PDA

View Full Version : What Sarah really said In Interview



mike M.
09-17-2008, 11:59 AM
This link provides, word for word, what ABC edited out. I'd prefer such interviews to be live, unedited, and this link shows why I feel that way. If the truth hurts just edit it out.


http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

herman2
09-17-2008, 01:51 PM
Mike, that was really great reading what palin said. Thanks for sharing that with us. I personally like Palin and I hope The democrats win!

Egorka
09-17-2008, 04:02 PM
I personally like Palin and I hope The democrats win!
:mrgreen:
Why are you so cruel to Mrs. Governor?

Major Walter Schmidt
09-18-2008, 02:24 AM
Mike, that was really great reading what palin said. Thanks for sharing that with us. I personally like Palin and I hope The democrats win!

Palin is republican you know....;)

boxerrick41
09-18-2008, 10:21 AM
i dont know why people are so down on governor Palin, she is a strong smart woman who would be a good compliment to Senator Mccain, not to mention, she is gorgeous( i know that doent matter but , i thought i'd voice that)the orange revolution also was a reminder that there are people who are sick of being treated like peasants( heavyweight boxing champ Wladimir Klitschko and brother Vitali tried their best to use their celebrity status in the Ukraine to help make things better for their people. i love democracy, its not perfect, but its the best we have. It makes me sick to death to see these hard working citizens in Eastern Europe still with nothing or no hope for a better life . Im glad that our ploiticians, like Palin are interested in their welfare

boxerrick41
09-18-2008, 10:22 AM
and yes, im a republican tightass i know

herman2
09-18-2008, 10:33 AM
Palin is republican you know....;)

Major, Once again you have corrected me. I goofed. I meant to say I like the republicans cause i like Palin. Thanks for the input. now then Go Palin Go. Go Palin Go...oh ya and John Macain is ok too....but It would have been realy cool if the ticket was Obama and Palin! I think a woman for a VP would be really cool. We had a Woman prime minister in canada for a short while but nobody remembers her..she was short lived. I like Palin cause she not only looks sorta HOT, but she talks the walk too!

Nickdfresh
09-18-2008, 10:37 AM
i dont know why people are so down on governor Palin, she is a strong smart woman who would be a good compliment to Senator Mccain, not to mention, she is gorgeous( i know that doent matter but , i thought i'd voice that)the orange revolution also was a reminder that there are people who are sick of being treated like peasants( heavyweight boxing champ Wladimir Klitschko and brother Vitali tried their best to use their celebrity status in the Ukraine to help make things better for their people. i love democracy, its not perfect, but its the best we have. It makes me sick to death to see these hard working citizens in Eastern Europe still with nothing or no hope for a better life . Im glad that our ploiticians, like Palin are interested in their welfare


Maybe because she's barely educated (in sports broadcasting), had an evident streak of vindictiveness coupled with a parochial penchant for cronyism that is almost the punchline in a redneck-American joke. And oh yeah, she's a super-Christian fundie that believes in creationism....She's done little more in her life than go to five different colleges, talk to athletes, and somehow get to the top of one of the most corrupt and parochial gov'ts in the States...

For starters. And since when is "everyone down on Sarah Palin?" Her star is sure fading. But McCain did dupe the religious right with her, for the meantime...

In any case, she's WAY out of her league...She was little more than a gamble, and a novelty pick that is wearing off. This is not one of the people that need to be in charge of the sagging American economy...

Oh yes, did I mention that she's under investigation for abusing her power and putting her personal vengeance interests above her state's interests. But maybe her sycophants can just sue their way out of it..

Nickdfresh
09-18-2008, 10:40 AM
This link provides, word for word, what ABC edited out. I'd prefer such interviews to be live, unedited, and this link shows why I feel that way. If the truth hurts just edit it out.


http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Um, she still sounds pretty dumb and inept (for someone in her position), even in the edited "highlights" of her interview...

BTW, who is Mark Levin to lecture anyone on facts or editing?

mike M.
09-18-2008, 12:46 PM
My point being is, it was easy to see that "interview" was nothing more than a cut and paste hack job designed to make her look like a bad choice. They'll defend their "editing" by saying they had to do it to fit the time constraints.
Reading the whole thing gives one a different perspective of things,eh? The left main stream media won't allow anything through that might damage the Chosen One's chances,especially if it involves telling the whole truth.


Um, she still sounds pretty dumb and inept (for someone in her position),

So your saying these quotes from Sarah are dumb????? Its dumb to have a good relation with Russia? Its dumb to want to see war ended? Its dumb to want to have a good relationship with our allies? I think she is a breath of fresh air and just what the U.S. needs, AND SHES HOT TOO. :) BELOW ARE JUST A FEW OF THE CUT POINTS SARAH TALKED ABOUT



#1 "Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite."

#2 "Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor."

#3 "PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia."

#4 "We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along."

#5 "Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq."

edited to add cut quotes from sarah

pdf27
09-18-2008, 02:01 PM
It would have been realy cool if the ticket was Obama and Palin!
The media would probably have loved it, but given that their policies are directly in opposition to one another and neither has any significant leadership experience if elected the pair of them would be a disaster.

herman2
09-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Well I don't care what you complainers say, I like Palin and I hope she wins (including that old guy that joined her). We should have a "Support Palin" thread and see how many people on this site like her and want her. Bush had a hell of a lot of experience and where did he get us??.An economy that is abandoning ship, a war that is screwed from the beginning and I can't afford to tank up gas in my car....and you think Experience is the key?...So what if Palin is not that experienced,..we did not do that much better with Bush now did we?...And MIKE is right...She is HOT!!

pdf27
09-18-2008, 04:49 PM
Bush had a hell of a lot of experience and where did he get us??
6 years of Governor of Texas, two of which appear to have largely been spent campaigning for the Presidency count as experience?

George Eller
09-18-2008, 11:46 PM
-

I like Sarah Palin and her conservative views. I've been a long time Republican and a conservative myself. My first choice for the Republican nominee for president was Mitt Romney, but I'll take McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden.

-

tankgeezer
09-19-2008, 12:10 AM
My Girl!! (If you are under 15yrs of age, you must ask your parents to view this attachment,,,,)

tankgeezer
09-19-2008, 12:16 AM
-

I like Sarah Palin and her conservative views. I've been a long time Republican and a conservative myself. My first choice for the Republican nominee for president was Mitt Romney, but I'll take McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden.

-
I am with you George, I have always been a conservative, and have voted Republican since being in the Army.(I was too young to vote when I entered the Army) I do not see anything good for America, or the world at large coming from Obama/Biden.

George Eller
09-19-2008, 01:07 AM
-

I like Sarah Palin and her conservative views. I've been a long time Republican and a conservative myself. My first choice for the Republican nominee for president was Mitt Romney, but I'll take McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden.

-

I am with you George, I have always been a conservative, and have voted Republican since being in the Army.(I was too young to vote when I entered the Army) I do not see anything good for America, or the world at large coming from Obama/Biden.
-

Thanks TG,

I can relate to you on that - I've been voting Republican since age 20 in 1980 when I voted for Ronald Reagan (Ronaldus Maximus as Rush often refers to him). :)

-

Who Is Sarah Palin
http://www.squidoo.com/sarah-palin

Sarah Palin Interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News
Originally aired evening of Sept. 17, 2008

Sarah Palin Interview w/ Sean Hannity Day.1 pt.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omMIE_LtCVk

Sarah Palin Interview w/ Sean Hannity Day.1 pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWhZoRpZxA

Sarah Palin Interview w/ Sean Hannity Day.1 pt.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg-k_SbHj38

-

http://www.johnmccain.com/

http://gov.state.ak.us/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#External_links

-

Nickdfresh
09-19-2008, 09:55 AM
I don't really come here to discuss politics. It all just turns into a giant pissing match in the end, and that's not what it's about. As far as Palin's responses, I'm not sure how much was "edited out" as I clearly heard at least some of the text in her response, which sounded sort of like a kid on the high school debate team regurgitating canned responses her handlers gave to her. And Gibson clearly exposed were lack of depth in understanding on several key issues...

Palin's seeming abuse of power in Alaska of which "Troopergate" is only part in parcel reflect a complete two-faced hypocrisy. She pursued "pork" earmarks via lobbyists, she hired unqualified cronies in high paying jobs, and has a very limited education...

It's all about style over substance...

Rising Sun*
09-19-2008, 10:36 AM
It's all about style over substance...

True, but think where your country could be if it bucked the worldwide trend and went for a bit of substance.

Or even where my country could be if it tried the same thing, with rather less material to work with. :(

32Bravo
09-19-2008, 11:41 AM
True, but think where your country could be if it bucked the worldwide trend and went for a bit of substance.

Or even where my country could be if it tried the same thing, with rather less material to work with. :(

Probably in the mire along with Gordon Brown. ;)

mike M.
09-19-2008, 12:12 PM
With an 80+ % approval rating in Alaska Sarah has got to be doing something right. About trooper gate...her brother-in-law was a police officer and he threatened to kill family members with his service revolver...now who here thinks he shouldn't have been fired? Is this the trooper gate people are talking about?

Nickdfresh
09-19-2008, 12:29 PM
Um, I doubt he threatened to kill family members, that certainly wasn't an original contention. He claims he's been stalked by them, his transgressions (some of which are real, as he was hardly an "exemplary" trooper) --as reported to the dismissed commissioner in question-- had been known about by the Palins prior to the divorce proceedings and only became a problem once the lawyers started in. Nobody seems to have had a problem with this wingnut until the sister-in-law's marriage hit the skids...

herman2
09-19-2008, 12:37 PM
At least Palin didn't do Drugs, and Marawanna (however it's spelt) and COCAINE, like Obama.....Palin is clean and fresh like the snow in Alaska....

mike M.
09-19-2008, 12:39 PM
Nobody seems to have had a problem with this wingnut until the sister-in-law's marriage hit the skids...

LOL...Most husbands or Ex husbands dont threaten the lives of their spouses or ex spouses until after the divorce, or while going thru it. I believe this is a non issue with Sarah and its just people digging for dirt on her but others may think its a big deal. As for me I cant wait to vote her into office. :)

herman2
09-19-2008, 12:47 PM
If Palin becomes President, I will move to America just to say that I am Proud to be an American!!

herman2
09-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Captain Nick,
I am actually surprised that you have a somewhat negative stereotype over Palin, considering you previously voted for McCain; thus I assumed you were a true Republican and thus a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, no matter how you slice or dice it:)

George Eller
09-19-2008, 02:04 PM
-

On "Troopergate":

Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal (Sarah Palin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal

Quote: "Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, also known as Troopergate, involves the July 2008 firing of the Public Safety Commissioner for the State of Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin.

Palin, who later became the Republican vice presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election, said that she dismissed commissioner Walt Monegan because of performance-related issues. Monegan said that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin's ex-brother-in-law. At the time Palin dismissed Monegan, Wooten was involved in a custody battle with his former wife, Molly McCann, Palin's sister. Monegan alleged that the Governor herself, her husband, and members of her staff as well as the state's Attorney General, had contacted him numerous times regarding Wooten.

Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration. In August, Palin acknowledged that "pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it." She also apologized to Alaskans for what she called "this distraction".

Before Palin became governor, she and other members of her family had made various allegations of misconduct against Wooten. An internal investigation upheld some charges and rejected others. On March 1, 2006 the chief of the Alaska state police issued a letter of reprimand to Wooten, and he served a five-day suspension as penalty. After Palin became governor in December 2006, she, her husband Todd Palin, and various aides had further contacts with Monegan about Wooten. Monegan told both Sarah Palin and Todd Palin that the disciplinary proceeding against Wooten was concluded and could not be reopened..." (continues)


Note: Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin's ex-brother-in-law was never fired.

-

The original "Troopergate":

Troopergate (Bill Clinton)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)

Quote: "Troopergate is the popular name of an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton. The allegations by state troopers Larry Patterson and Roger Perry were first reported by David Brock in the American Spectator in 1993. The story mentioned a woman named Paula, a reference to Paula Jones."

-

Bill Clinton: ‘Mistake to Underestimate’ Palin
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/bill-clinton-mistake-to-underestimate-palin/

by FOXNews.com
Thursday, September 18, 2008

Quote: "Bill Clinton said in an interview Thursday that “it would be a mistake to underestimate” Sarah Palin, adding that he’s not surprised by the bounce John McCain saw in the polls after naming the Alaska governor as his running mate.

“She is an instinctively effective candidate with a compelling story,” Clinton told CNBC. “And I think it was exciting to some that she was a woman, that she is from Alaska.”

He said Palin grew up in a culture that is probably “well to the right” of most Americans, but that she didn’t “define herself in those terms.”

Clinton said she “handled herself well,” but reiterated his support for the Democratic ticket.

“I think that you know, I disagree with them on many issues and that’s why aside from my party affiliation I would be for (Barack) Obama and (Joe) Biden anyway,” he said. “But I get why she has done so well. It would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has got — her intuitive skills are significant.”

-

Nickdfresh
09-19-2008, 03:07 PM
The New Republic (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/19/opinion/main4459993.shtml)
Sarah Quaylin
by Jonathan Chait

Post Date September 19, 2008

Ever since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I've gotten confused about all the reasons I'm supposed to dislike Barack Obama. The previous reasons, in rough chronological order, were his lack of experience, his empty rhetoric, his flip-flopping, and his "celebrity." But Palin has made each one of those critiques moot. The "celebrity" attack on Obama has a particularly Dada quality right now as starstruck Republicans bask in the charisma of their adorable veep. (Coldest state, hottest governor, read signs at her rallies.) With her hunky husband, touching family life and plucky personal story, she is the candidate of the People. And by People, I mean People magazine.

The flip side for Republicans of losing most of their attack lines was supposed to be a series of virtues Palin would bring to the ticket: She's a reformer, a steadfast opponent of earmarks, a proponent of transparency and clean government. Subsequent reporting has revealed that Palin embodies the precise opposite of every one of these virtues. She appointed unqualified cronies, abused her power to punish personal enemies, and has displayed a Cheney-esque passion for government secrecy. Her boast of having put the state airplane on eBay was undermined by subsequent revelations that she failed to actually sell it on eBay.

The swift disintegration of Palin's anti-pork credentials has been especially amusing. After initially casting Palin as a dedicated foe of earmarks, and then having it revealed that she asked for and received enormous sums of earmarked projects, the McCain campaign has fallen back to the defense that she requested fewer earmarks than other Alaska pols. This is true: Even though Palin took ten times the national per capita average in earmarked spending, in this regard she still rates somewhat below average by the standards of the petro-kleptocracy of the state from which she hails. Yet this defense raises the question of why Ted Kennedy never thought to run for president on the slogan "He Never Took a Drink In His Life," and then, when challenged, point out that other members of his family are less sober than he.

The main complaint against Palin has been her lack of experience. That's fortunate for her, since "experience"--especially measured in a linear way--fails to capture exactly what Palin lacks. Yes, two years as governor is less than you'd like, as is four years as senator. The real problem, though, is that Palin has no record of thinking about national or international policy. Bobby Jindal, another Republican veep contender, has barely more experience than Palin, but he is a respected policy intellectual. Pat Buchanan ran for president without ever having served in elective office, but he had engaged more deeply than most presidential candidates in policy questions.

Engagement, not experience, is the difference between Palin's qualifications and Obama's. Obama has a longstanding interest in national and (to a lesser extent) international issues, and has answered questions on all those issues in extensive detail. Palin has dealt almost exclusively with parochial issues in a wildly atypical state. (Her fiscal experience, which consists of divvying up oil lucre, offers better preparation to serve as president of Saudi Arabia than the United States.) It's possible Palin has harbored a long-standing, secret passion for policy wonkery, but the few signs available thus far--her convention speech that spelled out "new-clear weapons," her evident lack of familiarity with the term "Bush Doctrine"--suggest otherwise. The Republican intelligentsia is frantically tutoring her while they run out the clock until November 4.

In lieu of opening Palin to regular questioning from the press corps, of the sort the other three candidates have all undergone many times before, the McCain campaign is helpfully leaking positive appraisals of her studiousness. "Despite the worries, [Palin] struck many campaign officials as more calm and cerebral than expected," reported Newsweek. "She was quick to ask questions, and to 'engage in a back and forth' with briefers." See, the McCain campaign says she's on the ball. That settles it, right?
But, somewhere in the recesses of my mind, this admiring appraisal of the prospective veep's intellect struck a familiar chord. With a quick search, I discovered that, indeed, the same was said of Dan Quayle in 1988. Twenty years ago, The Washington Post reported, "Bush aides, who were getting their first in-depth exposure to Quayle, were impressed by his attention span, the quality of his questions and the facility with which he moved through the agenda."

Other parallels stood out as well. Conservatives received Quayle's selection rapturously. L. Brent Bozell pronounced himself "ecstatic," and Jerry Falwell called the surprise pick "a stroke of genius." After a media frenzy, Quayle's speech was well-received. The convention hall burst into cheers of "We want Dan!" NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said that Quayle executed "flawlessly," and CBS's Bruce Morton called it "a good speech."
Questions about Quayle's readiness remained, but he did his best to turn them into elite condescension toward small town America. Quayle, in his acceptance speech, spoke movingly about the small towns in Indiana where he had grown up, and later disparaged Dukakis for "sneer at common sense advice, Midwestern advice."

Today, Quayle is remembered as a disaster. But, during the campaign, his supporters believed that media skepticism of Quayle had rallied ordinary Americans to his side. Dukakis "looks down on his fellow Americans. He looks down on Bush and Dan Quayle as--in his word--'pathetic,' " wrote right-wing columnist Michael Novak. "Thus, the 'feeding frenzy' of the press in New Orleans stirred a national backlash. It united all the scorned of America as one."
Conservatives are saying the same things about Palin. "Elite opinion," insisted McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, "looks down with contempt at people who are not part of their world." As Palin herself said, "If you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone." To the right, the mere fact that the press questions her fitness proves that she is one of them.
As the original rationales for Palin melt away, this bond has become unshakable. Her lack of qualifications turns out to be her greatest qualification.

[i]Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.

herman2
09-19-2008, 03:11 PM
Look, nobodycares about the The swift disintegration of Palin's anti-pork credentials ..all American men care about is that Palin is HOT!..thats what counts at Erection time...I mean Election time:)

mike M.
09-19-2008, 03:18 PM
With an 80+ % approval rating in Alaska Sarah has got to be doing something right.

80+% approval rating, Gotta be doing something right.

herman2
09-19-2008, 03:23 PM
The Atlantic.com news states the following: Her job approval rating is astoundingly high with an 86% overall approval rating...it's gotten higher since mike announced himself ...(twice in one blog, if I may add), thus by next week, it will probably go higher to like 98%....(and did I mention that Palin is Hot!)

mike M.
09-19-2008, 03:54 PM
it's gotten higher since mike announced himself ...(twice in one blog, if I may add), thus by next week, it will probably go higher to like 98%....(and did I mention that Palin is Hot!)


LOL..you got me there. You do realize that before my second post you already had 3 that said she is HOT!!!! LOL :) Now this one makes 4...And I agree with all four too, sure would like to have a VPILF in office. :) WOW..86%, gotta be doing something right. :)

George Eller
09-19-2008, 04:32 PM
The New Republic (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/19/opinion/main4459993.shtml)
Sarah Quaylin
by Jonathan Chait

-

I don't really agree with the Governor Palin / Senator Quayle comparison, although Bush Sr's choice of Quayle as his running mate did not prevent him from winning the presidential election in 1988.

Palin and Quayle also came from different backgrounds. Palin from a modest middle-class upbringing versus Quayle's upper-class background. Quayle was just not the fighter that Palin is.

But, one thing in Quayle's defense for which he was given a lot of criticism toward the end of Bush Sr's term as president:

Dan Quayle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle

Partial quote:...On May 19, 1992, Quayle gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California on the subject of the Los Angeles riots. In this speech Quayle blamed the violence on a decay of moral values and family structure in American society. In an aside, he cited the fictional title character in the television program Murphy Brown as an example of how popular culture contributes to this "poverty of values", saying: "it doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Quayle drew a firestorm of criticism from feminist and liberal organizations and was widely ridiculed by late-night talk-show hosts for this remark.The "Murphy Brown speech" became one of the most memorable incidents of the 1992 campaign. Long after the outcry had ended, the comment continued to have an effect on U.S. politics. Stephanie Coontz, a professor of family history and the author of several books and essays about the history of marriage, says that this brief remark by Quayle about Murphy Brown "kicked off more than a decade of outcries against the 'collapse of the family.'" In 2002, Candice Bergen, the actress who played Brown, said "I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless, but his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did."

-

Nickdfresh
09-19-2008, 07:46 PM
As I recall, he was unpopular even before the Murphy Brown comment on that horrible show. He should have just said the show sucked, and left it at that. Quayle was actually mocked because he had a perpetual ability to make public blunders such as misspelling "potato" (which certainly wasn't the end of the world on its own), his overall poor grades in his academic career, a dull, lucid personality making him somewhat resemble a fawn gently pondering the oncoming headlights during interviews, and that fact that Lloyd Benson dismembered him in their debate was the reason he became a bit of a laughing stock...

Bush did indeed win the presidency, but Quayle hardly helped in the reelection bid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCWbFFRpnY&feature=related

George Eller
09-19-2008, 10:29 PM
As I recall, he was unpopular even before the Murphy Brown comment on that horrible show. He should have just said the show sucked, and left it at that. Quayle was actually mocked because he had a perpetual ability to make public blunders such as misspelling "potato" (which certainly wasn't the end of the world on its own), his overall poor grades in his academic career, a dull, lucid personality making him somewhat resemble a fawn gently pondering the oncoming headlights during interviews, and that fact that Lloyd Benson dismembered him in their debate was the reason he became a bit of a laughing stock...

Bush did indeed win the presidency, but Quayle hardly helped in the reelection bid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCWbFFRpnY&feature=related
-

Or he could have omitted mentioning the show at all and stuck to his original point linking violence with a decay of moral values and family structure in American society.

As I mentioned earlier, Quayle wasn't really a fighter. He struck me as a rich kid type that was unaccustomed to struggling for his position in life. But, I think the liberal leaning media tended to blow his gaffs out of proportion, much as they did with Gerald Ford during his presidency. In politics, naturally each side will draw attention to blunders by their opponents in order to gain a political advantage. I've heard or seen many on Obama and his predecessors (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, etc.) through the years.

-

herman2
09-23-2008, 04:20 PM
I like your view point George Eller. your views are always concise, factual and opinions appear neautral; unlike some others on your team. Anyways, I admire a Captain-Staff member who doesn't appear contrite, negative or rude;unlike other staff members(not mentioning any names). I have noticed this for quite some time. I remember a time I wrote something about tanks which was a bit unfactual, and you had a polite way of correcting me on my facts. I admired that from that point onward. I just wanted to say that I feel many others respect your objectivity on forum issues and I hope to learn from your nice way of phrasing things. I aways believed that a man can learn more from positive reinforcement and constructive criticisim, than negative,critical and at times malicious feedback; like from some of your staff members(not mentioning any names).I wish you were Super-Mod as your attitude exemplifies all that is good and peaceful in this forum. Keep up the good work and I eagerly look forward to your forum posts in the near future. Your humble Staff Sergeant-The Herman meister:)

mike M.
09-23-2008, 05:48 PM
Herman meister??? Whats going on??? What..you dont think Sarah is Hot anymore??? :) :)

Your above post is spot on, I agree 100%

pdf27
09-23-2008, 06:13 PM
Herman meister??? Whats going on??? What..you dont think Sarah is Hot anymore??? :) :)
No, he just sucks up to anyone who doesn't move out the way fast enough at the moment. I think someone's been slipping him pills with smiley faces on them ;)

herman2
09-24-2008, 03:45 PM
...as I recall PDF. Captain George Eller wished me a Happy Birthday when it came 2 mths ago. I don't recall getting any other birthday wish's from the officers club. It is nice to have such caring compassionate Captain Staff members like George Eller in this Forum. If he were president, I would vote for him!...but for now, I am voting for the Hottie, Palin:)

George Eller
09-24-2008, 11:52 PM
-

Thanks for the compliments Herman and Mike. I really appreciate that and am quite honored to have been a positive influence. :)

I've been away from the forum for a few days and am just getting caught up on the latest posts.

Take care.


All the Best,

George

-

mike M.
09-26-2008, 09:53 AM
p.s. I was just kidding...The Mods know what their doing...thats why their officers!!good work Mod-gang-Keep up the good work and don't give in to the rebels!

I admire a Captain-Staff member who doesn't appear contrite, negative or rude;unlike other staff


Wow...talk about flip flop. LOL :)

herman2
09-26-2008, 10:07 AM
Ya well George has aleays been nice to me Mike. I though a Mods job was to be neautral and not participate in degrading the opinions of its members. I read the term of reference by General Sandworm and it specifically stipulates that engaging in the negativity of a members opinion is frowned upon. Like a teacher in your classroom, you expect their values to supercede that of ordinary man.Thus if a staff member downgrades my intelect it is more hurting than if you did it Mike, thus the reason for my ideology. Anyways I'm sure I will get by, and I appreciate and respect mods job but their frustration should not rub off on poor innocent little ol me, that coulodn't hurt a fly:roll:

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 08:54 AM
Getting it wrong already


GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Either this is a cock-up, or somefolks in Oilland USA are trying to cook up a cosy arrangement with Ahmadinejad that he can keep his nukes if he promises not to lend them to al-Qaeda but since al-Qaeda are Wahabis and Iran is Shi'ite he was hardly was going to do that anyway. As for not using the weapons himself, well why wouldn't he?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 09:37 AM
Getting it wrong already


So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/


And which allies would these be?

The allies whose economies are being screwed by America's sub-prime mortgage crisis so that now I as a taxpayer in Australia am bailing out those greedy American turds who gave loans that any idiot knew would not be honoured, while the fat turds keep their disgustingly large incomes and the American taxpayer bails them out but not the poor bastards in America who are going to lose their homes?

The allies who don't want their troops sent off on another mad American Republican neo-con adventure to, among other things, prop up an intransigent Israel which had been shitting on everyone in its neighbourhood for the past sixty years and expects the rest of the world to support it because the Nazis shat on them before that?

The allies who are frightened by Palin saying that America could go to war with Russia over Georgia, yet she thinks America is on a mission from her god in Iraq and apparently, with unwitting and typical American arrogance in international affairs, that Russia should not intervene there?

The allies who, unlike Bush and others, see that America is a declining power which lacks the economic and military resources and skill to carry out fairly minor operations compared with a major conflict but yet has a potential vice-president rattling her sword about getting into a major conflict with Russia over, in geo-political terms, a minor issue.

Count us allies out, thanks.

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 11:52 AM
And which allies would these be?

The allies whose economies are being screwed by America's sub-prime mortgage crisis so that now I as a taxpayer in Australia am bailing out those greedy American turds who gave loans that any idiot knew would not be honoured, while the fat turds keep their disgustingly large incomes and the American taxpayer bails them out but not the poor bastards in America who are going to lose their homes?

The allies who don't want their troops sent off on another mad American Republican neo-con adventure to, among other things, prop up an intransigent Israel which had been shitting on everyone in its neighbourhood for the past sixty years and expects the rest of the world to support it because the Nazis shat on them before that?

The allies who are frightened by Palin saying that America could go to war with Russia over Georgia, yet she thinks America is on a mission from her god in Iraq and apparently, with unwitting and typical American arrogance in international affairs, that Russia should not intervene there?

The allies who, unlike Bush and others, see that America is a declining power which lacks the economic and military resources and skill to carry out fairly minor operations compared with a major conflict but yet has a potential vice-president rattling her sword about getting into a major conflict with Russia over, in geo-political terms, a minor issue.

Count us allies out, thanks.

Maybe she is talking about Eurabia [ AKA the European Union ], when she is refering to Allies?

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006051367,00.jpg

http://members.aol.com/colwillj/deadtheo.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

PS by the way what happened to the Tasmanians?

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 11:59 AM
Maybe she is talking about Eurabia [ AKA the European Union ], when when she is refering to Allies?

Given Europe's cold response to America's adventure in Iraq, even she couldn't be that stupid.

However, your reference to Eurabia and elements of your other posts suggests to me that you are a bit of crypto-fascist troll in your own right.



PS by the way what happened to the Tasmanians?

I give up.

What did happen to them?

Wiped out by the French under an agreement to which they might or might not have been party if such an agreement existed?

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 12:22 PM
Given Europe's cold response to America's adventure in Iraq, even she couldn't be that stupid.

However, your reference to Eurabia and elements of your other posts suggests to me that you are a bit of crypto-fascist troll in your own right.

That comment is hardly deserving of a response, so I am not going to give you one.



I give up.

What did happen to them?

Wiped out by the French under an agreement to which they might or might not have been party if such an agreement existed?

Well here's a hint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

Best and Warm Regard
Adrian Wainer

mike M.
09-27-2008, 12:23 PM
And which allies would these be?

Just the ones that we can really trust..that still have a pair of balls and arent afraid of their own shadow. :)

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 12:52 PM
Just the ones that we can really trust..that still have a pair of balls and arent afraid of their own shadow. :)

I think she can cross Belgium off the list the from the get go, ( NB for those of us here, for whom English might not be a first language and might find it a little difficult to understand the commentary, the following video is shot in Bruxelles the capital of Belgium not in an Arab country ),.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 01:16 PM
Just the ones that we can really trust..that still have a pair of balls and arent afraid of their own shadow. :)

Like we could trust America when we, a nation of 20 million, faced Indonesia, a nation of 200 million and the world's largest Islamic nation right on our doorstep over East Timor in 1999 and America said "You're on your own."?

Yeah, right!

As America is a nation of about 300 million, our effort in East Timor is the equivalent of America taking on about two and quarter times the 1.3m population of China, which is getting towards half the world, when America hasn't managed after many years to defeat Iraq which has only 27 million people against Australia's 20 million.

America has never taken on a challenge remotely like we did.

We're not afraid of our shadaow. We don't lack balls. And we've learnt not to trust America, but we can live with that because we know that every nation acts in its own interests. But we went into East Timor anyway, and ****ing near went to war with Indonesia over human rights issues in the knowledge that we had no back up from anyone; no nukes; no nuke subs; no aircraft carriers; limited air capacity; and were vastly outnumbered on the ground in East Timor by Indonesian troops and at a disadvantage on LOC and everything else. Which is more than America did in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere I can think of.

So do me a favour and don't slag Australia for being a weak ally when America didn't stand with us when we needed it and we've stood with it all along since WWII, against our own interests in many instances and only because we've had the misfortune to have conservative governments which link up with yours. Not to mention America screwing us on trade since day one.

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 01:24 PM
That comment is hardly deserving of a response, so I am not going to give you one.

I think it is eminently deserving of a response, so why are you unwilling to give one, particularly as you opened the issue?

mike M.
09-27-2008, 01:25 PM
So do me a favour and don't slag Australia for being a weak ally when America didn't stand with us when we needed it



I didn't mention Australia..YOU are the one who put Australia's name to my post, but hey..if the shoe fits wear it.

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 01:25 PM
Well here's a hint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

Best and Warm Regard
Adrian Wainer

I'm obviously too thick to pick up on the hint, so spell it out for me.

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 01:27 PM
I didn't mention Australia..YOU are the one who put Australia's name to my post, but hey..if the show fits wear it.

Then read what I said about America as our trusted ally.

When was the last time America landed troops in a country of 3,000 million?

And won?

Rising Sun*
09-27-2008, 01:30 PM
Actually, for that matter, when was the last time America, on its own with no allies backing it, landed troops in a country of an equivalent population, let alone ten times the population, and won? Or even landed?

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 02:09 PM
I think it is eminently deserving of a response, so why are you unwilling to give one, particularly as you opened the issue?

re the following


However, your reference to Eurabia and elements of your other posts suggests to me that you are a bit of crypto-fascist troll in your own right.

Whilst you are fully entitled to your opinions and to express such opinions, it does not follow from that, that people are obliged to respond to you when you come out with patently idiotic and offensive personal attacks.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

mike M.
09-27-2008, 02:16 PM
we, a nation of 20 million, faced Indonesia, a nation of 200 million and the world's largest Islamic nation right on our doorstep over East Timor in 1999 and America said "You're on your own..

WOW..Australia did this all on their own??? I thought it was a UN force that went into E. Timor but I could be wrong.

Adrian Wainer
09-27-2008, 02:24 PM
But we went into East Timor anyway, and ****ing near went to war with Indonesia over human rights issues in the knowledge that we had no back up from anyone; no nukes; no nuke subs; no aircraft carriers; limited air capacity; and were vastly outnumbered on the ground in East Timor by Indonesian troops and at a disadvantage on LOC and everything else. Which is more than America did in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere I can think of.

Well what would the Aussies want nuclear weapons for, like if an Indonesian militia armored car with a 12.7 mm machine gun had engaged in a fire fight with an Australian infantry rece patrol, Canberra GCHQ were going to have a Royal Australian Airforce F-18 Hornet do a 10 kilotonne nuclear strike on Jakarta or something like that....atomic weapons are basically ir-relevant unless one is going to use them, hence your reference to the yanks having nukes as a point of substance in your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

mike M.
09-27-2008, 03:15 PM
Like we could trust America when we, a nation of 20 million, faced Indonesia, a nation of 200 million and the world's largest Islamic nation right on our doorstep over East Timor in 1999 and America said "You're on your own."?


What did you expect??? The president at the time was a Democrat, :) The one and only Mr. Clinton and his trusty National Security adviser Sandy Berger. Just curious..I wonder how President Bush would have handled this situation.

Nickdfresh
09-27-2008, 10:49 PM
What did you expect??? The president at the time was a Democrat, :) The one and only Mr. Clinton and his trusty National Security adviser Sandy Berger. Just curious..I wonder how President Bush would have handled this situation.

He would have ignored it, like he did the reports of the 9/11 hijackers in US flight schools...

Or he would have mispronounced it, never listened to anyone, and cleared some brush at his ranch while on vacation....

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 06:18 AM
He would have ignored it, like he did the reports of the 9/11 hijackers in US flight schools...

Or he would have mispronounced it, never listened to anyone, and cleared some brush at his ranch while on vacation....

Hi Nick, Nick I think that is somewhat unfair to suggest that President Bush had he been in the Whitehouse at the time, would have ignored the situation in East Timor or not listened to anyone's advice and just gone off to clear some tumbleweed on his ranch, much more likely he would have called Riyadh and asked the Saudis what to do in what was clearly a case of anti-Muslim persecution as graphically shown in this example of Muslims being persecuted by the fact of Kafirs [ ie non-Muslim ] piglets [ ie children ] being in a Muslim land ie Indonesia and Muslims having to cut their heads off in a desperate act of self defense against this defilement of the Dar al Islam by the presence of Kafir infidel swine.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/beheaded_girl.jpg

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-28-2008, 08:30 AM
Hi Nick, Nick I think that is somewhat unfair to suggest that President Bush had he been in the Whitehouse at the time, would have ignored the situation in East Timor or not listened to anyone's advice and just gone off to clear some tumbleweed on his ranch, much more likely he would have called Riyadh and asked the Saudis what to do in what was clearly a case of anti-Muslim persecution as graphically shown in this example of Muslims being persecuted by the fact of Kafir [ ie non-Muslim ] piglets [ ie children ] being in a Muslim land ie Indonesia and Muslims having to cut their heads off in a desperate act of self defense against this defilement of the Dar al Islam by the presence of Kafir infidel swine.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/beheaded_girl.jpg

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

And I thought I detected a strong whiff of rabid Islamophobia from you earlier, which you said was a "patently idiotic and offensive personal attack". What was I thinking?

If I understand your irony correctly, Bush is in the pocket of the House of Saud and will do its bidding as part of the gigantic international Islamic conspiracy against Christians, or non-Muslims. This means that the Republicans are an anti-Christian, anti-American party. Who would have thought that?

So where does Sarah fit into this picture? Maybe a modern Joan d'Arc who will restore righteousness to the world with her Christian sword by pursuing the war in Iraq as a mission from her Christian god?

I suppose it doesn't matter that that little exercise has produced a lot of dead, injured and permanently damaged children, because they're only Muslims? Otherwise you would have posted a picture of a dead Muslim child from Iraq.

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 09:08 AM
And I thought I detected a strong whiff of rabid Islamophobia from you earlier, which you said was a "patently idiotic and offensive personal attack". What was I thinking?

If I understand your irony correctly, Bush is in the pocket of the House of Saud and will do its bidding as part of the gigantic international Islamic conspiracy against Christians, or non-Muslims. This means that the Republicans are an anti-Christian, anti-American party. Who would have thought that?

As it is so happens, there is a gigantic International Islamofascist conspiracy against Christians, Jews, Hindus, non-believers, etc and most especially of all against decent Muslims. I personally, would not call it "Islamic", in the sense I remain unconvinced that it derives any legitimacy whatsoever from a valid interpretation of the noble Koran or the actions of the Prophet Mohammed peace be up on him, in that Wahhabism e.g. is only an invention of the last couple of centuries and is radically different from the core strands of Islam, which preceded it. It would be nothing new, for a political party to contain people within it, that either because they were foolish or they saw no higher objective than lining their personal pockets with money or some mixture of the two, to pursue policies which could easily be seen to be un-necessary or frought with danger for their country e.g. the British Labour Party opposing the modest re-armament of British forces by the Conservative Government in response to the threat from Nazi Germany. So I can't see why President George W Bush would somehow be immune from such matters.



So where does Sarah fit into this picture? Maybe a modern Joan d'Arc who will restore righteousness to the world with her Christian sword by pursuing the war in Iraq as a mission from her Christian god?

As for Sarah Palin, we will have to wait for the people of America to decide whether they will vote McCain or Obama in to the Whitehouse before one could see, what she would do. As for the idea that, I would believe or hope that she would act like some sort of latter day Christian crusader, that is an invention of your imigination, as distinct from what I have actually written in this thread.



I suppose it doesn't matter that that little exercise has produced a lot of dead, injured and permanently damaged children, because they're only Muslims? Otherwise you would have posted a picture of a dead Muslim child from Iraq.

Last time I heard, it was the Wahabis that were deliberately blowing up men, women and children in Mosques in Iraq, rather than the Americans, so if you are genuinely upset by murdered Iraqi children, you might be better addressing your concerns to the Saudi Embassy in Canberra rather than me.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBXHtQDxOo

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
09-28-2008, 09:13 AM
WOW..Australia did this all on their own???

Pretty much, with New Zealand as the other major contributor to ground, sea and air forces in the crucial early stages which could have provoked armed conflict with Indonesia in East Timor or even a war. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2%20Feb%202000/East%20Timor.pdf

Around the same time we were fighting in Vietnam with the US, we were also fighting Indonesia in Malaya with the British, which didn't exactly help friendly relations between Indonesia and us. http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/confrontation.asp


I thought it was a UN force that went into E. Timor but I could be wrong.

It was authorised by the UN, but it was not a UN peacekeeping force and significant military and other elements in Indonesia were strongly opposed to any Australian involvement in the the intervention, to the extent that there were rumblings of war from some quarters in Indonesia and certainly strong threats of armed conflict in East Timor between Australia and Indonesia even if it didn't become a wider war.


15 September 1999

These troops will not wear the blue berets of UN peacekeepers. Instead they will engage in so-called peace enforcement operations, with orders to disarm and pacify hostile elements. Australian Prime Minister John Howard emphasised this when speaking on national television last night. “There is no way I will allow Australian forces to be exposed to an unreasonable level of risk,” he said. “They will be given adequate legal authority to defend themselves and take whatever action is necessary to implement their mandate.”

The Australian government is proposing a UN mandate under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows troops to carry and use arms, rather than under the more restrictive Chapter 6 that constrained UN forces in Bosnia in the mid-1990s.

Conflict has erupted between Australia, Portugal and Indonesia over the composition of the UN force, with Indonesian cabinet ministers and generals publicly objecting to the dominant participation of the two Western powers.

At a media conference in New York, Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas declared that Australia was not the only country that could send in troops quickly. He argued that any force must have greater Asian participation. Speaking from Jakarta, Major-General Sudrajat was even more blunt. He insisted that Australia would not necessarily be “the major force” in the UN contingent. Other Indonesian military and political figures said the arrival of Australian troops might provoke retaliation and armed conflict in Timor. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/timo-s15.shtml

It wasn't some minor exercise like the US invasion of Grenada, which never threatened US security (although Clint Eastwood made it look the fate of the Free World hung on it). If East Timor went wrong, and there was plenty of scope for that to happen, we would have been in for an interesting time. And we'll be paying the penalty for it from Al Qaeda adherents etc for a long time.


TONY JONES: Now, Australia is now routinely mentioned in these kinds of messages ... also Osama bin Laden mentioned Australia not so long ago.

Have we become a bigger target because we took part in the war in Iraq?

ROHAN GUNARATNA: I think that Australia has remained a target for some time, even before the campaign in Iraq.

For instance, Osama bin Laden released a tape in 2001 where he said that Australia has waged a crusade against the Islamic nation and dismembered East Timor.

I believe that today Australia faces the same level of threat as any Western European country. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s861720.htm

Our intervention in East Timor helped provoke the deaths of 202 Westerners, including 88 Australians, in a 2002 bombing in Bali by Islamic extremists.

Reciting from the Koran, and rambling in Indonesian, Arabic and Balinese dialect, the alleged Kuta bombing field commander, Imam Samudra, yesterday swore that he had no knowledge of the attacks but said they were justified as part of the Islamic struggle for freedom and respect.

Samudra, 33, a former textile salesman, read from hand-written notes and used Australia's "invasion" of East Timor as part of his ideological rationale for the bombings.

"You should remember what was done by Australia and its allies over two years, or do you agree with the aggression against East Timor, that removed it from Indonesia," he said. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588321968.html

Rising Sun*
09-28-2008, 09:16 AM
Last time I heard it was the Wahabis that were deliberately blowing up men, women and children in Mosques in Iraq, rather than the Americans so if you are genuinely upset by murdered Iraqi children, you might be better addressing your concerns to the Saudi Embassy in Canberra rather than me.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Or, rather too late, the American and British governments, as well as my own which dutifully fell in with the US under our then lap dog neo-con government, which started the whole mess.

mkenny
09-28-2008, 09:18 AM
And I thought I detected a strong whiff of rabid Islamophobia from you earlier, which you said was a "patently idiotic and offensive personal attack". What was I thinking?

There is a lot of it about. Typical rant:

"the worst of the faults of the present Labour Government happens to be that they have in the past and are continueing to pro-actively co-operate with Islamofascists and Islamofascist Arab racial supremacists whose objective in relation to the United Kingdom is to destroy the United Kingdom as a Sovereign democratic State which operates to the morality of secular enlightenment and christian values and incorporate the United Kingdom territory in to a pan-European Wahabi colony of Saudi Arabia, with forced conversion to Wahabi Islam at the point of the sword for the United Kingdom's non-Muslim citizens and very possably the extermination of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples of the British Isles on racial grounds"

"Presumably you would have Her Majesty's British Government wait until British hospitals start overflowing with the victims of a Jihadi biological suicide bomber attack involving bio-engineered Smallpox with a genetic sequence configured to neutralize the protection provided by the conventional smallpox vaccine and cooked-up in a bio-weapons lab in Syria or Iran"

I am now closely watching my Muslim neighbours in case they attack my grandchildren!
I watched the Palin interview. The best that can be said is 'nice but dim' (Google it).

Rising Sun*
09-28-2008, 09:41 AM
I am now closely watching my Muslim neighbours in case they attack my grandchildren!

Yes, well, it's bound to happen isn't it? I mean, they're all mad bombers and beheaders and butchers and stuff, as can be seen in my local kebab shop where the owner always has a stubble beard and spends most of his day using a huge sharp knife to cut up the flesh of dead animals after he's cooked them. I mean, how primitive is that? Obviously he's practising for beheading a Christian child. I don't know why we let them into the country. Normally we only let in convicted Mafia figures and WWII and FYROM war criminals.


I watched the Palin interview. The best that can be said is 'nice but dim' (Google it).

I thought the best that could be said for her was 'glib, ill-informed, frighteningly simplistic, and a bigger danger to the world than Dubya if he got back on the grog while in office'. She makes Maggie Thatcher on the warpath look limp, and a highly desirable standard of world leader.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 09:45 AM
80+% approval rating, Gotta be doing something right.


Great! Just like Hillary who has a high NY approval rating, she can stay there! :D

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 09:52 AM
-

Or he could have omitted mentioning the show at all and stuck to his original point linking violence with a decay of moral values and family structure in American society.

As I mentioned earlier, Quayle wasn't really a fighter. He struck me as a rich kid type that was unaccustomed to struggling for his position in life. But, I think the liberal leaning media tended to blow his gaffs out of proportion, much as they did with Gerald Ford during his presidency. In politics, naturally each side will draw attention to blunders by their opponents in order to gain a political advantage. I've heard or seen many on Obama and his predecessors (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, etc.) through the years.

-


Part of the problem with Quayle's comments was that they comically played to the perception that he was a wealthy elitist that was "out-of-touch" and had no clue that most teenage mothers never bothered to watch Murphy Brown, and that while I agree the whole single mother thing is very dubious, I think Brown's argument was that her character was also a positive role model in that she was a professional, educated women...

If Qualye was so concerned about moral values, than he could have launched some sort of education initiative targeting urban, teens instead of pandering to his base with some trite "culture wars" crap...He just seemed very disingenuous. Teen pregnancy wasn't caused by Murphy Brown, it is caused by ignorance with a heavy dose of poverty...

And what about Palin's "moral values" contributed to her daughter's unwed, teenage pregnancy? Especially since it has been reported that she tried to force her daughter to marry her boyfriend (or whomever he was) and that they had a huge family row over it?

Rising Sun*
09-28-2008, 10:12 AM
And what about Palin's "moral values" contributed to her daughter's unwed, teenage pregnancy? Especially since it has been reported that she tried to force her daughter to marry her boyfriend (or whomever he was) and that they had a huge family row over it?

Parents can try to impart moral and other values to their children, but in the end the children are independent human beings and make their own decisions.

I think it's unfair for anyone to make an issue of Palin's daughter getting up the duff as a backdoor way of trying to point out some failure in Palin as a parent, moralist, politician or whatever. It's just one of those problems that some parents have to confront. It doesn't necessarily reflect any deficiency in the parent's upbringing of the child. Although how anyone can be a governor and and a proper parent at the same time is beyond me.

Her daughter's pregnancy is not the same as if Palin gets caught playing hide the sausage with someone not her husband while proclaiming family values etc, which would relate to her behaviour and hypocrisy and be a proper subject for public comment.

Given the history of most self proclaimed paragons of virtue in politics, and especially the god-botherer variety, there's a fair chance she'll end up in front of the TV cameras tearfully begging her god's forgiveness for straying down the path of forbidden sausage delights.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 10:39 AM
Hi Nick, Nick I think that is somewhat unfair to suggest that President Bush had he been in the Whitehouse at the time, would have ignored the situation in East Timor

That's EXACTLY what he would have done! Before "the day that changed everything," it was conservatives like Bush, and his very administration, that reviled and criticized Clinton's emphasis on "Nation-Building." And the idea that "that was in 99' and under a Democrat" is also utter shit, because Clinton went into Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. And he drew harsh, varying criticism from sectors on the American right for doing so! The latter two effectively cut off Islamicist fanatical violence by removing religious inspired Jihadists in Bosnia and depriving them of the propaganda of 'Christians being allowed to ethnically cleanse and kill Muslims at will'..


...or not listened to anyone's advice and just gone off to clear some tumbleweed on his ranch, much more likely he would have called Riyadh and asked the Saudis what to do in what was clearly a case of anti-Muslim persecution as graphically shown in this example of Muslims being persecuted by the fact of Kafirs [ ie non-Muslim ] piglets [ ie children ] being in a Muslim land ie Indonesia and Muslims having to cut their heads off in a desperate act of self defense against this defilement of the Dar al Islam by the presence of Kafir infidel swine.

Um, why don't you provide a body count of Muslims killed by states composed of Christians, and Christians killed by Muslims?

In fact, Muslims seem much more interested in killing each other, and they wouldn't even notice us if it were not for the oil they happen to live over....Just like we wouldn't notice them either! And ignore a potential threat is exactly what Bush did, since he only called Riyad after 9/11 regarding terrorism, as supposedly (according to the conspiracy rumor) demand the arrest or death of certain Sheiks, and oddly enough, a spat of hundreds of dead Suadis began turing up dead "of thirst" (highly unlikely even for the richest of Bedouins) in the desert...

However, he largely ignored an August CIA threat briefing as the "chatter" was "blinking red" (the 9/11 Report). He, and Louis Freeh (the largest fail in the whole debacle and a shining example of a partisans blundering incompetence reducing the FBI to a parochial fiefdom, a very ineffective one! Possibly Clinton's worst blunder of his Presidency as his intention of a gesture of good faith to placate the right's paranoia and constant attack on his Justice Dep't turned out to be a case of letting "the adder out of its shell") apparently ignored the "Phoenix Memo" regarding Arab men in US flight schools.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-told-in-august-of-specific-threat-to-us-651658.html


http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/beheaded_girl.jpg

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Yes, Fundamentalist Christian websites that are hypercritical of Islamic cultural violence while ignoring their own.

How many pictures of children killed by errant US/NATO/Russian bombs do they have?

Do they even give a shit about Darfour, or is it okay for despotic regimes comprised on (mostly) Muslims to kill other Muslims? (provided they don't have enough oil to make it worth our while to "liberate" it, er, them).

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 10:52 AM
Parents can try to impart moral and other values to their children, but in the end the children are independent human beings and make their own decisions.

I think it's unfair for anyone to make an issue of Palin's daughter getting up the duff as a backdoor way of trying to point out some failure in Palin as a parent, moralist, politician or whatever. It's just one of those problems that some parents have to confront. It doesn't necessarily reflect any deficiency in the parent's upbringing of the child. Although how anyone can be a governor and and a proper parent at the same time is beyond me.

Her daughter's pregnancy is not the same as if Palin gets caught playing hide the sausage with someone not her husband while proclaiming family values etc, which would relate to her behaviour and hypocrisy and be a proper subject for public comment.

Given the history of most self proclaimed paragons of virtue in politics, and especially the god-botherer variety, there's a fair chance she'll end up in front of the TV cameras tearfully begging her god's forgiveness for straying down the path of forbidden sausage delights.


I couldn't agree more. But her policies which are extreme rightist and supposedly moralist derived and contradicts, clearly, the central reason she was chosen. To pander to the Religious Right. She's against abortion FOR ANY REASON. Wants to keep children ignorant on sexuality by teaching abstinence and lip service leading to more teen pregnancy. And it's even being reported that she used to force woman sexually abused to PAY FOR THEIR OWN RAPE KITS! All while over-funding her police dept. to the point of absurdity with -YUP!- federal "earmarks" (or pork).

(I think -but might be wrong- that her state has some of the highest levels of teen pregnancy, along with one of the highest welfare rates in the nation).

And you might not be aware that there are rumors of this variety already regarding Palin. The sort of rumors that conservatives couldn't get enough of in the "liberal media" when they involved a certain ex-President, or John Edwards for that matter. But the minute anyone whispers this about Palin, and that she might be little more than a figurehead, window-dressing mannequin complete with designer glasses and shoes, certain people just can't take it...

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 11:56 AM
That's EXACTLY what he would have done! Before "the day that changed everything," it was conservatives like Bush, and his very administration, that reviled and criticized Clinton's emphasis on "Nation-Building." And the idea that "that was in 99' and under a Democrat" is also utter shit, because Clinton went into Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. And he drew harsh, varying criticism from sectors on the American right for doing so! The latter two effectively cut off Islamicist fanatical violence by removing religious inspired Jihadists in Bosnia and depriving them of the propaganda of 'Christians being allowed to ethnically cleanse and kill Muslims at will'..

Sorry. I think you took me up wrong on that, my feeling with relation to the former Yugoslavia is that, since it was Bush's stated policy not to do "Nation Building" when he took office, it is far less likely had Bush been the President at the time rather than Clinton, that there would have been a US intervention in former Yugoslavia, furthermore the relationship between Bush and the Saudis would in my own view support a scenario of American non-Intervention in the former Yugoslavia, since it was in the best interests of the Saudis not to have a resolution i.e. a stop to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia but leave the situation as a festering store for the purpose of infiltrating the European Muslims of the former Yugoslavia with Wahabi and Arabist Jihadi ideology and promoting the wider propaganda value of Muslims being massacred on European soil by Europeans.




Um, why don't you provide a body count of Muslims killed by states composed of Christians, and Christians killed by Muslims?

In fact, Muslims seem much more interested in killing each other, and they wouldn't even notice us if it were not for the oil they happen to live over....Just like we wouldn't notice them either! And ignore a potential threat is exactly what Bush did, since he only called Riyad after 9/11 regarding terrorism, as supposedly (according to the conspiracy rumor) demand the arrest or death of certain Sheiks, and oddly enough, a spat of hundreds of dead Suadis began turing up dead "of thirst" (highly unlikely even for the richest of Bedouins) in the desert...

I am well aware that the majority of horrors inflicted on Muslims are by other Muslims but as there are increasingly large Muslim communities in many parts of Europe and North America, the problem of Muslim violence is increasingly starting to affect non-Muslims living in Western Europe. As for "dead Suadis" it is not I am disagreeing with you, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.



Yes, Fundamentalist Christian websites that are hypercritical of Islamic cultural violence while ignoring their own.

How many pictures of children killed by errant US/NATO/Russian bombs do they have?

Do they even give a shit about Darfour, or is it okay for despotic regimes comprised on (mostly) Muslims to kill other Muslims? (provided they don't have enough oil to make it worth our while to "liberate" it, er, them).

Hello, the official Russian Orthodox Church in Russia has very close ties with the Russian state and as a result of that relationship preachers of other Christian denominations can come under attack via the Russian legal systems for engaging in perfectly legitimate activities. Frankly, I do not see any reason why an American Christian organization that would be bullied and intimidated by the Russian authorities, if it were to operate in Russia would have responsibility for the actions of the Russian Government. As for Darfur, it is my impression that numerous Christian organizations have sought to help the black Muslims of Darfur by providing food aid, medicine, tents, etc and raising the persecution of the black Muslims of Darfur on the international stage, you should also realize that as Christian organizations what they do in making public such efforts is constrained by the wish, not to give the Sudanese Government a propaganda weapon in being able to claim this is some sort of Christian trick to convert Muslims to Christanity. As for people being killed by US/NATO bombs are you suggesting that French, Italian, Dutch, German, Belgian, etc children were never killed by Allied bombs dropped during World War II. And I would respectfully suggest that it is somewhat different to drop a bomb from an aircraft against Wahabist insurgents in Iraq armed with AK-47s and RPGs and unintentionally kill children in a nearby building as co-lateral damage and to deliberately kidnap children and behead them.

With Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

mkenny
09-28-2008, 12:59 PM
the problem of Muslim violence is increasingly starting to affect non-Muslims living in Western Europe.

I live in Europe, England to be exact and I see no 'Muslim violence'. There is no unrest in my area and I have yet to see any great examples of this 'Muslim violence' in the rest of the UK. True there are Muslim criminals but they are outnumbered by Christian criminals. If you want to bring up the Bombings caused by 'Muslims' then may I remind you that over 90% of all the bombings (and killings) in mainland UK were due to the troubles in Ireland and that is a classic example of Christian v Christian violence. Was not the largest bombing in the USA also the work of 'Christians'?
As an aside I find that those that scream the loudest for a war on 'Muslims' simply do not have any personal experience of Muslims. We should all be wary of religious nuts of any denomination and I certainly do not want to live in the shadow of anyone who thinks the world is less that 4000 years old.

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 02:35 PM
If you want to bring up the Bombings caused by 'Muslims' then may I remind you that over 90% of all the bombings (and killings) in mainland UK were due to the troubles in Ireland and that is a classic example of Christian v Christian violence.

Well if it is a numbers and statistics game you are after, the greatest bomb damage caused to the United Kingdom would be by Hitler's Luftwaffe. Contrary to your implicit assertion that the campaign of Sinn Fein PIRA in the United Kingdom was religiously motivated it was not, in that Sinn Fein PIRA happens to be an extreme left wing terrorist organization, which merely used the religious angle as a subterfuge to its core aim of establishing a 32 county communist gulag in Ireland. Furthermore that was then, and this is now and with Sinn Fein PIRA basically given up on their so called "armed struggle" after the USSR imploded and things were not looking too promising in respect of support from the USA post 9/11, for an organization such as Sinn Fein PIRA with links to various Arab terror organizations such as the PLO and Gadafi's Libya, the greatest threat to people in London and other large British cities lies from Islamofascist terror groups. Furthermore, as much as Sinn Fein PIRA was a disgusting and repelent organization the possibility of them seeking to explode a nuclear weapon in central London was just about zero, which unfortunately can not be said for adherents of Islamofascism.



Was not the largest bombing in the USA also the work of 'Christians'?

Well you will have to actually give some information about who and what you are talking about, before I could you a comphrensive answer, to the best of my knowledge the largest bombing in the USA was carried out by al-Qaeda a Wahabist terror organization by Muslims who hijacked two aircraft and crashed them in to the World trade center on 9/11.



As an aside I find that those that scream the loudest for a war on 'Muslims' simply do not have any personal experience of Muslims.
On the other hand there are plenty of muslims who are disgusted with these Islamofascists and the freedom the authorities allow them to threaten to murder and terrorize people.



We should all be wary of religious nuts of any denomination and I certainly do not want to live in the shadow of anyone who thinks the world is less that 4000 years old.

I do find it hilarious that when somebody criticizes any aspect of Islam, they are often quickly branded a racist or a fascist or an Islamophobe or all three but at the same time is would seem perfectly acceptable ( at least in your eyes ) to brand people who might believe the World is less than 4000 years old as religious nuts and a danger to society. If you understood how a liberal civil society works and it appears that you probably do not from your remarks, you would know that people in a liberal civil society should be allowed the greatest freedom possible, in so far as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Blowing somebody to pieces on a London underground train with a bomb tends to infringe on their rights, believing that the World was created by a guy with a white beard that looks like Charlton Heston circa approximately something a little less than four thousand years ago does not.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

pdf27
09-28-2008, 03:10 PM
As an aside I find that those that scream the loudest for a war on 'Muslims' simply do not have any personal experience of Muslims.
Indeed. A couple of years back I spent a week living in a shell scrape with one, and she didn't try to kill me once. I was most disappointed.

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 03:18 PM
Sorry. I think you took me up wrong on that, my feeling with relation to the former Yugoslavia is that, since it was Bush's stated policy not to do "Nation Building" when he took office, it is far less likely had Bush been the President at the time rather than Clinton, that there would have been a US intervention in former Yugoslavia, furthermore the relationship between Bush and the Saudis would in my own view support a scenario of American non-Intervention in the former Yugoslavia, since it was in the best interests of the Saudis not to have a resolution i.e. a stop to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia but leave the situation as a festering store for the purpose of infiltrating the European Muslims of the former Yugoslavia with Wahabi and Arabist Jihadi ideology and promoting the wider propaganda value of Muslims being massacred on European soil by Europeans.


I'm not a fan of the House of Saud either, but even they are not quite that ruthless. Corrupt, xenophobic assholes that shut off their society for fear of losing power, maybe. But they were supporting the Bosnian gov't, not just Jihadists...




I am well aware that the majority of horrors inflicted on Muslims are by other Muslims but as there are increasingly large Muslim communities in many parts of Europe and North America, the problem of Muslim violence is increasingly starting to affect non-Muslims living in Western Europe. As for "dead Suadis" it is not I am disagreeing with you, I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Um, we have absolutely no problems with them in North America...In fact, the whole idea that "all Muslims" are the same is patently racist and so is the notion that they're little Manchurian, or Mecca, Candidates whose Muslim religious upbringing somehow makes them inherently violent, irrational killers.

The vast majority of the Islamic world rejects this, as no Islamic insurgency have ever toppled a gov't. They whined up alienating the populace...




Hello, the official Russian Orthodox Church in Russia has very close ties with the Russian state and as a result of that relationship preachers of other Christian denominations can come under attack via the Russian legal systems for engaging in perfectly legitimate activities. Frankly, I do not see any reason why an American Christian organization that would be bullied and intimidated by the Russian authorities, if it were to operate in Russia would have responsibility for the actions of the Russian Government. As for Darfur, it is my impression that numerous Christian organizations have sought to help the black Muslims of Darfur by providing food aid, medicine, tents, etc and raising the persecution of the black Muslims of Darfur on the international stage, you should also realize that as Christian organizations what they do in making public such efforts is constrained by the wish, not to give the Sudanese Government a propaganda weapon in being able to claim this is some sort of Christian trick to convert Muslims to Christanity. As for people being killed by US/NATO bombs are you suggesting that French, Italian, Dutch, German, Belgian, etc children were never killed by Allied bombs dropped during World War II. And I would respectfully suggest that it is somewhat different to drop a bomb from an aircraft against Wahabist insurgents in Iraq armed with AK-47s and RPGs and unintentionally kill children in a nearby building as co-lateral damage and to deliberately kidnap children and behead them.

With the Russians, I was speaking of Chechnya, which was/is a vicious, brutal war waged on both sides. And spare me the Sudanese claims stuff, who would they even bother to try to appeal too?

And I never 'suggested' anything of the kind, of course they did...But I'm not the one running around the internet posting murder victims as some sort of effort to blame the religion of the perpetrators, as al-Qaida of Iraq has been defeated and lost all credibility and support in the Sunni-Iraqi communities precisely because of such outrages...


And the Sunnis themselves face the very real prospect of being destroyed under a Shiite dominated Iraq...

mike M.
09-28-2008, 03:19 PM
Wow..This thread started about the media bias and ended up about the poor misunderstood peace loving Muslims. LOL....

mkenny
09-28-2008, 03:20 PM
Well if it is a numbers and statistics game you are after, the greatest bomb damage caused to the United Kingdom would be by Hitler's Luftwaffe. Contrary to your implicit assertion that the campaign of Sinn Fein PIRA in the United Kingdom was religiously motivated it was not, in that Sinn Fein PIRA happens to be an extreme left wing terrorist organization, which merely used the religious angle as a subterfuge to its core aim of establishing a 32 county communist gulag in Ireland.

My last name is Kenny. I was born in Ireland (you yourself gave Ireland as your location on another board) I come from Drogheda and all my relatives live in and around Dundalk. Please do not be offended if I use my own initiative here in rejecting your attempt to paint this as a Right v Left conflict. I know enough to tell you it was overwhelmingly Catholic v Protestant. Your language is so out of date and I thought for a minute we back in the old cold war days where there were commies under every bed.


Furthermore that was then, and this is now and with Sinn Fein PIRA basically given up on their so called "armed struggle" after the USSR imploded and things were not looking too promising in respect of support from the USA post 9/11, for an organization such as Sinn Fein PIRA with links to various Arab terror organizations such as the PLO and Gadafi's Libya

Quite the most bizzare distortion of the facts I have ever seen.



the greatest threat to people in London and other large British cities lies from Islamofascist terror groups. Furthermore, as much as Sinn Fein PIRA was a disgusting and repelent organization the possibility of them seeking to explode a nuclear weapon in central London was just about zero, which unfortunately can not be said for adherents of Islamofascism.

You are away with the fairies. You must live in constant fear. You really are just trying to whip up hatred.




Well you will have to actually give some information about who and what you are talking about, before I could you a comphrensive answer, to the best of my knowledge the largest bombing in the USA was carried out by al-Qaeda a Wahabist terror organization by Muslims who hijacked two aircraft and crashed them in to the World trade center on 9/11.

They never planted a bomb. Try again.




I do find it hilarious that when somebody criticizes any aspect of Islam, they are often quickly branded a racist or a fascist or an Islamophobe or all three but at the same time is would seem perfectly acceptable ( at least in your eyes ) to brand people who might believe the World is less than 4000 years old as religious nuts and a danger to society.

I will go one better for you. All reigious Fundementalists, Christian Islamic or Jewish, have a finger in the current situation in the Middle East. Jews who believe God personaly gave them the land, Christians who believe we are in the end times and support Israel to hasten the Appocolypse are just as culpable as any 'mad' Muslim Mullah.


If you understood how a liberal civil society works and it appears that you probably do not from your remarks,

I have read your blog. At best you are a very right wing Muslim-hater. I will take no lectures from you.



believing that the World was created by a guy with a white beard that looks like Charlton Heston circa approximately something a little less than four thousand years ago............

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

Nickdfresh
09-28-2008, 03:25 PM
My last name is Kenny. I was born in Ireland (you yourself gave Ireland as your location on another board) I come from Drogheda and all my relatives live in and around Dundalk. Please do not be offended if I use my own initiative here in rejecting your attempt to paint this as a Right v Left conflict. I know enough to tell you it was overwhelmingly Catholic v Protestant. Your language is so out of date and I thought for a minute we back in the old cold war days where there were commies under every bed.

...

The IRA Wainer was speaking of effectively ceased to exist in 1970, or there abouts...

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 05:00 PM
My last name is Kenny. I was born in Ireland (you yourself gave Ireland as your location on another board) I come from Drogheda and all my relatives live in and around Dundalk. Please do not be offended if I use my own initiative here in rejecting your attempt to paint this as a Right v Left conflict. I know enough to tell you it was overwhelmingly Catholic v Protestant. Your language is so out of date and I thought for a minute we back in the old cold war days where there were commies under every bed.

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.




They never planted a bomb. Try again.

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.



I will go one better for you. All reigious Fundementalists, Christian Islamic or Jewish, have a finger in the current situation in the Middle East. Jews who believe God personaly gave them the land, Christians who believe we are in the end times and support Israel to hasten the Appocolypse are just as culpable as any 'mad' Muslim Mullah.

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.



I have read your blog. At best you are a very right wing Muslim-hater. I will take no lectures from you.

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

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 06:38 PM
I'm not a fan of the House of Saud either, but even they are not quite that ruthless. Corrupt, xenophobic assholes that shut off their society for fear of losing power, maybe. But they were supporting the Bosnian gov't, not just Jihadists...

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?



Um, we have absolutely no problems with them in North America...

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.


:roll:
In fact, the whole idea that "all Muslims" are the same is patently racist and so is the notion that they're little Manchurian, or Mecca, Candidates whose Muslim religious upbringing somehow makes them inherently violent, irrational killers.

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.



The vast majority of the Islamic world rejects this, as no Islamic insurgency have ever toppled a gov't. They whined up alienating the populace...
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.



With the Russians, I was speaking of Chechnya, which was/is a vicious, brutal war waged on both sides.
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.



And spare me the Sudanese claims stuff, who would they even bother to try to appeal too?

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



And I never 'suggested' anything of the kind, of course they did...But I'm not the one running around the internet posting murder victims as some sort of effort to blame the religion of the perpetrators, as al-Qaida of Iraq has been defeated and lost all credibility and support in the Sunni-Iraqi communities precisely because of such outrages...

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.



And the Sunnis themselves face the very real prospect of being destroyed under a Shiite dominated Iraq...
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

mkenny
09-28-2008, 07:07 PM
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.

'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?

Adrian Wainer
09-28-2008, 09:12 PM
'most everybody'?

How many IRA men were Protestant?

How many Catholics were in the Loyalist Gangs?

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.



Typical sly anti-muslim dig

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.



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

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.



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.

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 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'.

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

mkenny
09-28-2008, 10:15 PM
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 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 so is 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.


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.

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 06:57 AM
What a convoluted way of saying you dont know.

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.



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.

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.



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

.


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.

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

mkenny
09-29-2008, 08:20 AM
Well the Church of England is a bonkers cult,


Not only bonkers You also said it was 'Evil'?

Rising Sun*
09-29-2008, 09:05 AM
Sorry, you can go on with your riddles till hell freezes over and I will not answer them.

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.

Rising Sun*
09-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Well what would the Aussies want nuclear weapons for, like if an Indonesian militia armored car with a 12.7 mm machine gun had engaged in a fire fight with an Australian infantry rece patrol, Canberra GCHQ were going to have a Royal Australian Airforce F-18 Hornet do a 10 kilotonne nuclear strike on Jakarta or something like that....atomic weapons are basically ir-relevant unless one is going to use them, hence your reference to the yanks having nukes as a point of substance in your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

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:

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 10:25 AM
Not only bonkers You also said it was 'Evil'?

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

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 11:12 AM
Please stop being cutely provocative and coyly disingenuous.

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 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.)

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.



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



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



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.

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.



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.

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

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 12:05 PM
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.

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.



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.

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.



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?

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



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.

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



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:

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

herman2
09-29-2008, 12:17 PM
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

pdf27
09-29-2008, 01:56 PM
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
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.


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.
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.

herman2
09-29-2008, 02:04 PM
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:)

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 02:37 PM
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).

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

pdf27
09-29-2008, 03:19 PM
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?
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.

Adrian Wainer
09-29-2008, 03:37 PM
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.

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

Firefly
09-29-2008, 05:46 PM
Wow..This thread started about the media bias and ended up about the poor misunderstood peace loving Muslims. LOL....

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