman Finklestein, Gilad Atzmon, etc., are not afraid to point out similarities between zionism and Nazism, both are militantly ethnonationalist ideologies. Pulling the 'antisemitic' card is a copout meant to scare people off but it's just resulting in support for Israel dropping year on year on the left and right, so keep it up. Special points for Nyezhov for implying all European people are inherently antisemitic, same thing Bari Weiss said on the Joe Rogan show. 

    • Like 1

  2. 15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

    Funny you failed to mention the nakba of Jews from North Africa and the Middle East.


    That might hurt the one sided Israel demonization narrative. 


    We can't have that!

    The 'Jewish nakba' refers to Jews going to Israel to live in their newly colonized home, whereas the Palestinians were being kicked out of theirs becoming refugees, not really comparable is it. Some were flown over or flew themselves, on average they were much richer and in much less danger. Compared to being forced on a death march through the desert carrying your stuff. There was some violence against them but it was after the creation of Israel, 1948 war and Nakba of Palestinians, so obviously there will be a lot of people angry about that in other Arab countries. Many Jewish historians themselves completely reject this comparison and notion of a Jewish nakba. 


    'Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that while there is a superficial similarity, the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are entirely different. Porath points out that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the "fulfilment of a national dream".'


    'Yehuda Shenhav has criticized the analogy between Jewish emigration from Arab countries and the Palestinian exodus. He also says "The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation."'


    'Iraqi Jews aren't refugees, saying "nobody expelled us from Iraq' - Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim


    ''They were not all poor, or 'dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits'. Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person."'


    Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations." And Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: "I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."



  3. 1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

    The genocide of the european jews ended in 1945. According to some here the "genocide" on Palestiniens is going on, though - amazingly - the population is growing fast. See the difference?

    It would be like European Jews still being under Nazi occupation 75 years later, and their population finally getting back to what it was in 1995, and now in 2020 a bit higher, but not growing 'fast' compared to their birth rates of the past. Only fast compared to the West today, not compared to their past or the West of the past. By their standards it's slow and as the graph shows their birth rates are dropping. 


    In that hypothetical scenario people would call it an ongoing genocide



  4. On 3/2/2020 at 4:37 PM, JustAnotherHun said:

    Very strange "genocide" while Gaza has the world highest birth rate.

    Well done IDF!

    It has been in decline. Yes it's still higher than the developed world but that's not saying much.


    'The total fertility rate declined during (2011-2013) to 4.1 births (compared to 5.9 births in 1999).' https://imemc.org/article/report-over-13-million-palestinians-worldwide-by-2020/


    Used to be closer to 8 




    People are accustomed to thinking genocides need to be in the millions of deaths, well there were only 1.2 million non Jews in Palestine before the Nakba by the 1946 census - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present


    Then 150 thousand in 1948, about a million were kicked out or shot if they resisted, and some died being kicked out from heat stroke etc. basically a death march into the desert carrying their stuff. It took about 50 years for the non Jewish population to get back to where it was

  5. On 2/28/2020 at 7:25 PM, Orton Rd said:

    NOT genocide that was what the Jews suffered in Germany, not a few hundred terrorists killed over the years. These idiots could have had their Palestine in the 30's with the Jew restricted to just 20% of the area- they said NO. They said NO in 1948 and twice since. The Palestinians are not and never have been interested in a 2 state solution, they just want their own with no Israel, well tough it's not going to happen but they never seem to learn.


    Militant zionists (terrorists) killed hundreds of British soldiers because they said no to the way the Brits wanted to set up Israel in the 40s (in a way that was fair to the Arabs). Like blowing up the British HQ (1946), and hanging up dead bodies of soldiers with booby traps to further injure the soldiers to went to cut them down (the Sergeant's affair, 1947) or blowing up a boat of people the Brits were deporting because they didn't have entry permits (1940 SS Patria sinking). They aren't interested in a 2 state solution either, Netanyahu recently declared Israel is 'the nation state of the Jewish people alone'. They expand and annex new land year on year.


    I can't for the life of me understand why people who complain about Muslim terrorists would then support this other Middle Eastern nation with its history of terrorism

    • Thanks 1

  6. On 2/28/2020 at 7:18 PM, sanemax said:

    We need another word in the English language then because when the word "genocide" is used, people think that it means the act of mass killing 

    Well ethnic cleansing, but they also deny there's any any of that going on. Some even deny the acts of mass killing, saying Deir Yassin was 'debunked'. Even individual deaths, American activist Rachel Corrie was run over and killed by a bulldozer 'accidentally', etc. 

  7. It's a common misconception that genocide has to wipe out most of a population, the term was coined by Rafael Lemkin (Jewish incidentally) and can include expulsion (700k expelled in 1948, many yet unable to return), 'causing serious bodily or mental harm' (bulldozing homes will do that), preventing births (Israel's pro natal policies really only focus on Jews), imposing poor living conditions (check). Mass killing isn't necessary, although there have been plenty of small scale massacres

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

  8. 1 hour ago, toast1 said:

    Here we see the hatred and obsession of Jewish Israel become mental illness. 

    Just the mention of Jewish Israel and the usual idiots start writing long essays on the evil Jewish state. 

    There are millions suffering persecution in the middle east, no one cares. 


    Only Jewish Israel causes these angry obsessive 

    to start preaching and shrieking. 

    They pretend it's about Palestinian rights. It isn't. 


    I read a very level-headed response backed up by facts from Jewish sources. If the only rebuttal you're capable of is to simply call them antisemitic / mentally ill then no wonder support for Israel continues to drop across the US.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  9. There's no real need to because it's so easy to stay there for years on tourist visas, I never met an expat there that bothered with the retirement visa. You'd be wasting money depositing the required funds in a Filipino bank to earn near-zero interest instead of investing it somewhere yourself. 


    You can just extend tourist visas within the country for several years at a time then take a quick flight out of the country, turn around and start over again.

    • Like 1

  10. If it's your first ever Ed visa and you've been in Thailand less than 6 months in the last 12 you might be ok in Laos. But yes there are lots of threads recently about people denied especially if they don't meet those criteria, you can probably find with a search. Some were even denied with less of a visa history than that and / or told their school has been blacklisted completely. Some people are now applying in Vietnam instead. 

  11. 43 minutes ago, Hal65 said:

    The 5 year is being brought up again so I guess I'll elaborate on the awkwardness of my age. I have 17 years before the age of 50. This means:


    - 1 20 year covers me

    - 2 EDs and 3 5 years cover me for a little more than a 50% premium


    * And my net worth will make the decision on the later 2 5 year Elites much less eventful compared to now

    ** The problem is it's quite likely the Elite Visa schemes may not be around in 10+ years. Wealthy nations don't like having these backdoors for numerous reasons (don't need the money, it's a bad look, etc)


    To me it is a bigger loss to lose access to Thailand than to ride a 20 year for say 8, effectively paying $4,000 per year instead of a little less than $2,000. One cost is trivial, the other is significant.


    Bouncing between PH and Thailand is compelling though. I'm not much of a traveller and would have to pay for storing a large room's worth of stuff, and then paying movers to relocate everything. Doing that twice per year wouldn't be too bad though. It's not my first preference but it's a decent alternative.

    I'm the same age as you 33, at some point you'll probably want kids, and then your visa issues are taken care of at only 1900 baht a year... even a non Thai kid you can get a visa based on them going to an international school here


    I did the bouncing back and forth between Thailand and Philippines for years and it was great fun but eventually you slow down and want to start a family

    • Haha 1

  12. 18 hours ago, overherebc said:


    Wasn't the 180 day rule taken off the books years ago?


    Yes it was.


    Why do they and posters still talk about it?


    You tell me!!!


    90 days per 180 is the rule that was taken off the books years ago. In 2008.


    180 days per year, has never been an official rule but we see many reports of IOs refusing people on that basis. 

    • Like 2

  13. 1 hour ago, at15 said:

    your going to be responsible for the fine no matter what the law says. thais are not obligated to rent condos and apartments to foreigners. in the future i predict no foreigners on tourist visas will be allowed to rent and there will be designated hotels were tourists are allowed to stay and that is it. 

    That's how it works in Myanmar, need a business visa to rent a condo.

  14. People in your position have got in with no problems via land, then flown domestic from Hat Yai to BKK or wherever you're going. Much easier than airports. You will probably need an SETV though as you can only do 2 land border crossings without a visa per year, which you've already done. Some chance they don't enforce that but best to get an SETV anyway. Also helps to have the equivalent of 20k baht in cash on hand to show just in case they ask to see it as proof of funds. A land border is more likely to ask and then decide to not deny you, whereas airports have their mind made up already and not even ask before denying entry.

    • Like 1

  15. 17 hours ago, Happy4th said:

    If you are ever flying into Thailand and worried about getting a refusal I would first consult with Thai Visa Centre


    They can ensure that you wont be put in such a situation.


    Safe travels.

    This company's service is 150k to be put on the books of some shell company and get a work permit for a year, then 10k / year after that for renewals. Obviously I'm suspicious but if someone with more than a few posts on thaivisa has ever done it successfully I would do it. 

  • Create New...