Cory1848

Exactly. After the Holocaust, and given the preceding two millennia of antisemitism and pogroms, the Jewish people deservedly had earned their own state, where they could have control over their own security. And where else could it have been other than where it is now? Silesia? Madagascar (where the Nazi leadership proposed sending European Jews)? Long Island, New York? Israel has made peace with two immediate neighbors as well as Turkey and a few Gulf states, and has working relationships with other Gulf states and Muslim states elsewhere. What’s preventing further progress is extremism on both sides.

Well, from what I see online, people who identify as “Muslim” make up 6.5 percent of the UK population, and the number of those who hold fanatical beliefs would be much less, so to hyperventilate about “[Muslim] religious fanatics taking over” seems excessive. That said, the large numbers of UK Muslims who sympathize with Hamas and deny their attack on Israel is indeed alarming. This, however, speaks more to the growing influence of disinformation more generally, not only in the UK but around the world. There would be ways to counter that disinformation and educate people, which might require some patience but would be far preferable to the mass deportations that you advocate (I assume, in your veiled threat: why not just say what’s on your mind?), and all the human misery and violence such deportations would entail.

Marriage as an institution is not flexible: it comes with well-defined legal rights and obligations, as well as societal expectations regarding the nature of the commitment between two married people. But it should be available to any two people who want to make that commitment to each other. As more and more countries around the world are starting to accept.

OK, granted, it may be the wording of the article and not your analysis that’s at fault -- I didn’t focus on that part of the article, and the details are a bit convoluted. But the important thing is, at least as reported in the article, they seem happy together.

Based on what you write, I certainly wouldn’t call you “homophobic,” but I would try to convince you that same-sex couples should have full equality, and that means the ability to enter into the legal/social arrangement called marriage. Why should they have to settle for anything less? You say that you are not religious but insist on a biblical interpretation -- for starters, I would completely disregard anything the Bible or the Koran may have to say about marriage, as these texts were written by men 1,500-3,000 years ago and have dubious relevance in terms of how present-day societies should organize themselves.

You’re thinking way too much about this. They’re simply human beings who, somehow, are able to provide each other with the emotional support that all humans crave on a daily basis, and they seek the same rights and status that other people enjoy, through legal/social arrangements like marriage and otherwise. If, as an outside observer, you get the “he’s” and “she’s” and “sons” and “daughters” wrong, I’m sure they won’t mind as long as you respect their humanity. I see couples all the time whose sex or gender or sexual preference I have no clue about, nor, really, is it any of my business. If they seem happy together, then I’m happy.

Thank you for sharing.

What on earth are you talking about. Violence and insurrection indeed carry prison terms; "opposition" by itself does not. Are you being hounded by the Feds for your anti-Biden posts?

Quite right -- the US has a long history of making foreign policy errors based on perceived political needs, miscalculation, or just plain hubris. I don’t think that applies to eastern Europe after the fall of communism, however -- the eastern Europeans (including Ukraine) all clamored to join Western institutions on their own accord. While the US and other Western allies welcomed these nations if they qualified, the initiative was entirely on the part of the eastern Europeans themselves; they chose their own future. If this was upsetting to the Russians, too bad; the realignment was never intended to pose a threat, and in fact Russia under progressive leadership should be more than welcome to cooperate with and even join the same Western institutions. This would certainly go far toward preventing tragedies like the recent terrorist shooting, with the sharing of intelligence etc. Such cooperation might be a ways off still, but we have to aim for it ...

Well, for one thing, while Russia and Iran are to some extent in alliance as you say, “Islamic Iran” is a Shi’a state and ISIS is Sunni, and these two branches of Islam have been in theological and often military conflict for 1,500 years. (Although it can get murky depending on a perceived third-party enemy: Iran supports Hamas, for instance, which is largely a Sunni entity.) As for your further speculation, while the US government has indeed engaged in “murky alliances of convenience” in the past and shown little regard for collateral damage, that makes no sense in this case, and as stated elsewhere US intelligence through some back channel did warn the Russians about chatter they’d tapped into leading up to this horrific attack.

Couple of things perhaps. For one, every time a ladyboy flies off the handle, you read about it; every time a ladyboy *doesn’t* fly off the handle, you don’t read about it, because it’s not newsworthy. What’s the expression -- if it bleeds, it leads. And for another, it may be that sex work itself -- whether the sex worker is a woman, a man, or a trans person -- produces its own kind of pressure and leads to a volatile personality. I don’t live in a part of Thailand known for sex tourism, and I see trans women (or ladyboys as many here would prefer) every day, working in normal jobs, like anyone else. I’m sure that most are just as comfortable with their sexuality as you or I.

Which of the Commandments has he not yet broken? -- I guess he hasn’t killed anyone with his own bare hands, though indirectly he might be responsible for more than a few deaths ...

An interesting idea. Like a meme that made the rounds when Trump was still president and Elizabeth still the queen -- the meme claimed that, thanks to some medieval English law still on the books, the English monarch had the right to dispatch any visitor with a broadsword should the visitor be deemed “damaging to the monarchy.” (Trump did visit the UK and met with Elizabeth.)

I saw that -- really informative, and really funny, too. Lays bare the excesses of unrestrained, unregulated capitalism.

You’re not kidding. The demonization of foreigners in the US and many European countries for purely political purposes (i.e., finding someone to blame) is widespread. All things considered, Thailand remains one of the world’s more tolerant and welcoming societies.

Both websites you cite have been documented as spreading lies and misinformation. You should rethink your news sources.

Well, OK, there’s JFK, shot in the head and bled to death next to his wife, in the prime of his life. That’s literal pressure, in the form of a bullet to the brain, due to no fault of his own. Basta with your inane little parlor game and crocodile tears for a crook.

Your question is rhetorical; it’s irrelevant and stupid. You think Trump deserves some kind of medal? A better question would be, what public figure in US history has gotten away with so much malfeasance for so long before it finally started catching up to him? Given Trump’s increasing confusion and unhinged behavior, the “pressure” seems to be literally driving him insane, but that would be too kind an outcome.

I've always understood that white (mostly eastern European) sex workers catered to Asian foreigners and wealthy Thai men who were specifically looking for an experience with a farang, and they were willing to pay a high premium for it. So, as you say, the novelty aspect.

But you know all about it, right?, because you do all kinds of in-depth research by reading anonymous blog posts and watching videos online. You’re a waste of time.

OK, I take deep offense at that. Seriously, you're an idiot. Go away.

I would say that there are entrenched interests in most states -- I prefer that term to “deep state,” and I would agree that entrenched interests can have real power and are generally outside the purview of elections. In China, if you want to call the Chinese Communist Party a “deep state,” up to you, but calling it the “Chinese Communist Party” is more accurate. In Russia, a “deep state” was certainly developing as wealthy oligarchs snapped up state assets after the fall of communism, but they’ve mostly been co-opted by a stronger force. In Thailand, no comment. In the US, there are certainly entrenched corporate interests who routinely purchase politicians, and maybe that’s what you’re thinking about. But these are ad hoc alliances, not long-standing institutions. The term “corporate interests” is much more accurate. In short, it’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be. And I would suggest not blindly latching onto every conspiracy theory you read about online.

Hey Dolf, my wife spent a career as a US diplomat, ending up in the Senior Foreign Service, where she had daily interactions with ambassadors, officials at the highest levels of the bureaucracy (including intelligence officers), and state and federal elected officials on foreign missions. In your addled imagination, she was in the thick of the deep state, but in reality, she was simply at the upper end of a typical bureaucracy of civil servants trying to do their jobs. Really, that’s all it was. So you’re getting your information from what, “videos”? Maybe you’re mixing up “deep state” with foreign policy blundering, I have no idea, but really, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I do. Reading your fevered posts here, I’d suggest a few weeks away from social media.

Conspiracy theory much? To imply that what happened on 9/11 was propagated by anyone other than those who actually did it, al-Qaeda, is to spit on the graves of the 3,000+ Americans and others who died on that day. Shame on you.

Just listen to yourself. “Islamist savages.” Sure, some Muslims are violent thugs, simply because they’re human, and violence is a uniquely human trait. Many non-Muslims are violent thugs, too. Did you know that twice as many Iraqi civilians were killed during the initial “Shock and Awe” campaign of Bush II’s unprovoked attack on that country, as died on 9/11? Or, for a specifically British example, there’s always Colonel Reginald Dyer, who ordered his troops to fire on a peaceful crowd at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in 1919, killing as many as 1,500. The number surely would have been higher had Dyer been able to get two armored cars into the bagh, but the entry gate was too narrow. Just one episode of the UK’s centuries-long “assault” on the developing world during the era of colonial settlement and exploitation. The statement “We have met the enemy, and he is us,” used by everyone from Walt Kelly to Oliver Stone, comes to mind: trying pondering on that for a few moments at least before launching into your next racist screed.