Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies

[Peter Dow]

We are not at war with Pakistan peter.

The Pakistani military are at war with the world and have committed multiple acts of war, killing thousands of people, inside Pakistan and outside, from USA 9/11, to London 7/7, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

That the Pakistani military have chosen to wage those acts of war secretly, by sponsoring Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists via the Pakistan military intelligence service - the ISI - does not mean they are not at war with us.

The Pakistani military's acts of war constitute an undeclared war on free nations and peoples everywhere.

I admit there are pacifists who will not wage war on anyone even if they are being waged war upon. Pacifists will simply allow themselves and their loved ones to be slaughtered like lambs.

However, most of us are not pacifists so if someone wages a war on us then we, who are not pacifists, wage a war back in our own self-defence.

Scottish socialists and republicans did not wait until the King of the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany. We were at war long before then when we sided against Franco's fascists in the Spanish civil war when Franco was being supported by the Nazis and we volunteered to side with the International Brigade to support the democracy and republic of the people of Spain.

So we do not wait and I do not wait for your damn Queen to tell me when and against whom I am at war. I am at war with the Pakistani ISI and the Pakistani military high command who order the ISI to sponsor terrorism, like it or not.

Paki is a racist insult.

Not when I use the word it isn't.

Do not use it.

Presumably, you also are telling us not defend ourselves as acts of war are committed against us by the Pakistan military?

Well I don't walk peacefully into the gas chamber for any pacifist, sorry.

 

[Roadkill]

Oh my God, it just gets worse and worse.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm not a pacifist, I am a Marxist

And look up the word paki and how its used, tbh I don't even feel that comfortable writing it

It's a racist insult and you should not use it.

And for what it is worth comparing being told not to be racist to er being sent to a gas chamber is really offensive

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Pakistani military are at war with the world and have committed multiple acts of war, killing thousands of people, inside Pakistan and outside, from USA 9/11, to London 7/7, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

That the Pakistani military have chosen to wage those acts of war secretly, by sponsoring Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists via the Pakistan military intelligence service - the ISI - does not mean they are not at war with us.

The Pakistani military's acts of war constitute an undeclared war on free nations and peoples everywhere.

I admit there are pacifists who will not wage war on anyone even if they are being waged war upon. Pacifists will simply allow themselves and their loved ones to be slaughtered like lambs.

However, most of us are not pacifists so if someone wages a war on us then we, who are not pacifists, wage a war back in our own self-defence.

Scottish socialists and republicans did not wait until the King of the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany. We were at war long before then when we sided against Franco's fascists in the Spanish civil war when Franco was being supported by the Nazis and we volunteered to side with the International Brigade to support the democracy and republic of the people of Spain.

So we do not wait and I do not wait for your damn Queen to tell me when and against whom I am at war. I am at war with the Pakistani ISI and the Pakistani military high command who order the ISI to sponsor terrorism, like it or not.


Not when I use the word it isn't.


Presumably, you also are telling us not defend ourselves as acts of war are committed against us by the Pakistan military?

Well I don't walk peacefully into the gas chamber for any pacifist, sorry.

But surely the ISI is a wholly owned subsiduary of the CIA, hence you're declaring war on the US?

 

[tim]

I do not wait for your damn Queen to tell me what I am at war. I am at war with the Pakistani ISI, like it or not.

As you're one of Her subjects she's as much your Sovereign Lady as she is anyone else's. As to personal declaration of war on the ISI, I hope you muster whatever forces you have and get stuck n as soon as possible and look forward to seeing clips of Standard Bearer guerrilla spectaculars on Al Jazeera, Russia Today and Fox. Try not to get seriously martyred, though as your threads always amuse me.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Presumably, you also are telling us not defend ourselves as acts of war are committed against us by the Pakistan military?

What have the Pakistan military done to you this time? I've told you to stop hanging around with them. They'll only get you into trouble.

 

[Peter Dow]

I'm not a pacifist, I am a Marxist

Well then you ought to buck up your Marxist ideas since I do remember well that the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union was by no means a pacifist country.

And look up the word paki and how its used, tbh I don't even feel that comfortable writing it

I'm not using the word in the way that others have used it. I'm using the word in my own, very simple way, as a shorthand for "Pakistan" or "Pakistani" when shorthand is useful.

It's a racist insult and you should not use it.

I have not used the word as a "racist insult" and you've no evidence that I have. All you have is your prejudice.

And for what it is worth comparing being told not to be racist to er being sent to a gas chamber is really offensive

I have no problem with being told not to be racist because I never am.

The comparison was with being told not to use a particular word, not to publish any war propaganda poster with that word in it, on the one hand, with being told not to wage war in my self-defence and therefore accepting passively whatever fate the enemy wishes to impose on me, be that prison or execution, by hanging, firing squad or gas chamber.

It seems reasonable that if you can tell me not to publish war propaganda then you might be about to tell me not to wage war and therefore accept my fate as a prisoner of war, or helpless victim of enemy atrocities.

 

[frogwoman]

You don't get to define what words mean, and whether the soviet union was Marxist is highly debatable

You don't get to change the meanings of words just because you say so, and your imagery off cockroaches also doesn't help in this regard

Also calm down using the word paki isn't essential to your 'war propaganda' ffs.

 

[frogwoman]

The comparison was with being told not to use a particular word, not to publish any war propaganda poster with that word in it, on the one hand, with being told not to wage war in my self-defence and therefore accepting pacify whatever fate the enemy wishes to impose on me, be that prison or execution, by hanging, firing squad or gas chamber.

You are basically comparing people that are asking you not to say racist shit with Nazis.

 

[Roadkill]

It seems reasonable that if you can tell me not to publish war propaganda then you might be about to tell me not to wage war and therefore accept my fate as a prisoner of war, or helpless victim of enemy atrocities.

You're absolutely fucking bonkers.

 

[Peter Dow]

As you're one of Her subjects she's as much your Sovereign Lady as she is anyone else's.

If others view the Queen as I do then she is not long for the throne, nor this country. At best she can go into exile with her family.

As to personal declaration of war on the ISI, I hope you muster whatever forces you have and get stuck n as soon as possible and look forward to seeing clips of Standard Bearer guerrilla spectaculars on Al Jazeera, Russia Today and Fox. Try not to get seriously martyred, though as your threads always amuse me.

What do you think I have been doing in this thread, and in my AfPak Mission content on the internet other than "getting stuck in"?



That sounds like getting stuck into the Taliban and their Pakistan ISI masters there.

The AfPak Mission links

Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission
Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/
Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/

 

[Peter Dow]

But surely the ISI is a wholly owned subsiduary of the CIA, hence you're declaring war on the US?

Absolutely not. The CIA and ISI co-operated with each other to support the Afghan rebels against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, sure. That co-operation ended after the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan and collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

Much of the intelligence about the activities of the ISI in sponsoring the Taliban has come from CIA analysts like Bruce Riedel and you would know that if you had bothered to watch the BBC Panorama videos "SECRET PAKISTAN" I posted in post #40

So no, the US, like the UK, cannot go onto an official war footing against Pakistan without the order of its government to do so, (the US president's order in the case of the US). But the relations between the two intelligence agencies - the CIA & ISI - are "frosty" to say the least.

 

[J Ed]

Stay frosty

 

[Peter Dow]

What have the Pakistan military done to you this time? I've told you to stop hanging around with them. They'll only get you into trouble.

The Pakistan military have sponsored Al Qaeda and their terrorist attacks world-wide, USA 9/11, London 7/7, insurgents attacks in Iraq, Taliban attacks in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, shooting Malala Yousafzai, killing Benazir Bhutto etc.

The question is not what has the Pakistani military done to humanity but who speaks in the defence of humanity against those in the Pakistan military who commit crimes against humanity?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

But the US sponsors the Pakistan military

 

[Manter]

I've never seen complete lunacy at such close quarters before.

 

[Peter Dow]

You don't get to define what words mean,

I get to clarify what I mean by my words where there is any doubt.

and whether the soviet union was Marxist is highly debatable

Well if you won't side with any non-pacifist Marxists then I have to call you "pacifist" since you walk and talk like a pacifist and if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck then you can be fairly confident it is a duck.

You don't get to change the meanings of words just because you say so,

The obvious original meaning of "Paki" was simply as it reads, a truncation of the word "Pakistan". That's what is used to mean without doubt and that's what I mean if there is doubt now.

Therefore it is others who have added additional new meanings to the word to use it in a way that suits their racist purpose.

and your imagery off cockroaches also doesn't help in this regard

2 cockroaches compared to Pervez Musharraf and Ashfaq Kayani. Are these Pakistan generals who have ordered crimes against humanity not to be compared to cockroaches, then? These are two evil men who deserve the fate of cockroaches, to be crushed as vermin!

Also calm down using the word paki isn't essential to your 'war propaganda' ffs.

I think it is. If we are going to find the courage to drop some bombs on Islamabad it would help if we can first find the courage to use the truncated version of the country's name.

Here is an example of the word "Jap" being used in connection with war plans.

Likewise, I trust in good time we will read in the Sun about the "Pakis" getting pay back for USA 9/11, London 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, what they have done to their own citizens etc.

 

[Roadkill]

I've never seen complete lunacy at such close quarters before.

Tbf this is positively sane compared to his website.

 

[J Ed]

Peter, the use of 'Jap' there is also racist...

 

[heinous seamus]

I am at war with the Pakistani ISI and the Pakistani military high command

I know who my money's on.

 

[frogwoman]

Cockroaches, calling people paki, saying that bombs should be dropped on Islamabad ffs

 

[Peter Dow]

You are basically comparing people that are asking you not to say racist shit with Nazis.

No I've not used either of those types of people in my comparison.

I'm not saying "racist shit" and have no complaint or comparison with any such request which I fully agree with. The issue is that I don't accept that the word "Paki" as used by me is "racist".

Secondly, I am not comparing those who want to stop me contributing to the war effort against the Pakistani enemy with "Nazis" but with pacifists and as we all know, pacifists will walk peacefully into gas chambers and expect others to follow them likewise or get a "tut, tut" or a raised eyebrow or whatever else it is pacifists do when others don't lie down and die like they do.

 

[Peter Dow]

But the US sponsors the Pakistan military

This is the biggest problem in the current US and NATO strategy in the war on terror - the US is funding the very enemy military which is sponsoring terrorism against the US and allies.

I have pointed out the flawed, self-defeating act of funding the enemy which defies military logic many times in many forums.

Victory in war comes about when you bankrupt the enemy, render the enemy without the resources to re-supply his armies.

Well done for pointing this out. Clearly you are better qualified to be a military leader than the muppets who currently run the Pentagon.

 

[Peter Dow]

Cockroaches,

Sure. Do you think "cockroach" is much worse than snake?

If that "snake" is OK, why is my "cockroach" beyond the acceptable bounds?

calling people paki,

Well Pakistanis can be called "Pakis" for shorthand if there is a good need to use a short-hand to allow for bigger letters - such as in a newspaper front page headline or poster.

Am I offended when an American calls me a "Brit" as short for "Briton"? No. There is no offence intended by a shorthand.

saying that bombs should be dropped on Islamabad ffs

The ISI HQ is in Islamabad and that's an obvious first target to want to bomb, yes. It's quite a big HQ so using conventional explosives would require a number of bombs yes. To knock the ISI HQ out in one bomb would need a nuke.

 

[joustmaster]

well thats that sorted then.

 

[Humberto]

The Pakistan military have sponsored Al Qaeda and their terrorist attacks world-wide, USA 9/11, London 7/7, insurgents attacks in Iraq, Taliban attacks in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, shooting Malala Yousafzai, killing Benazir Bhutto etc.

The question is not what has the Pakistani military done to humanity but who speaks in the defence of humanity against those in the Pakistan military who commit crimes against humanity?

The same could be said of other countries. Saudi funding of 9/11. Iranian funding of Iraq insurgency. American funding of Taliban. Besides which, you basically want to bomb Islamabad because some in the ISI are criminals?

 

[yield]

This is the biggest problem in the current US and NATO strategy in the war on terror - the US is funding the very enemy military which is sponsoring terrorism against the US and allies.

I have pointed out the flawed, self-defeating act of funding the enemy which defies military logic many times in many forums.

Victory in war comes about when you bankrupt the enemy, render the enemy without the resources to re-supply his armies.

Well done for pointing this out. Clearly you are better qualified to be a military leader than the muppets who currently run the Pentagon.

How is the USA military going to defend it's multi-billion dollar budget without an enemy? Seems pretty logical to me

 

[Peter Dow]

Peter, the use of 'Jap' there is also racist...

No it isn't racist in the least. It is short-hand for "Japanese military authorities", or "Imperial Japan" - the enemy power the US and allies were waging the war in the Pacific against. Japan is the name of the country. Why would a country give itself a "racist" name?

What would you have written instead in that newspaper headline, using as few and as big letters?

 

[Peter Dow]

The same could be said of other countries.

Maybe of some other countries yes. However not truthfully or fairly said of some others.

Saudi funding of 9/11.

True, fair and well documented.

Iranian funding of Iraq insurgency.

True and well documented. Fair if you also point out that the Iranians only funded sectarian terrorist factions which support Iran's particular "Shia" sectarian policy. Other insurgents, such as Sunni sectarian terrorists were funded by Saudi Arabia.

American funding of Taliban.

There is a grain of truth in that by funding the Pakistan military, the US has inadvertently funded the Taliban, yes. However it isn't really fair to write it as you have done since most Americans remain unaware that their tax-payer cash is going to fund the Taliban insurgents that have been killing their and our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Besides which, you basically want to bomb Islamabad because some in the ISI are criminals?

Well they are not common criminals which the police can arrest. The ISI is part of the Pakistani de facto military dictatorship which runs military policy in Pakistan behind the scenes of the window dressing of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.

So the ISI are part of the military regime. They are like the Nazi SS. We could never get rid of the Nazi SS by expecting Germany to arrest those Nazi SS criminals, even though that's what we thought they were, because the Nazi state didn't see their SS as "criminals" but as loyal officers of the state.

Likewise the ISI are seen as loyal military officers of the military state by the Pakistani military high command.

Also I do not want to bomb just any old part of Islamabad but particularly the ISI HQ. In order to bomb the ISI HQ it may be necessary to target ground to air missile defence sites and take other preliminary actions to give our bombers a clear run to the target. It really depends a lot on how much of the Pakistan military wants to fight to save their ISI HQ. It may be possible to agree a separate peace with parts of the Pakistani military - the air force perhaps - who have no love for the ISI and would be content to sacrifice the ISI to get the Pakistani military operating as a modern loyal military force answering to the elected authorities.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Fuck me. I've only been skimming your posts if I'm honest, Peter. But you want to bomb Islamabad?

I know you're hatstand. But wow.

You're oddly conventional under all the hatstandiness, with a touching faith in the authorities you rail against. You want there to be some deep order to the power structures in the world. And you're happy to be subordinate to them. Your Condi-fetish starts to make more sense now.