PDA

View Full Version : Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies



Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 01:41 PM
Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg appointed as new NATO chief
Washington Times
By Mark Lewis and Raf Casert-Associated Press Friday, March 28, 2014


BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO’s next leader was announced Friday: former Norwegian Premier Jens Stoltenberg will lead the military alliance starting in October.
..
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen will step down after a NATO summit in Wales later this year.
..
The past weeks had seen a flurry of diplomacy as member states sought to push their candidates into NATO’s top political job.
..
A two-time Norwegian prime minister, Stoltenberg became a recognizable face on the international scene with his dignified response to the twin terror attacks that killed 77 people in July 2011.
..
His coalition suffered a year later when an independent inquest into the bomb and gun attacks by right-wing fanatic Anders Breivik found a litany of failures by police and security services that might have disrupted or even prevented the slaughter. By September 2013, Stoltenberg’s coalition government had been ousted by a combination of conservatives and populists as the Norway tilted right.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/28/norways-jens-stoltenberg-appointed-new-nato-chief



http://s25.postimg.org/6j95grh5b/NATOroyalistsgrovel_800.jpg
The current and next NATO Secretary Generals - Rasmussen (shaking hands) and Stoltenberg (left) wait in line to grovel before their royal master King Harald of Norway (right).

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/2013_05_130508a-sg-norway/20130508_130508a-016_rdax_600x430.JPG
The current NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen meeting with his royal master King Harald in Norway.

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/251887/prince-charles-camilla-attends-state-dinner-during-diamond-jubilee-tour.jpg
Seated back - Stoltenberg, left, Duchess Camilla (middle), King Harald, standing right. Seated at the front with his back to us - Prince Charles

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/2013_05_130508a-sg-norway/20130508_130508a-001_rdax_600x399.JPG
Rasmussen (left) and Stoltenberg (right) seemingly lost without a royal to grovel to.

Royalists keep grip on NATO

The former Norwegian Kingdom Premier Jens Stoltenberg failed to defend Norway from the terrorist Breivik's Oslo bombing and Utøya shootings. Never trust the King's men!

The current NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was a former Prime Minster of the Kingdom of Denmark who has lost NATO's war on terror & Afghanistan-Pakistan mission to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence generals who sponsored Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

Rasmussen has demonstrated that a naive, corrupt ex-Prime Minister of a Kingdom is not a fit and proper person to serve as NATO Secretary General.

Royalists such as Rasmussen and Stoltenberg accept imposed monarchs and military dictators, and the chaos and terrorism which comes in their wake, rather than fighting for a democratic republic, so these royalists will mislead NATO to defeat in our Afghanistan - Pakistan mission and to defeat in the war on terror.

To end the Pakistani military dictatorship which dictates military policy to sponsor Al Qaeda, Taliban and other jihadi terrorism (behind the scenes of the window dressing of an elected but relatively powerless Pakistani government) NATO must kill the traitor Pakistani generals. However, the royalist Anders Fogh Rasmussen never has ordered assassination missions against Pakistani generals and I predict that the royalist Jens Stoltenberg never will, sadly.

We ought to be concerned that Stoltenberg like Rasmussen is an inept military leader who will allow our enemies to drain the strength out of our alliance.

The Pakistani generals are simply like "the royals" of Pakistan and the European royalists will surrender to them, do deals with them, retreat from them and be defeated by them accordingly.

Additionally look at the war record of those countries - Rasmussen's Denmark resisted in the second world war when invaded by the Nazi Wehrmacht for all of 2 hours. They simply could not surrender fast enough! Norway too was unprepared to resist Nazi invasion and occupation.

These royalist armies are superior usually only when faced with natives with sharp sticks such as in the Zulu wars, or when shooting civilians as in Northern Ireland. Any real opposition royalists crumble, can't fight to win.

For kingdoms to win world wars, they usually need to hire smart people irrespective of their politics, form alliances with republics and take a back seat when it comes to who provides the supreme military command.

Then once kingdoms have won their wars they go back to persecuting the people who have just won their war for them, like the UK did when it drove Alan Turing to suicide after the war even though as a brilliant computer scientist he decoded the Nazi's secret military communications and gave Britain a war-winning advantage over the Nazis.

If you want to go to war and win, go as a republic.

To win the war on terror and our Afghanistan - Pakistan mission we need leadership from a republican A-team comprising I propose of Condoleezza Rice and myself Peter Dow as NATO Secretary General & Supreme Allied Commander Europe - I don't mind which of the two us does what job but Condi is really the only person I'd be happy being deputy to or taking orders from, apart from the North Atlantic Council (NAC) which is NATO's principal political decision making body.

Obviously, as a NATO leader I would take my directions from the NAC but in terms of me being supervised by a superior officer, I don't see anyone but Condi measuring up to that task right now.

http://s25.postimg.org/gtg5tqwen/condi_NATO800.jpg
The AfPak Mission forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26
The Republican Intelligence forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=20
The Condoleezza Rice forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=16
The For Freedom Forums http://figh.tk

Rusty Jones
04-04-2014, 02:43 PM
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. Whoever published this article needs to be slapped for enabling the idiot.

I'd tell you what I think of YOU for posting it, but the mods wouldn't like that very much.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-04-2014, 03:42 PM
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. Whoever published this article needs to be slapped for enabling the idiot.

I'd tell you what I think of YOU for posting it, but the mods wouldn't like that very much.

I don't think his article was published, it looks like he tacked his article onto the end of a Washington Times article.

I got a chuckle from his signature block, what the kind of writer uses the words, "and stuff" to describe something?

You usually would have to go to a third grade classroom in Kentucky to see that kind of writing style.

Thanks Peter Dow for saving me a trip to Kentucky!


Peter Dow
I am a writer and campaigner with my own websites and stuff to prove that my posts are my own material. I'd love to credit and prove myself but the forum moderators are imposing a "Catch 22" type rule which means I can't link to my own site yet I must some how credit the author (me).

Rusty Jones
04-04-2014, 04:19 PM
My issue with the post is that it's obviously written by an American conservative, who believes that the world should run according to "murica-centric" ways of doing business. Not everyone in the world is American, and not everyone wants to live the same way we do. Too many idiots who can't seem to grasp that.

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 04:37 PM
Is there anyone here who can grasp that I, Peter Dow, am a Scot, not an American? Can anyone grasp that I write my own posts so everything in my posts not in a quote is written by myself, a Scot?

Can anyone grasp that a republican in Scotland is not a conservative political viewpoint because overthrowing the UK monarchy to establish one or more republics here would be not conserving the status quo?

Republican revolution is no more "conservative" in Scotland today than was the American revolutionary war of independence celebrated on the 4th July "conservative" in its time.

Actually, many Scots would like the right to elect our own president as head of state and what those of us who think like that don't like about America is the conservatism of US Presidents who are on such friendly terms with the UK monarchy, inviting Queen Elizabeth to the White House.

No, Scottish and British republicans would rather like the US to help us with regime-change, if that's all the same to you.

Here I am and you will note that I speak in a Scottish, not American, accent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLIxq03PUTU

Absinthe Anecdote
04-04-2014, 04:38 PM
My issue with the post is that it's obviously written by an American conservative, who believes that the world should run according to "murica-centric" ways of doing business. Not everyone in the world is American, and not everyone wants to live the same way we do. Too many idiots who can't seem to grasp that.

You can't be surprised that a guy with that world view would pop up on this forum.

I am much more irritated that this guy is touting himself as a writer and his article is full of poor grammar and word usage.

It follows no standard convention of structure for developing paragraphs, and it is painfully obvious that he has never picked up a style guide.

He needs to go to his local community college and take a couple of writing classes and then enroll in a university and study a few more years.

Mjölnir
04-04-2014, 04:44 PM
3754

Absinthe Anecdote
04-04-2014, 04:59 PM
Is there anyone here who can grasp that I, Peter Dow, am a Scot, not an American? Can anyone grasp that I write my own posts so everything in my posts not in a quote is written by myself, a Scot?

Can anyone grasp that a republican in Scotland is not a conservative political viewpoint because overthrowing the UK monarchy to establish one or more republics here would be not conserving the status quo?

Republican revolution is no more "conservative" in Scotland today than was the American revolutionary war of independence celebrated on the 4th July "conservative" in its time.

Actually, many Scots would like the right to elect our own president as head of state and what those of us who think like that don't like about America is the conservatism of US Presidents who are on such friendly terms with the UK monarchy, inviting Queen Elizabeth to the White House.

No, Scottish and British republicans would rather like the US to help us with regime-change, if that's all the same to you.

Here I am and you will note that I speak in a Scottish, not American, accent.



I think this guy is Tak in one of those expensive disguises, and he has apparently hired himself a dialect coach and can now speak in a fairly convincing Scottish accent.

My negligible Scottish ancestry allows me to detect inconsistencies in his speaking pattern. I know that real Scots sound more like this.

http://youtu.be/EfUTadk1XsA

Rusty Jones
04-04-2014, 05:09 PM
I think this guy is Tak in one of those expensive disguises, and he has apparently hired himself a dialect coach and can now speak in a fairly convincing Scottish accent.

My negligible Scottish ancestry allows me to detect inconsistencies in his speaking pattern. I know that real Scots sound more like this.


It sounds bogus as hell. How in the hell does it ever cross anyone's mind to go to a military discussion board for foreign military members and veterans?

Have any of you ever woke up one day and thought, "Hmmm... I think I'm gonna go to a discussion board for members and veterans of New Zealand's military!"

I don't buy this guy's story.

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 05:12 PM
I think this guy is Tak in one of those expensive disguises, and he has apparently hired himself a dialect coach and can now speak in a fairly convincing Scottish accent.

My negligible Scottish ancestry allows me to detect inconsistencies in his speaking pattern. I know that real Scots sound more like this.

No, that olive T-shirt was not expensive to buy.

The outfit I wear in this video, did cost more to make.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY

Oh, and I've already been to university and have a degree in Computer Science and the only time I went to college was to work as a lecturer in mathematics and computing.

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 05:28 PM
It sounds bogus as hell. How in the hell does it ever cross anyone's mind to go to a military discussion board for foreign military members and veterans?

Have any of you ever woke up one day and thought, "Hmmm... I think I'm gonna go to a discussion board for members and veterans of New Zealand's military!"

I don't buy this guy's story.
I joined here in July 2010 but didn't post much until, in April 2012, I started the topic

Taliban's terms for peace talks outlined @ "University of Jihad", Pakistan
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1591975-Taliban-s-terms-for-peace-talks-outlined-quot-University-of-Jihad-quot-Pakistan

which now has 90 posts in it.

Rusty Jones
04-04-2014, 05:30 PM
On second thought, he could be telling the truth. In my online experience, its usually Brits who complain about "royalism."

I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was the de facto "president," for monarchs who hold the job title of "king" or "queen" without having to do the job.

Though, it would be neat to see some of them actually step up. With powers that are similar to that of our president.

I see three important advantages that royalism has over republicanism:

1. "Experience" will never be anywhere near as big an issue for a new monarch who assumes the throne. They were groomed their whole lives since birth, knowing full well that they're eventually going to lead a nation; and they've actually been trained their whole lives to that effect.

2. They have no choice but to care about what shape their country is in once they pass on, because their children are the ones who have to inherit it once they die.

3. And the most important: Presidents tend to care about keeping their job more than actually doing the right thing. And often times, they face that dilemma when the "popular thing" and "right thing" conflict. If you want to stay employed, you'd better do the popular thing. At least someone who is not elected doesn't face that dilemma. They're 100% free to do the right thing, and without consequence.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-04-2014, 06:12 PM
I thought Forrest Whitaker was the King of Scotland?

3755

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 06:31 PM
On second thought, he could be telling the truth. In my online experience, its usually Brits who complain about "royalism."

I was under the impression that the Prime Minister was the de facto "president," for monarchs who hold the job title of "king" or "queen" without having to do the job.
The prime ministers in a kingdom are given the job of head of government but usually the rigged undemocratic procedures debar anyone talented enough to do a good job of it.


Though, it would be neat to see some of them actually step up. With powers that are similar to that of our president.
Well Americans didn't think King George III having powers over them was "neat" and that's why they waged a war of independence and republican revolution to get out from under King George's abuse of powers.


I see three important advantages that royalism has over republicanism:

1. "Experience" will never be anywhere near as big an issue for a new monarch who assumes the throne. They were groomed their whole lives since birth, knowing full well that they're eventually going to lead a nation; and they've actually been trained their whole lives to that effect.

2. They have no choice but to care about what shape their country is in once they pass on, because their children are the ones who have to inherit it once they die.

3. And the most important: Presidents tend to care about keeping their job more than actually doing the right thing. And often times, they face that dilemma when the "popular thing" and "right thing" conflict. If you want to stay employed, you'd better do the popular thing. At least someone who is not elected doesn't face that dilemma. They're 100% free to do the right thing, and without consequence.
It doesn't work out very well considering in the second world war, most of the European kingdoms could not withstand invasion by the Nazi Wehrmacht and it wasn't until republican USA entered the war that the tide began to turn against the Nazis.

It wasn't that the European kings didn't want to keep their countries independent and free of Nazi occupation. It wasn't that they didn't care. It was that they didn't have the ability to do what was right, that they cared about doing.

Being born and educated as best as a well-meaning foolish monarch can be is not good enough as head of state.

Electing a well-meaning clever person as president is what is needed.

The accident of birth has regularly put a person of average intelligence on the throne and such a person can never offer the exceptional leadership that our countries require.

Also the example of people in office who can't be voted out or removed by an elected government is a bad one to agree with. This means that royalist prime ministers are much more likely to support Pakistani generals who can't be voted out or removed by the Pakistani elected government even when these Pakistani generals are sponsoring terrorism against us.

For example, these Pakistani generals who provided VIP protection for Osama Bin Laden in a safe house near to the Pakistani military academy.

http://s25.postimg.org/5jazs5pjj/L_Kayani_R_Pasha_800.jpg

Now all those fools who agree with monarchy are likely to be the same fools who agree with Pakistani generals who can't be voted out or removed by an elected government.

Indeed we have found that some American military officers who like Prince Harry and the UK royals in the military were on friendly terms with our enemies in the Pakistani military.

So it is good way to find out who is a useless military leader in the US military. Anyone who likes the UK royals should not be employed as an officer and should be reduced in rank back down with the enlisted men and women.

We simply can't afford to have fools running the military in any country in NATO, including the US. That's the way to lose wars like we are losing the war against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Rusty Jones
04-04-2014, 07:00 PM
The prime ministers in a kingdom are given the job of head of government but usually the rigged undemocratic procedures debar anyone talented enough to do a good job of it.

Sounds familiar to what Americans are used to.


Well Americans didn't think King George III having powers over them was "neat" and that's why they waged a war of independence and republican revolution to get out from under King George's abuse of powers.

Considering the fact that the King George III was king of the free-est country in the world at the time, and many of the freedoms that we enjoy were also enjoyed in Britain... I really do believe that there was a different motive than what we're taught in history class.

Freedom of religion, for example. No one was required to be Anglican/Episcopalian. Most Scots were Presbyterian, and both the Methodist and Baptist denominations were founded in England.

The only people who were given trouble were the Puritans, and that's because they tried to start something with the Anglican Church and, as such, the Anglican Church ended it.


It doesn't work out very well considering in the second world war, most of the European kingdoms could not withstand invasion by the Nazi Wehrmacht and it wasn't until republican USA entered the war that the tide began to turn against the Nazis.

Being a kingdom had nothing to do with it.

And, contrary to what most Anglophones (i.e., people from English-speaking countries) believe, although the US played a part in defeating the Nazis, the lion's share of the credit goes to the Soviet Union. Our lion's share was in the Pacific against the Japanese.


It wasn't that the European kings didn't want to keep their countries independent and free of Nazi occupation. It wasn't that they didn't care. It was that they didn't have the ability to do what was right, that they cared about doing.

By that king, Europeans monarchs were nothing but figureheads anyway. It's not that they didn't care, it's was the responsibility of the prime ministers'.


Being born and educated as best as a well-meaning foolish monarch can be is not good enough as head of state.

You think we don't have our share of elected officials who are morons? People in office are only going to be as smart as the people who vote for them.


Electing a well-meaning clever person as president is what is needed.

Most people in the world can't even get that right. Good luck trying to see how that works out for you guys.


The accident of birth has regularly put a person of average intelligence on the throne and such a person can never offer the exceptional leadership that our countries require.

Bush Jr is example of that happening in the US. And, if we're not careful, we might repeat that same mistake by putting another Bush in office.


Also the example of people in office who can't be voted out or removed by an elected government is a bad one to agree with. This means that royalist prime ministers are much more likely to support Pakistani generals who can't be voted out or removed by the Pakistani elected government even when these Pakistani generals are sponsoring terrorism against us.

For example, these Pakistani generals who provided VIP protection for Osama Bin Laden in a safe house near to the Pakistani military academy.

http://s25.postimg.org/5jazs5pjj/L_Kayani_R_Pasha_800.jpg

Now all those fools who agree with monarchy are likely to be the same fools who agree with Pakistani generals who can't be voted out or removed by an elected government.

Indeed we have found that some American military officers who like Prince Harry and the UK royals in the military were on friendly terms with our enemies in the Pakistani military.

So it is good way to find out who is a useless military leader in the US military. Anyone who likes the UK royals should not be employed as an officer and should be reduced in rank back down with the enlisted men and women.

We simply can't afford to have fools running the military in any country in NATO, including the US. That's the way to lose wars like we are losing the war against Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Ah, yes. Conspiracy theories.

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 07:20 PM
Ah, yes. Conspiracy theories.

No. The New York Times and the BBC do not waste time with "conspiracy theories".


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.
http://s25.postimg.org/dh5ett2tr/Ahmed_Shuja_Pasha_800.jpg
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 buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?

This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.

This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.

This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.

Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).

The BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"

Part 1. Double Cross

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig

Peter Dow
04-04-2014, 07:21 PM
Part 2. Backlash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE


http://s25.postimg.org/4z6478lfz/censored_NYT.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/business/media/times-report-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.

Again the extremists groups in Pakistan which are attacking, violently indimidating and killing journalists are directed by the Pakistani military ISI.

The ISI censors newspapers and murders journalists because it wants its secret war against the West kept secret.


Bin Laden's Sugar Generals
The Pakistani Generals who provided for Osama Bin Laden while taking $ billions from the USA.

Ashfaq Parvez Kayani & Ahmad Shuja Pasha

http://s25.postimg.org/5jazs5pjj/L_Kayani_R_Pasha_800.jpg

The enemy Pakistani generals who Obama pays with $ billions of American taxpayer money as they've sponsored terrorists to attack our homelands and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani appointed Pasha as director general of Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), on 29 September 2008.

Previously, Kayani himself had served as director of the ISI from October 2004 to October 2007 and accordingly would have been responsible for providing safe houses for Bin Laden and other state sponsored terrorists during that period.

Directors General of the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence since 9/11

October 1999 – October 2001: LGen Mahmud Ahmed
October 2001 – October 2004: LGen Ehsan ul Haq
October 2004 – October 2007: LGen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani
October 2007 – October 2008: LGen Nadeem Taj
October 2008 – 19 March 2012: LGen Ahmad Shuja Pasha
19 March 2012 – present: LGen Zaheerul Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence#Directors_General
Full list of DGs of the ISI, from 1948

OBAMA's EVIL MASTERS

http://s25.postimg.org/cqcoo10gf/L_Ahmad_Shuja_Pasha_R_Ashfaq_Parvex_Kayani_800.jpg

http://s25.postimg.org/d8l4270r3/obamatears.jpg

OBAMA - NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BROUGHT A SUPERPOWER SO LOW

http://s25.postimg.org/jkubzpc3z/afpakmissionart_599.jpg

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/

Absinthe Anecdote
04-05-2014, 02:33 PM
No, that olive T-shirt was not expensive to buy.

The outfit I wear in this video, did cost more to make.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=789SkK7uwiY

Oh, and I've already been to university and have a degree in Computer Science and the only time I went to college was to work as a lecturer in mathematics and computing.

Sorry Peter,

I doubt you'll find any Americans who will help your revolution. It looks like you need to focus on finding at least one other Scot to help you first. You do realize that you were standing all by yourself in that little coral out by the edge of town.

Plus, that uniform you constructed looks too communist. Red pants? Who the hell wears red pants?

Rainmaker
04-05-2014, 03:27 PM
wasting your time Highlander. even if we agreed. most of us fat ass americans wouldn't know what a republic actually looks like anymore. oh wait. never mind.Rainmaker gotta go... MILEY IS TWERKING!!!

Peter Dow
04-05-2014, 06:25 PM
Sorry Peter,

I doubt you'll find any Americans who will help your revolution.
Never mind about all that in this thread with the topic "Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies" anyway.

The main point for posting that video was to establish that I am not an American conservative and that I'm another kind of "republican" altogether.

Hopefully we can get back to discussing the OP, the problems caused by having a royalist like Stoltenberg as NATO Secretary General, the same problems as now having the royalist Rasmussen as NATO Secretary General - namely, clueless leadership of our wars, unnecessary casualties, injuries, terrorists not defeated and all that.


It looks like you need to focus on finding at least one other Scot to help you first. You do realize that you were standing all by yourself in that little coral out by the edge of town.
The main republican meeting was elsewhere, nearby but outside of the security cordon established by the Queen's police.


Plus, that uniform you constructed looks too communist.
I don't agree. There's nothing "communist" about the outfit at all.


Red pants?
Look if you are that interested in my outfit then check out my webpage

Peter's Standard Bearer Outfit
http://scot.tk/outfit.htm


Who the hell wears red pants?
Google is your friend.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=red+pants

I'm not sure why the fuss about the outfit when we've taken thousands of deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan because of poor military leadership of NATO?

It seems a poor choice of subject to want to discuss. It's the wrong priority.

First, get the best leaders then worry about what trousers people are wearing on what day if you must.

So long as the NATO leaders are calling the right shots, so long as our troops come home in one piece, what does it matter what colour the NATO leaders' trousers are? Not one bit.

Peter Dow
04-05-2014, 06:32 PM
wasting your time Highlander. even if we agreed. most of us fat ass americans wouldn't know what a republic actually looks like anymore. oh wait. never mind.Rainmaker gotta go... MILEY IS TWERKING!!!
Well I think Americans do understand that a republic means you elect your president and don't have a monarch in place of elected president.

Now if we agree that an elected president is better, then it is not a waste of time to explain that we republicans would be correct to want to appoint someone to lead NATO who actually supports our republican ideals and not some royalist fool who doesn't.

Greg
04-05-2014, 07:20 PM
"Press conference by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen"

"We have already reinforced NATO’s presence on the eastern borders of the Alliance.

We are flying AWACS surveillance patrols over Poland and Romania.

We have more than doubled the number of fighter aircraft allocated to the NATO air policing mission in the Baltic States, thanks to the United States. And many European Allies have also offered additional planes and air-to-air refuelling tankers and other capabilities. I welcome this demonstration of strong solidarity.

Today, we directed our military commanders to develop additional measures to enhance our collective defence and deterrence against any threat of aggression to the Alliance. We will make sure we have updated military plans, enhanced exercises and appropriate deployments.
Today we also agreed on further support to Ukraine."

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_108511.htm

Absinthe Anecdote
04-05-2014, 08:23 PM
The main republican meeting was elsewhere, nearby but outside of the security cordon established by the Queen's police.


I don't agree. There's nothing "communist" about the outfit at all.


Look if you are that interested in my outfit then check out my webpage

Peter's Standard Bearer Outfit
http://scot.tk/outfit.htm


Google is your friend.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=red+pants

I'm not sure why the fuss about the outfit when we've taken thousands of deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan because of poor military leadership of NATO?

It seems a poor choice of subject to want to discuss. It's the wrong priority.

First, get the best leaders then worry about what trousers people are wearing on what day if you must.

So long as the NATO leaders are calling the right shots, so long as our troops come home in one piece, what does it matter what colour the NATO leaders' trousers are? Not one bit.

Maybe because NATO leadership was not calling the shots in either war, plus your uniform is highly amusing.

I agree with all the people on your website that said the armband is reminiscent of the Nazis.

If you want people to follow you, or at the very least, be sympathetic to your cause, you have to create an image that people can embrace.

That uniform that you cobbled together from odd and ends at the hardware store is either making people chuckle or it is scaring them.

I think you have a public relations problem and it is overshadowing whatever sensible message you might have.

Frankly, I think you have been a very naughty boy and you need to ask the Queen for forgiveness.

Peter Dow
04-05-2014, 09:28 PM
Maybe because NATO leadership was not calling the shots in either war,
In neither invasion, true, however there was a NATO training mission in Iraq and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan from 2001 not only trained but commanded the counter-insurgency war.

Now in both wars, the vast bulk of the casualties taken were not during the invasion phases, which went well enough, but during the years of "training and counter-insurgency", where NATO had more of a look in to calling more of the shots and where the military strategy was weakest, where NATO failed to project power into Iraq's and Afghanistan's neighbours to get them to stop sponsoring insurgents.

That failure of NATO leadership happened not so much with the field generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, who were never tasked to wage war on neighbouring countries, but back at NATO high command in Belgium, where no appropriate leadership was ever given, still hasn't been given. To be fair, a similar lack of leadership came out of the Pentagon, but NATO did not help any.


plus your uniform is highly amusing.
It's not even a "uniform".


I agree with all the people on your website that said the armband is reminiscent of the Nazis.
Well the Nazi armband was quite different, had a swastika on it. Mine simply says the word "republican".

http://scot.tk/wristprotectgloves2.jpg


If you want people to follow you, or at the very least, be sympathetic to your cause, you have to create an image that people can embrace.
Actually, I want people to understand me, first and foremost, and in this country, anyone in a military style outfit might be mistaken for one of the kingdom's officers, a royalist, so avoiding that confusion was my first priority, hence highlighting the word "republican" on the arm-band.

My cause is the republican cause (and the Scottish national cause) so people think of that as they will. What people think of republicanism, Scottish nationalism, Scottish republicanism etc. has nothing to do with what I wear or indeed anything I do. The main purpose of my outfit is to say - "Hey, I'm a Scottish republican!" and leave people to figure out my politics once they spot that I am a Scottish republican.


That uniform that you cobbled together from odd and ends at the hardware store is either making people chuckle or it is scaring them.
Whatever. People's brains work in their own sweet way. I'm not responsible for people jumping to the wrong conclusion when I've made myself as obvious and clear as I can.


I think you have a public relations problem and it is overshadowing whatever sensible message you might have.
Well actually, the best public relations I ever had was that 10 minute video I just posted. It was part of a Scottish human rights documentary film which was shown on BBC TV. It's had more than 12,000 views on YouTube too.


Frankly, I think you have been a very naughty boy and you need to ask the Queen for forgiveness.
Well I think it is the Queen and her officers who have been naughty and she needs to leave the country or be removed.

Again I think it is a pity when the Kings and Queens of the kingdoms of Europe and all their royalists have let NATO down so badly that you don't seem more interested in getting NATO leadership back on a more competent, republican course.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-06-2014, 03:58 AM
Actually, I want people to understand me, first and foremost, and in this country, anyone in a military style outfit might be mistaken for one of the kingdom's officers, a royalist, so avoiding that confusion was my first priority, hence highlighting the word "republican" on the arm-band.





Then ditch the silly costume, it is a severe barrier to you communicating any message, except for one, and that is a message you probably don't want them to receive.

Peter Dow
04-06-2014, 10:40 AM
Then ditch the silly costume, it is a severe barrier to you communicating any message, except for one, and that is a message you probably don't want them to receive.
Well I want you to receive this message.

9/11 anniversary: Peter Dow's message from Scotland.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlKk83Ayio
2:45 From 2 minutes 45 seconds into this video I appear.

You should note

That I am not wearing my standard bearer outfit in this video
That the video is getting this thread back on topic, to the issue of terrorism and what we as NATO can do about it
That the Queen's justice minister shamefully released the Lockerbie bomber
The For Freedom Forums http://figh.tk

TJMAC77SP
04-06-2014, 12:23 PM
Someone 'splain this to me.

You can't say TAK

But this excrement is ok.


((Don't get me wrong............this isn't a plea for censorship> The key is in the first part))

Absinthe Anecdote
04-06-2014, 03:25 PM
Someone 'splain this to me.

You can't say TAK

But this excrement is ok.


((Don't get me wrong............this isn't a plea for censorship> The key is in the first part))

Hey Cowpoke!

Go easy on my new pal.

He'll save every damned one of us!

He's for everyone of us!
Stands for everyone of us!
He saves with a mighty hand!
Every man every woman!
Every child-he's a mighty!

Flash!

He's just a man
With a man's courage
Nothing but a man
But he can never fail
No-one but the pure at heart
May find the Golden Grail
.................ah................