What Sarah really said In Interview

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#81

Well your argument would seem perfectly logical, except it is somewhat divorced from reality. The conflict was most certainly not of a classical textbook right versus left variety, in that there was a strict religious divide amongst the participant paramilitaries in that most everybody in PIRA would have been Catholics and most everybody in the “Loyalist” paramilitaries would have been Protestant. That said, had Sinn Fein PIRA succeeded in its aim of establishing a 32 county all Ireland Republic, the idea that it would have been a liberal democracy something like Sweden would in my view, be up there with the concept of Hallal flying pigs.

If one crashes a large fully fueled airliner in to a large building at a high velocity, one will get a fuel air mixture explosion, when one detonates a C4 plastic charge one gets an explosion basically the same thing.

Well “religious Fundementalists” is a nonsense term, Humpty Dumpty would probably use it, except he would be too embarased. Regularly, people will say that they have no problem with Islam or Judaism or Christinity and it is just the “religious fundamentalists”, they have a problem with, well if the fundamentals of the religion are okay, then the people who should be the most decent and peaceable who happen to have a religious faith should be the “religious fundamentalists”, since they are seeking out the fundamental aspects of their religion and trying to live their lives by those aspects.

Defacto, all you saying there is that, since you have no coherent argument to offer, you will sling unfounded abuse at me and threaten to take your toys away and play somewhere else.

It does however fly full in the face of Scientific fact. With that in mind I stand by my original statement.

So you were there as a witness at the creation of the universe, jeepers you must gettin on a bit, more power to ye. My Wiki, is telling me the universe is 13.73 billion years old, so presumably if you might be a sprightly youngster of say 100,000 years old, even if the Wiki figure is out a billion or two years, I don’t suppose even if you might be 100,000 years old you would have been there to witness the creation of the Universe. So basically, you would still be getting your ideas as to the age of the universe from wiki or a lecturer in a University. Personally, I find the idea that the World was created about 4,000 years ago totally unbelievable but I do not wish to force my ideas down other people’s throats like some aggressive secularists and equally aggressive religious folks and frankly I find some of the bs that comes from some so called scientists, just as bonkers as that from some so called religious people. Much of what is presented as science fact, is in fact a theory and often little better than the personal opinion of somebody who happens to be wearing a white coat. I would also note that, Herr Hitler who was no stranger to embracing crackpot ideas, found no shortage of scientists to go along with them. What you are basically doing is embracing populist bigotry and illusion which does not appear to be what it is, merely for the reason it happens to be the fashionable and done thing at the moment. Much as at one time, burning female herbalists as witches was the done thing, for the reason it distracted attention from the fact that conventional medical practice in the middle ages was so terrible that a very effective but painful and complicated way of killing oneself was to seek treatment from a doctor of conventional medicine for a minor illness.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#82

You’re right, there are probably several factions within the Saudi power elite with different goals and even for those supporting the Jihadists, they had a certain legitimacy in that it was a disgrace what the Serbs and the Croats were allowed to do to the Muslims in what is basically central Europe, in that for instance the Serbs grabbed the inventory of the Yugoslav Army and as such had main battle tanks and the Muslims got the militia weapons ie AK-47s and just to keep things fair the UN slaps a weapons import embargo on the former Yugoslavia, fair for whom?

Well I do not think I would go as far as agreeing that there has been no problems with Muslims in North America, but in general the USA has had a better experience with its Muslim citizens than Europe but there are a whole load of cultural and demographic issues involved there, in that e.g. the political elites in several Western European countries have gone out of their way to pander to extremist elements within their Muslim communities.

I have never said that all Muslims are fanatics, I have never said that the majority of Muslims are fanatics. What I do maintain is that it is very much more than a tiny minority. Nor do I maintain that the Koran advocated violence and disrespect to non-Muslims. However all that said , a Danish newspaper publishes a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed pbuh and much of the Muslim World explodes like it is the end of days, I saw the cartoon well so what, it was not even insulting the prophet it was insulting people who use his message as a vehicle for their personal murdering activities, so what is insulting to Islam about that. And in fact much of what passes for “Islamic” education does turn Muslims in to extremists especially when this is allied to a Western media and political elite that constantly encourages Muslims to view themselves as victims of oppression by West.

Well one of the issues in the Arab and Islamic World is that would be “Islamic” activists know that, in at least a number of cases if one pushes the ruling regime far enough, say by public demonstrations that they would be prepared to use tanks in the cities and machine gun protestors. Frankly I do not think it would be a satisfactory or acceptable situation that things would be let get to the stage that the Governments in Europe would be holding Islamofascists in check by threatening to fight them with tanks on the Street of the Cities of Europe. NB I have difficulty in writing this particular part of the response in that in many of these countries, the Islamofascist element of the opposition and legitimate Islamist opposition blends one in to the other given that the ruleing regimes are often so appaling themselves and opposition to them can be composed of both legitimate and non-legitimate Islamic activists. Furthermore, whilst these regimes have proved robust to a fair degree against quote “Islamist opposition” un-quote, the nature of the Government is for it often to be pandering at a huge degree to Islamofascism like e.g. the treatment of Christians in Pakistan is appaling and this is supposed to be a Western alligned regime.

Well I personally tried to help the Chechens, but after the Russians assassinated President Dudayev the Arabs got involved so that was the end of that. So why am I am being blamed for what the Russians did there.

I can’t figure out what you are trying to say there?

When people are doing outrages in the name of their religion, that is not my fault it is the fault of the people doing the outrages, so I think you would be better complaining about the people doing the outrages. Al-Qaida in Iraq has lost credability for the reason that the Sunni community in Iraq has realized they are minority in a majority Shia state and basically it is bad policy to be engaging in murderous outrages against the Shi’ite majority, when they no longer have the firepower of Saddam Hussein’s military establishment to back them up.

Indeed yes and whilst they dug themselves in to a hole by aligning themselves with al-Qaeda, that might well have been avoided if the US had not made such an appaling mess of Iraq, post the fall of Saddam, the idea that the Iraqis were suddenly going to take to liberal democracy like a duck to water was cloud cuckoo land.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#83

‘most everybody’?

How many IRA men were Protestant?

How many Catholics were in the Loyalist Gangs?

up there with the concept of Hallal flying pigs.

Typical sly anti-muslim dig

If one crashes a large fully fueled airliner in to a large building at a high velocity, one will get a fuel air mixture explosion, when one detonates a C4 plastic charge one gets an explosion basically the same thing.

Whatever. For the sake of argument what religion was the second largest US bomber?

Well “religious Fundementalists” is a nonsense term, humpty dumpty would probably use it, except he would be too embarased.

Have no fear. I feel no remorse.

Regularly people will say that they have no problem with Islam or Judaism or Christanity and it is just the “religious fundamentalists”, they have a problem with, well if the fundamentals of the religion are okay, than the people who should be the most decent and peaceable who happen to have a religious faith should be “religious fundamentalists”, since they are seeking out the fundamental aspects of their religion and trying to live their lives by those aspects.

There are people who believe in the literal truth of the 3 differing (and mutaly exclusive -therefore at LEAST 2 are wrong) holy books. I have every right to say they are wrong. My saying they are wrong would be considered by some of these people as reason enough to kill me. I have never advocated the killing of those who disagree with me.

Personally, I find the idea that the World was created about 4,000 years ago totally unbelievable but I do not wish to force my ideas down other people throats like some aggressive secularists and equally aggressive religious folks…

You will have to get over the idea that expressing a contrary opinion is akin to a ’ wish to force my ideas down other people throats like some aggressive secularists and equally aggressive religious folks’.

I would also note that Herr Hitler who was no stranger to embracing crackpot ideas, found no shortage of scientists to go along with them.

Nor indeed religious pastors. What was written on a Grerman belt-buckle?

What you are basically doing is embracing populist bigotry and illusion which does not appear to be what it is, merely for the reason it happens to be the fashionable and done thing at the moment…

zzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Much as at one time burning female herbalists as witches was the done thing,

Never mind ‘Herbalists’ witches who actualy burned (an estimated 50,000+)witches?

#84

You may have a complete list of the membership of PIRA and the various “loyalist” paramilitary organizations, highly unlikely that you do, I most certainly do not. Therefor I am not in a position to make a claim as to the exact percentage of people who were / are members of PIRA who were Catholics and the exact percentage of people who were / are members of the various “loyalist” paramilitary organizations who were Protestants, so all I can reasonably do is to state my assumptions as to the membership of these organizations in respect of the religions of their members, which I did plainly and fairly in my previous comments. By the way PIRA and the IRA are two seperate organizations. And the IRA did have Protestant Members e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Erskine_Childers

Well your argument would seem perfectly logical, except it is somewhat divorced from reality. The conflict was most certainly not of a classical textbook right versus left variety, in that there was a strict religious divide amongst the participant paramilitaries in that most everybody in PIRA would have been Catholics and most everybody in the “Loyalist” paramilitaries would have been Protestant.

It is such a sly anti-muslim dig that I am at loss to understand how it is insulting to Muslims, pigs cant fly can’t see how that is insulting to muslims and for a pig to be Hallal is an impossability in that other animals can be prepared by Hallal method of slaughter as fit food for Muslims, but pigs are forbiden food for Muslims so there is nothing you can do with them that they will be a fit food food for muslims. So like the flying pig is an impossability the hallal pig is an impossability too.

If you want to speak in riddles, I would respectfully suggest that you audition for the next batman movie, rather than try to hold a conversation with me.

Well I have met plenty of people who are regarded “religious fundamentalists” made it clear I do not accept their version of religion and they have not tried to kill me, so maybe you have had the misfortune to meet some not very nice people. And like when did I say you can’t disagree with people.

You might try to engage a little more seriously with reality when criticizing people as to what they have said and what they haven’t said.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#85

What a convoluted way of saying you dont know.

It is such a sly anti-muslim dig that I am at loss to understand how it is insulting to Muslims, pigs cant fly can’t see how that is insulting to muslims and for a pig to be Hallal is an impossability in that other animals can be prepared by Hallal method of slaughter as fit food for Muslims, but pigs are forbiden food for Muslims so there is nothing you can do with them that they will be a fit food food for muslims. So like the flying pig is an impossability the hallal pig is an impossability too.

I know what you meant and long-winded replies can not disguise your intention…
Also may I be the one to inform you that strictly speaking pork is not ‘forbidden’ because there are circumstances where a Muslim can eat it.

If you want to speak in riddles, I would respectfully suggest that you audition for the next batman movie, rather than try to hold a conversation with me.

Still does nothing to inform us of the religion of one of the most destructive (that suit you?) bomb outrages in the USA. I well understand your reluctance to answer.

You might try to engage a little more seriously with reality when criticizing people as to what they have said and what they haven’t said
.

Seriously? Like this you mean:

“he might be right since like Wahabism the Anglican Church of England is another bonkers cult”

Who is this describing a religion as a ‘bonkers cult’?
Could it be the man who wrote:

I do not wish to force my ideas down other people’s throats like some aggressive secularists and equally aggressive religious folks"

How about:

in that arguments about theorys dealing with the creation of the Universe, though an intresting area of debate are pretty insignificant compared to the issue that The Church of England is Evil with a capital “E”, in that it has willfully chosen to align itself with Islamofascist Arab racial supremacists who wish to impose Sharia law on the United kingdom and exterminate and, or, enslave the British people for not being part of the Arab masterace and exterminate everybody in the United Kingdom who is not a Muslim and refuses to convert to Islam along with all British Muslims who would give their loyalty to the Queen [ Elizabeth II ] and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Nice turn of phrase there. Now this religion is ‘Evil’

It seems one Religion comes in for praise though:

the Catholic Church is one of the few organizations which is standing up to the Islamofascists and for the do-gooder Left Islamofascism is their chosen “Trojan Horse” to collapse Western Democratic Society, so they can establish Stalinist Communist Fascism in Europe and American after the Islamofascists have collapsed Western society.

Thats what I like, an open mind.

#86

No, there is nothing convoluted about it, very few people [ if any ] would have a full and complete listing of the past and present membership of e.g. PIRA, for the reason that this is not the Catholic Boy Scouts, it is a major covert military organization and as a result people can only make best guesses about exactly what is the proportion of PIRA membership which is catholic. Like do you really believe, e.g. that if PIRA has a mole inside MI5 that is a protestant who is giving them classified information, they are going to tell anyone about it.

Well sorry, you have missed your opportunity because I knew that already in that e.g. when it is a case of the preservation of life one as a Muslim would be allowed to consume pork and it would not constitute a sinful act, however that does affect the issue that under normal circumstances Muslims are forbidden from eating pork. Furthermore the fact that you would even try to raise this issue in the manner which you have, would suggest to me that you know very little about Islam.

Sorry, you can go on with your riddles till hell freezes over and I will not answer them.

.

Well the Church of England is a bonkers cult, on the one hand they up for Sharia Law and at the same time a significant proportion of their clergy are openly homosexual, if that is not bonkers what is?

Yes and there are lots of things I disagree with in respect of the Catholic Church, like e.g. the Previous Pope John Paul II allowed Church of England clergy to become Catholic priests whilst still being married whilst forbiding ordinary Catholic priests from marrying, which made the celibacy rule for Catholic priests look even more laughable than it already is, but at the same time if I think the Catholic Church has got something right, I will say so.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#87

Not only bonkers You also said it was ‘Evil’?

#88

Please stop being cutely provocative and coyly disingenuous.

You know full well that mkenny is talking about the Oklahoma bombing. (And, puhleaaaase, spare us your mock surprise that this is what you understood he meant.)

It is patently nonsensical to class 9/11 as a bombing. You might as well class Hiroshima and Nagasaki as aircraft accidents.

You have an irritating tendency to invite or provoke questions which you then refuse to answer because they are inconvenient to your position, much of which is based on evasion, sophistry, selective facts, and shifting logic.

I accused you earlier of being a troll and the more I see of your posts on certain topics, notably in this thread, the more I think that you are just trolling for the fun of it.

I note also that you have carefully avoided answering questions I posed to your earlier, by standing on your dignity. As I lack dignity I don’t have any problem answering questions, but it seems that your dignity still prevents you answering, for example, my simple question at #53 for clarification on a comment you made but which, as with so much of your posts, you let slide while barging on with other matters. From a military viewpoint, you’d get overrun from the rear if you kept blundering forward while leaving so many gaps behind you.

#89

Your glib comments about the supposedly trivial level of potential armed conflict being limited to an Indonesian militia armoured car (As a matter of interest, why do you say that there was an Indonesian militia with armoured cars in East Timor when Indonesia denied it had any militia in East Timor with any arms at all?) with a 12.7mm MG (You think that’s trivial, stand in front of one for one round in the chest and then tell me it doesn’t hurt :rolleyes:) which contacted an Australian infantry section which contact provoked a wholly disproportionate and nonsensical Australian nuclear response demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the forces on both sides positioned for and potentially involved in a conflict that elements of the Indonesian were spoiling for.

If you are correct that nukes are irrelevant, perhaps you could find time in your busy schedule of writing to world leaders to point out that they’ve been wasting their considerable money all these years on something that doesn’t mean anything to anyone.

And here I was, thinking that the Cold War, in which nobody used nukes, had something to do with who had more nukes than someone else and who could nuke someone worse, not to mention those with and without nukes being rather worried as others sought or got nukes. What were I and my classmates worried about during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when clearly there was no risk that the missiles we feared might be launched would be launched?

Obviously we got all that wrong, which is why the US and others couldn’t give a cube if Iran or N. Korea get a nuke or not, nor is anyone concerned that the Islamic extremists which blow cold winds up your skirt might get control of nukes in Pakistan.

Have you thought of applying for a position with a major, or even minor, power as a strategic adviser? With your deep understanding of these issues, you could save them a lot of money, and the rest of the world a lot of anxiety. :rolleyes:

#90

Yes I did, but when I said that, that was some considerable time ago and I believe I was being perfectly legitimate in using the world “Evil” in relation to the Church of England, I also believe the legitimacy of the comments I made then, still stands. Why I choose not to repeat the Word evil in this thread is that, I think there are some problems with using that Word, for the reason that unless one would see a supernatural component to the situation and I don’t, calling something evil does not advance one’s argument very far.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#91

This phraseology sounds like a romantic involvement with some attractive young lady that you may have in your life, certainly not me. I will take it as a typo in respect of something you meant to send to someone else but posted here by accident.

You might think you can read my mind by telepathic power, well if you think that; you appear to be misinformed. May be you can read mkenny’s mind, if so good for you. All that said, I would prefer to leave the mind reading activities out of the equation and people would ask me direct questions.

An aircraft accident is by definition an accident, if it becomes foul play it is no longer an accident. There is no way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be classed as aircraft accidents e.g. both aircraft returned to base undamaged and were engaged on a military mission which involved the dropping of a nuclear weapon. A charactoristic Hirsoshima and Nagasaki do share with 9/11, is that in the three cases the personnel saw themselves as being engaged in a legitimate act of War. To come back to your remark about aircraft “accidents”, those who carried out the attack on the Twin Towers would see it as a completely legitimate military operation and one hopes the majority of the American people would see it as a savage act of barbarism, made in pursuit of goals which are even more barbaric than the act of mass murder that was the 9/11 attack, those would be radically different views but they would I suggest have a commonality in that from neither perspective would the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers be classed as an accident.

Or is that you just might have a problem, when somebody would have a different opinion to that which you would hold?

Well you know, you can accuse me of being the Anti-Christ or Chairman Mao Tze Tung or that fierce looking lady from the television soap Neighbours or the charactor from Sesame Street that appears alongside Mr Osama bin-Laden, it still would not turn me in to any these people or charactors, just because you said so.

Far from carefully avoiding your question, I can’t even remember it. As for military tactics, I would leave it to the experts like the French high command which spent a huge amount of money on defense equipments and facilities and employed a huge number of personnel and then the whole show collapsed like a pack of cards, when the Nazis gave it a good shaking.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#92

A 12.7 mm round is something which could stop a rhinocerus dead in its tracks with a single shot, never mind a human. The SAS in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, were reportedly using M-16 rifles and they reportedly had some problems in respect of individuals they had successful hit with a 5.56mm round, going on to return fire. When somebody gets hit by a 12.7 mm round, that is a completely different ball game altogether, as one is in to a whole new class of munitions effects, even far in the excess of a powerful infantry weapon like a 7.62 mm M-14 rifle, which is itself a highly effective man stopper. I would be interested if you could point out where I said that for an infantry rece unit to be on the receiving end of 12.7 mm fire from an AFV ( even of a police paramilitary type, rather than a dedicated military AFV ) would be a matter of little importance, let alone saying that for a combatant actually being hit by a 12.7 mm round would be something of little consequence. My point being, for that level of warfare, something like discharging a Carl Gustaf M3 recoiless rifle

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl10-e.htm

at the enemy target would be a more appropiate response, rather than a nuclear strike and in doing so I wished to highlight, the issue that weaponry has application to a situation when it can be directly employed or not used directly but psychologically employed, through its potential that it might be used. As for example, the Americans never used Nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War and really could not sustain a credible threat to use them against North Vietnam, I can not believe even if Australia had nuclear weapons or was backed by a US which obviously does have nuclear weapons, that nuclear weapons had any role to play in the East Timor situation.

Ir-relevant within the context of a confrontation between Australian and Indonesia over East Timor, highly relevant if e.g. the USA wishes to deter the USSR in Europe the late 1940s early 1950s from seeking new territorial gains without the USA putting large numbers of US combat troops and equipement in to Europe on a permanent basis.

See my previous response.
Ir-relevant within the context of a confrontation between Australian and Indonesia over East Timor

See my previous response.
Ir-relevant within the context of a confrontation between Australian and Indonesia over East Timor

Well, given the apparent faith you have in my abilities, perhaps you might suggest to the likes of the CIA that they would get me a position as a special military advisor to the Democratic Republic of North Korea or the Islamic Republic of Iran, from what you say after taking my advice, the pair of them could probably be defeated by an angry fifty year old Australian housewife wielding her handbag as a weapon of mass destruction. LOL

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#93

If you are correct that nukes are irrelevant, perhaps you could find time in your busy schedule of writing to world leaders to point out that they’ve been wasting their considerable money all these years on something that doesn’t mean anything to anyone.…Don’t get me started about Nukes. We all know that Atomic Bombs are very relevant. They were the deciding dfactor to end WW-2 so they MUST be relevant. Why would we spend oodles of money on Atomic Bombs if they were irrelevant?..Why are we so scared of human anhilation with the A-bomb?..The Atomic Bomb is the best thing since slice bread and they are not going away anytime soon. Don’t mess with the A-bomb

#94

And at this point I should probably also point out that Erskine Childers wasn’t a member of either, at least in any meaningful sense. He was on the anti-treaty side in the Irish Civil War, which called itself the IRA. However, the organisation it was fighting itself also considered itself the IRA (indeed, the Gaelic rendering of both is the same - Óglaigh na hÉireann - and both the PIRA and Irish Defences Forces also use it to this day). Importantly, the IRA in Northern Ireland at the time was overwhelmingly on the pro-treaty side - and they are the most plausible antecedents for the organisation which existed prior to the PIRA/OIRA split.

Without going into the detailed molecular thermodynamics, this statement is total bollocks. What resulted from the airliner crashes into the World Trade Centre was a very large fire which spread extremely rapidly. It was NOT a fuel-air explosion (to get one of those the fuel and air MUST be fully mixed before they are ignited), and in any case the detonation of a high explosive such as C4 is radically different to that of a fuel-air explosive.

#95

WOW. PDF, that was brilliantly phrased. Your mechanical engineering expertise really shows!..I flunked physics.I couldn’t understand bridge truss’s It is good to know that the world has great engineers lkie you out there!..Its a pleasure to read your last comment, thx:)

#96

Total or at least partial bollocks being something of a speciality of mine, whilst there is no way that the 9/11 [ on the twin towers ] impact could be said to create an exactly similar circumstance to a detonation of a military fuel air weapon, since a fuel air weapon is a dedicated military device prescisely enginered to produce a fuel air explosion, it would seem to me that with the aircraft traveling at a high velocity in to the building and the external frame work sliceing the aircraft [ or vice versa ] as it impacts the building there would be an opportunity for at least part of the fuel load to be transformed from being a coherent liquid as it was in the fuel tanks to an aerosol mist, which is presumably the requisite of a fuel air explosion?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#97

Not really - to get an explosion you need a substantial amount of fuel to be at or close to the stochiometric fuel-air mix. In circumstances like that the inside of the fuel-air cloud is going to be extremely fuel-rich (to the extent that it probably won’t even burn!) and you’ll only get combustion at significant rates on the fringes of the cloud - which was almost all in free space in this instance. Being free to expand, you simply don’t get the blast effect of a fuel-air explosive so in fact you simply get a big fireball (as in literally a ball of fire, not the fireball associated with any form of explosion).
Getting a good mix of fuel and air with a liquid fuel is actually incredibly difficult - even something as conceptually simple as a jet engine afterburner took a couple of years work to get right. Just smashing a fuel tank into something will give you very poor mixing.

#98

Thanx for the detailed response on that pdf, as it is pretty difficult to find reference stuff on how a fuel air explosion actually works.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

#99

Your absolutely right. Its gone so off topic it has ended its lifecycle.