Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies

[Nylock]

I've missed peter's wonderfully unhinged Riceophillic slices of WTF... Good to know he hasn't lost his touch

Oh, and:

 

[redsquirrel]

Am I the only person who thinks that the "Obama's Evil Masters" bullshit is getting very close to the line?

 

[kebabking]

Am I the only person who thinks that the "Obama's Evil Masters" bullshit is getting very close to the line?

not really - Peter is so far away that 'da Jooooos' don't even figure, its aliens or lizard people or some shit - or whoever is using their dastardly powers to send messages into Condi's mind to prevent her from meeting up with Peter and making a new race of super humans who will....

i can't even be bothered.

 

[Manter]

not really - Peter is so far away that 'da Jooooos' don't even figure, its aliens or lizard people or some shit - or whoever is using their dastardly powers to send messages into Condi's mind to prevent her from meeting up with Peter and making a new race of super humans who will....

i can't even be bothered.

Oooh, does he have a thing about Condi? I noticed a picture of her up there but by then I was mostly admiring the variety in the formatting....

 

[Nylock]

...He has a thing about condi in the same way as life on earth has a thing for oxygen...

 

[el-ahrairah]

hey Peter Dow good to see you back. i have a neighbour from pakistan, should i be worried?

 

[redsquirrel]

not really - Peter is so far away that 'da Jooooos' don't even figure, its aliens or lizard people or some shit - or whoever is using their dastardly powers to send messages into Condi's mind to prevent her from meeting up with Peter and making a new race of super humans who will....

i can't even be bothered.

Well the fact that he's a loon doesn't mean that he can't be a racist too. I mean Icke talks a load of mad nonsense but that doesn't mean it's harmless, anything but.

I don't know I could be being a bit too picky in this case but the "Obama's Evil Master" shit could be a direct c&p from one of these loony ring-wing faked birth certificate/white hut websites.

 

[Peter Dow]

Am I the only person who thinks that the "Obama's Evil Masters" bullshit is getting very close to the line?

Well here's Obama's Secretary for Defense for defeat, retreat or craven surrender asking his Pakistani military blackmailers how much of a pay-off they are demanding this time.

The Pakistani generals have blackmailed billions of dollars in aid from the US and other donors countries (the UK we've already mentioned).

Wikipedia: Foreign aid to Pakistan

That's after the Pakistani military sponsored Al Qaeda to do 9/11 and the Taliban to attack American, British and other NATO and allied soldiers in Afghanistan.

So Pakistan wages a secret war on the US and allies and in response the US pays for Pakistan to arrest some expendable Al Qaeda field operatives, allow supplies to Afghanistan via Pakistan, establish token Pakistani elections to elect a powerless government, forgive the US's raid to get Bin Laden.

Pakistani's jihadi terrorist wars are a massive foreign currency earner for the Pakistani military and with that cash, not only does Pakistan fund the terrorism of Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also funds a massive build up in nuclear weapons and missiles so that Pakistan now rivals the nuclear weapons power of India.

The Pakistani military misbehaves and the President of the United States pays the price for that misbehaviour.

It looks to me very much like the Pakistani generals have mastered Obama and before him Bush.

Whether one compares a Pakistani general besting Obama to a Pakistani chess grand-master, outplaying Obama, or a Pakistani musical virtuoso playing Obama like a violin, or a Pakistani slave master letting Obama feel the lash of the whip across his back a few times is a metaphor of the writer's choice.

Now the US is a super-power so there is no good reason for any president of the United States to be mastered by anyone other than the American people to whom he or she should be accountable.

There is no good military or economic reason in the world for the US to bend the knee to Pakistan so it really seems to be a preference by President Barack Obama and before him President George Bush to order the US government to act in the role of a supplicant, a subordinate, to raise the white flag, to give in and to bend the knee to Pakistan.

I don't take any pleasure in pointing out that the Pakistani military looks to be the master of the US president right now because I am actively working for a US and allied victory in the war on terror.

While I fight on for victory, the US president concedes defeat. I'm not happy about this but that's the way I see it.

As for whether the Pakistani generals are "evil" or not, that depends on your point of view of Pakistani-military global imperialism and terrorism, whether that is an evil enterprise or not.

I happen to think that USA 9/11 and London 7/7 bombings were evil, killing our soldiers in Afghanistan and targeting Afghan civilians is evil, shooting Malala Yousafzai and targeting, killing and maiming other Pakistan civilians was evil, attacking India and other countries' civilians is evil and the intelligence points to the Pakistani military intelligence service, the ISI, sponsoring terrorism and controlled by Pakistani generals as being responsible for all of those acts of evil.

Hence "Obama's Evil Masters".

Of course, I think the worm should turn. It's time to stand tall again Mr President. If not Obama, then the next president I trust.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Am I the only person who thinks that the "Obama's Evil Masters" bullshit is getting very close to the line?

Perhaps. But as ever with Peter, it's not quite the same line as with others.

 

[Peter Dow]

Once again, the reputable journalist sources - BBC Panorama & the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/magazine/what-pakistan-knew-about-bin-laden.html?_r=0
What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden
The New York Times
By CARLOTTA GALL. MARCH 19, 2014
...

Soon after the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.

The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call of Pasha’s or one about him in the days after the raid. “He knew of Osama’s whereabouts, yes,” the Pakistani official told me. The official was surprised to learn this and said the Americans were even more so. Pasha had been an energetic opponent of the Taliban and an open and cooperative counterpart for the Americans at the ISI. “Pasha was always their blue-eyed boy,” the official said. But in the weeks and months after the raid, Pasha and the ISI press office strenuously denied that they had any knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.
Colleagues at The Times began questioning officials in Washington about which high-ranking officials in Pakistan might also have been aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, but everyone suddenly clammed up. It was as if a decision had been made to contain the damage to the relationship between the two governments. “There’s no smoking gun,” officials in the Obama administration began to say.
The haul of handwritten notes, letters, computer files and other information collected from Bin Laden’s house during the raid suggested otherwise, however. It revealed regular correspondence between Bin Laden and a string of militant leaders who must have known he was living in Pakistan, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a pro-Kashmiri group that has also been active in Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Saeed and Omar are two of the ISI’s most important and loyal militant leaders. Both are protected by the agency. Both cooperate closely with it, restraining their followers from attacking the Pakistani state and coordinating with Pakistan’s greater strategic plans. Any correspondence the two men had with Bin Laden would probably have been known to their ISI handlers. ...
According to one inside source, the ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: Bin Laden. I was sitting at an outdoor cafe when I learned this, and I remember gasping, though quietly so as not to draw attention. (Two former senior American officials later told me that the information was consistent with their own conclusions.) This was what Afghans knew, and Taliban fighters had told me, but finally someone on the inside was admitting it. The desk was wholly deniable by virtually everyone at the ISI — such is how supersecret intelligence units operate — but the top military bosses knew about it, I was told.

America’s failure to fully understand and actively confront Pakistan on its support and export of terrorism is one of the primary reasons President Karzai has become so disillusioned with the United States. As American and NATO troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of this year, the Pakistani military and its Taliban proxy forces lie in wait, as much a threat as any that existed in 2001.

The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"

Part 1. Double Cross


Part 2. Backlash




What the Pakistani ISI doesn't want Pakistanis to know

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/b...port-on-al-qaeda-is-censored-in-pakistan.html
Times Report on Al Qaeda Is Censored in Pakistan
An article about Pakistan’s relationship to Al Qaeda, and its knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s last hiding place within its borders, was censored from the front page of about 9,000 copies of the International New York Times in Pakistan on Saturday, apparently removed by a local paper that has a partnership to distribute The Times.
An image of the front page — with a large blank space where the article appeared in other editions — traveled rapidly around social media on Saturday. A spokeswoman for The New York Times, Eileen Murphy, said that the decision by the partner paper, The Express Tribune, had been made “without our knowledge or agreement.”
The partner was recently the subject of an attack by an extremist group, she said. “While we understand that our publishing partners are sometimes faced with local pressures,” she said, “we regret any censorship of our journalism.”
Though the article appeared to have been excised from all copies of the newspaper distributed in Pakistan, the story seemed to be available to Pakistani readers online, Ms. Murphy said. There was no answer at a number listed for the partner paper’s parent company, the Lakson Group, on Saturday.

It was not the first time the paper had seen its content changed by local partners. This month, sections of an article about prostitution and other sex businesses in China were blanked out in Pakistani editions of The International New York Times.

In January, a Malaysian printing firm blacked out the faces of pigs, also in The International New York Times. The BBC reported that the firm said it did so because Malaysia is “a Muslim country.”

The article in Saturday’s edition, by Carlotta Gall, explores the complex relationship between Pakistani authorities and militant Islamic extremism — which its powerful spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, has long been accused of supporting with the aim of furthering its own strategic interests. The article, which ran in The New York Times Magazine in domestic editions, is excerpted from a book by Ms. Gall, “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014,” which will be published next month by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

In May of last year, The New York Times’ Islamabad bureau chief, Declan Walsh, was ordered to leave the country on the eve of national elections. His visa has not yet been reinstated, though the country’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, promised last week to review the case again.

Pakistan remains a dangerous place for reporters, with at least 46 killed there in the last decade, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an advocacy group.

In her article, Ms. Gall recounted being violently intimidated when she reported on the links to Islamic extremists, and Pakistani journalists have been beaten or murdered in attacks that some claim have involved national security or intelligence forces.

 

[Peter Dow]

Let's get right back on topic with a little satirical review of the failing NATO leadership of the royalist, former Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

NATO Military Committee concludes two days meetings in Brussels
NATO Website, 27 Jan. 2010

Regarding the regional approach, Pakistan Chief of the Army, General Kayani, briefed in depth the Committee on the Pakistani current strategy and on the ongoing operations against terrorism. Recognizing the necessity for continued cooperation with ISAF, he emphasized Pakistan’s role as a key enabler for success in Afghanistan.

 

[el-ahrairah]

can you summarise in a single sentence?

 

[Peter Dow]

can you summarise in a single sentence?

A wily, dishonest, evil enemy group of militaristic jihadi states - namely, most dangerously nuclear-weapons armed Pakistan, but including also Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran and Syria - taking advantage of the naivety, gullibility and foolishness of the people and leaders of the rest of the world to try to disguise their state actions, are waging a global war for imperial and ideological conquest and expansion, often using secret agent terrorists such as Al Qaeda and proxy irregular forces such as the Taliban to attack their targeted victims directly but publicly denying their covert state acts of war and their secret intent to defeat and to dominate the world, sometimes supporting their denials of their authorship of their secret war by staging elaborate stunts against their own state, often acts of terrorism, so as to attempt to escape responsibility for their secret state acts of war, so as not to interrupt their states' public pleas for aid payments nor to interrupt their states' trade with the very (mostly Western) states they are secretly waging war against.

So it is not easy to summarize in a single sentence no. It quickly turns into a single paragraph as you can see.

 

[el-ahrairah]

oh, that's fair enough. just like all the other political blocks in the world then, i thought it was something special.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good sentence, Peter.

But your list is a rather disparate group of countries, some of whom really don't like each other. The Saudis and the Iranians don't get on at all, and their interests do not coincide.

You sure you're not just lumping them all together because they're Muslim countries?

 

[Peter Dow]

oh, that's fair enough. just like all the other political blocks in the world then, i thought it was something special.

There are special aspects of this jihadi political block at a secret war with us.

Recall that with the Axis political block of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in world war 2 and with the Communist Soviet and Chinese led political blocks in the Cold War, we didn't pretend we were good allies at total peace and we didn't fund them with aid.

Those other political blocks were viewed as hot war or cold war foes and were treated as such.

With this jihadi political block, we do fund some of the enemy states in the enemy jihadi political block with a lot of aid payments, to Pakistan and Egypt, for example.

We also do a lot of trade with the enemy Saudi and other oil-producing states. Our leaders are also in denial about this secret war of aggression that the enemy states are waging against us.

It does seem to be special that we are financially supporting our enemies' as they wage secret war against us. That's a first I think that our leaders seem so blind to the enemy state intent here.

In the past, our wars, hot or cold, were open and honest, though military deception always played a part in war, it was usually the details that were secret, military communications, troop deployments, military technology, never the basic fact of the war itself.

I think the closest to what we have with the jihadi states war, history has seen before was the appeasement of Hitler, and PM Neville Chamberlain we've mentioned.

Hitler had started his war build up as soon as he came to office in 1933 when he rounded up and executed the German democratic opposition to the Nazis. But for years, the UK and other appeasers pretended it could all be smoothed over but really the Nazi war was slowly escalating all the time. It's not an exact parallel but that's the closest in history to this jihadi states war that I can think of anyway.

There are plenty of other normal political blocks you can define which have their rivalries - the USA vs EU, who makes the best airplanes - Boeing or Airbus etc - but that's healthy peaceful competition.

No there is something special about this block of enemies - the hatred of democracy and their fear of their own people wanting freedom and democracy, we have seen before, often. What we've not seen so often is the way this block of enemy states seems to be able to pull the wool over our leaders' eyes, get away with so much.

 

[Peter Dow]

Good sentence, Peter.

But your list is a rather disparate group of countries, some of whom really don't like each other. The Saudis and the Iranians don't get on at all, and their interests do not coincide.

You sure you're not just lumping them all together because they're Muslim countries?

I think they are lumping themselves together on that basis.

Consider how the Pakistani father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb provided help to Iran for their nuclear weapons programme.

A.Q. Khan boasts of helping Iran's nuclear programme
The Daily Telegraph. By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor 10:22PM BST 10 Sep 2009
A.Q. Khan, the nuclear scientist renowned as the architect of Pakistan's atomic weapons programme bomb, has boasted of how he helped Iran to develop its own capability to "neutralise" Israel's power in the Middle East.
He also claimed he had acted with his government's permission.

I think it is convenient for Iran and Saudi Arabia to play up their divisions, even organise their respective terrorist proxy groups tearing lumps out of each other in Iraq and Syria, so as to seek to provoke a split between, on one side, the US and Western allies, intended to support the Saudi - Pakistani - Sunni camp, versus, on the other side, the Russians intended to support the Iranian - Syrian - Shia camp.

It is a case of divide and rule. If the jihadi states can divide the United Nations Security Council then with a dove president like Obama, loath to adopt the Bush Doctrine to do regime-change without a specific UNSC resolution, who opposed the Iraq invasion, then engineering a US-Russia split over Syria or Iraq or anything, deadlocking the UNSC is what the Jihadi states want above all.

Saudi Arabia and Iran explain their need for arms purchases and a military build up as intended to confront each other but the reality is that this is a smoke screen for the build up of military power by the whole jihadi political block so that one day they will be strong enough to go from a secret war to an open war against us.

I think to a degree this dramatized conflict between the Saudis and Iranians is played along with by vested interests in the US and Russia who want to make money selling arms and other high tech especially militarily useful products to their oil-rich customers.

I think there is no more substance to this Sunni Shia division than say Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox divisions. Admittedly, sectarian rivalries among the masses and their street preachers exist and can be exacerbated if a state finds a reason to want to do that, but at a state level sectarianism really only serves those jihadi states' interests merely as a pretext for splitting the established world powers represented on the UN Security Council.

So Russia and the West should not take sides with Saudi - Iran / Sunni - Shia - and we should stop finding other reasons such as Crimea and the Ukraine to fall out but we should instead pull together to defeat the jihadi states.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not as simple as a Sunni-Shia divide. Sunni Syria and Shia Iran have been close allies for decades.

 

[barney_pig]

A wily, dishonest, evil enemy group of militaristic jihadi states - namely, most dangerously nuclear-weapons armed Pakistan, but including also Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran and Syria - taking advantage of the naivety, gullibility and foolishness of the people and leaders of the rest of the world to try to disguise their state actions, are waging a global war for imperial and ideological conquest and expansion, often using secret agent terrorists such as Al Qaeda and proxy irregular forces such as the Taliban to attack their targeted victims directly but publicly denying their covert state acts of war and their secret intent to defeat and to dominate the world, sometimes supporting their denials of their authorship of their secret war by staging elaborate stunts against their own state, often acts of terrorism, so as to attempt to escape responsibility for their secret state acts of war, so as not to interrupt their states' public pleas for aid payments nor to interrupt their states' trade with the very (mostly Western) states they are secretly waging war against.

So it is not easy to summarize in a single sentence no. It quickly turns into a single paragraph as you can see.

So, basically the illustrated unabridged version of Muslamic Rayguns

 

[Peter Dow]

It's not as simple as a Sunni-Shia divide. Sunni Syria and Shia Iran have been close allies for decades.

Neither is "it" as simple as a Saudi-Iranian divide. The Saudis and Iranians have been closer allies than they want you to believe.

A Punch and Judy show is not as simple and as a Punch-Judy divide.

The conflict between Punch and Judy is orchestrated by the puppeteer for the distraction of the audience.

But during the show, the entranced young children watching the puppet show make believe that "it" is as simple as a Punch-Judy divide and so their parents are happy to pay the puppeteer, not because "it" is as simple as a Punch-Judy divide but because their children are entertained for a while.

My point is that whatever "it" is, "it" is not worth foolishly paying our enemies, aiding and trading with enemy jihadi states that we really ought to be regime-changing in an efficient way.

There is not an "it", be it simple or complex, which justifies giving our tax-payer cash to the enemy Pakistani military which is waging a secret war against us.

There is no "it", be it simple or complex, which justifies the NATO Secretary General shaking hands with the enemy Pakistani Army Chief of Staff.

There is no "it" which justifies our people putting our faith in idiot royalist politicians like Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Jens Stoltenberg, David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

These royalist idiots are sitting like giggling children at a puppet show orchestrated by the likes of Musharraf and we need to kick not only those royalist idiots out of office but also the monarchs and end the kingdoms which provide us with a stream of idiots for Prime Ministers.

 

[J Ed]

I really think you might be putting a bit too much faith in this Royalist/Not Royalist dichotomy Peter..

Also I'm sorry to tell you this but..

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good sentence, Peter.

But your list is a rather disparate group of countries, some of whom really don't like each other. The Saudis and the Iranians don't get on at all, and their interests do not coincide.

You sure you're not just lumping them all together because they're Muslim countries?

And he missed out Yemen.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Saw the name of the OP and I just knew it would be quality.

Welcome back Peter

 

[SpineyNorman]

Also, I voted for the Royalist NATO and london getting nuked

Would have preferred proper communist IPTO (Intergalactic proletarian treaty organisation) and the nuking of london with the workers bomb but I guess beggers can't be choosers

 

[smmudge]

This is one of Pakistan's nuclear missiles.

I like the way they painted it camouflage - easy to hide and you can't see it coming

 

[tim]

It's not as simple as a Sunni-Shia divide. Sunni Syria and Shia Iran have been close allies for decades.

Sunnis may be the largest religious group in Syria but Assad and Dad are (was in the case of Dad) Alawi. The Alawi are a rather peculiar mystery religion but their roots are in Shiism

 

[tim]

 

[19sixtysix]

Pass the mind bleach

 

[moochedit]

calling brispete

 

[Peter Dow]

I really think you might be putting a bit too much faith in this Royalist/Not Royalist dichotomy Peter..

I've no faith in the royals, royalists, or even republican presidents who want to, or feel they have to, betray the principles of republicanism by supporting the royal families of other countries and therefore being something other than a strict non-royalist.

Being a democratic republican is all about having the freedom to have no faith in any head of state, even an elected president - Bush, Obama, whoever; republicanism is all about having faith in the ability and the inalienable rights of the people to seek to elect a better head of state than the one which is currently imposed upon them, even establishing a new republic to get the right to elect the president of their choice.

Also I'm sorry to tell you this but..

I doubt you can tell me anything relevant about Condi I don't already know and I knew all about Condi meeting the Queen and no I don't approve of her or any US Secretary of State doing so.

I have tried to make my republican views known to my fellow republicans in America and to complain about their president supporting the UK monarchy as in these videos.









Then there's this page on my website.
Attention Americans! Who are your true friends? Not the Windsors!