Tag Archives: taliban

Oh dear, a spat with Pakistan, again


David Davis

UPDATE: I forgot to include a link to the report – apologies.

Our Coagulation-PM has got into hot water, it seems, with certain nationalist elements in the Pakistani Intelligence Services.

Apparently this is what Cameron said:-

”But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.”

The problem of interpretation centres on TWO WORDS…”able” and “promote”. If his advisers had said to him to say “unable” to “prevent”, or even “finds it difficult to prevent”, then I don’t think the ISI could have complained – for that would, as we all know, be substantively true.

Perhaps the coagulation is going to founder on the rock of the British Political Enemy-Class, which still owns the Terms Of Discourse, which wants our culture and civilisation dead, which believes what it is saying and thinks we don’t think that, and still, sadly, briefs Cameron’s speechwriters.

Pakistan is a surprisingly large place, like neighbouring Afghanistan, and it is difficult to police much of it, even had its government the strategic will and vision to supress “certain elements”.

“Johnny-Taliban” is clearly getting his gear (even if not his squaddies) from somewhere, and nearby – given his logistics-set-up – is the obvious place. I don’t think the Russians’ writ quite runs as well as it did in those parts in the 1970s/80s, so “north” is probably out: furthermore, ShootinPutin187 knows, to a nicety, how far to push us or not, and this is not something he’d go the the stake over.

France always makes trouble for the Anglosphere on principle, whenever it can. That’s how it is: it’s France’s job and has been for 1,000 years. So I’m prepared to believe that money might be coming from there, if not explosives and IED-technology. But Occam’s Razor does, sadly, point to our old chum “West Pakistan”.

If the ISI geeks want to flounce, let them.

My quote of the day: from Charles Moore in the DT, on Afghanistan


David Davis

I have called this one _MY_ quote, because I know that a majority of libertarians, especially in Britain, think we ought not to be militarily involved in Afghanistan – or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I will not annoy and insult these people by calling it the “Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day” (although it ought to be.) I take responsibility for it instead of the august think-tank for which I have the privilege to be allowed to blog.

These libertarians, and others, know that I have never failed to support war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and that I say [regularly] that the West _must_ take war, if need be everywhere that is required, to all those who cheerfully, frankly and materially oppose individual liberty anywhere. The people the West is trying to resist are not “insurgents”. They are not even “terrorists”, which is why the notion of “The War On Terror” is so glib, shallow and meaningless – these people are willing soldiers for a cause, they really believe what they are saying and they mean to destroy us: they are the willing agents of purposeful and committed deconstructors of everything they think we stand for and love.

Here’s Charles Moore:-

If we truly want to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to challenge its opponents much more fiercely. Politicians such as Nick Clegg, who congratulate themselves on asking the necessary, awkward questions, need to be interrogated about what they actually want. Do they want the first defeat of the most powerful military alliance in history at the hands of a small band of fanatics armed with little more than rifles and IEDs?

Do they have any conception of what such a defeat would mean for the world order, for the stability of countries in the region, or for civil peace in every European city? Do they not understand that this fight will be seen all over the world not as a battle for control of some jagged mountains, but between values, and that, if our values do not win, they will lose?

Please read old Charlie Moore on the whole thing: he puts some sharp perspectives on war, its roles – good or bad they may be – in intercivilisational conflict, and where we ought to go from here. I already said a couple of days ago that the alternatives are only (and ever) victory or defeat, and what it will mean. He’s probably read Sir John Keegan. I doubt most of our present politicians have even heard of the bugger.

Taliban “claim responsibility”…now we know [that they know] that they are winning.


David Davis

Libertarians don’t do wars. Not really. We all go about in a sort of drug-like RothbardoHayekian Haze, claiming never to want to initiate force or fraud, because of course that’s what States do, right? Of course they do, and of course it’s why we’re broadly all more or less in favour of small, controllable-by-Law, states, (some of us are in favour of no states at all, but not me, I have decided) which only do things like basic law-and-order, courts that anyone can apply to, impartial judges, possibly a small, efficient and uncorruptible Police Force of authorised civilians, and the like. And of course no ID cards or “passports” or any crap of that sort.

We also as a group are broadly against Britain’s involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, since it can be argued that Britain has “no vital foreign policy interest” in what may or may not go on in those places. As I have never tired of repeating, I do not agree, and never have done, that Britain has no business being there as an armed force. I am a Jihadist turned upside down: I take the view that it is the Jihad obligation, the absolute foreign-policy-duty no less, of liberal Classical States to actively destroy un-liberal scumbags, wherever they may be, if the nominal “State” on whose writ they scamper is unable so to do. If this was done, socialism, and also pre-capitalist death-cults which periodically use sex anda sort of yearning neo-pastoralism to infect rational civilisations, would simply melt away and disappear. But that’s the subject of another debate. What I mean to briefly dissect today is a change in the type of signals the “Taliban”, whatever that says it might be, is sending. The exceptional glaring tautology in what I have just said, namely the presence of British soldiers doing what I have described, at the bidding of a scumbag GramscoFabiaNazi administration at home here, is a result of the British State going GFN, and not a refutation of my premise.

In my long experience, terrorists, and other warlike agents of counter-revolution and people’s progress, tend to “claim responsibility” for dastardly deeds when they are ready to start dictating terms to what they see as the losing side. It’s a case of “we did this and we can do it some more: do you want that, and ultimate defeat, or shall we talk?” In the inverted scenario, such as, say, the Dambusters Raid, the Allies claimed responsibility globally from the rooftops, which wasn’t mechanically necessary I admit since there were crashed Lancasters scattered from Holland to the Ruhr, but it was a moral point being made, in front of an audience of spectators,  just like what this Taliban-man has just done.

The problem of wars is that there are only two ways out: victory or defeat. No “third way”, sorry Tony-B. If either Britain, or “The West” or indeed any individual ally involved in Afghanistan (Spain! Take Note, although you left earlier when some buggers who you tried later to say were Basques blew up all your trains) leaves before the Fat Lady Sings, it will be counted as a defeat, with all the malign foreign policy and (at home) inter-racial, and inter-precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guidetype issues that will flow from that.

Our own government today is the main difficulty, for this Taliban fellow knows it is on his side in the end, and wants him to win for Gramscian reasons. They’ve done a deal. “I’m Gordon…I’ll tell you what – I want to deconstruct and demoralise my Queen’s Armed Forces, so I can re-staff them with the right sort of Officers and persons so that I can then dissolve the People and elect another in their place. This is because  these forces are currently mostly viscerally opposed to me and my “getting on with my job”, and may refuse to “regulate” their own people back home here later. So I’ll send you periodic batches of good ones, which you can then kill a lot of, because I’ll deliberately make sure that you can, by only allowing them really really crap gear. When you think you’ve killed enough, and when enough of the present officers and squaddies have resigned in disgust, we’ll talk about me bowing to public opinion and “bringing the boys home”, and also about you getting hold of Afghanistan, and any industrial cities in the UK that you want your religious and legal writ to run in. And the monetary contribution you could reasonably make, to The Political Arm Of The British People, will be £…………………”

Talk about the German Army in 1918 being “stabbed in the back”!

The headline says everything about liberals, and about GramscoStalinists


David Davis

Here you go. I will also have more to say about this one later in the context of the earlier post by me here and below.

I would like to discuss, how it is that otherwise ordinary chaps do what they do, if their Officer is in the poo. It is probably a uniquely Anglospheric thing, although I would not want really to suggest that other European Armies’ privates would not do the same for their “Blokes” (or whatever they call their NCOs these days) given the same scenarios.

There are going to be (what we will think there will be) a lot of these


The Elizabeth Cross.

I will have some more things to say about this later when I have thought about it a little  – in the context of a liberal civilisation trying to project its values to those less fortunate – as is right and an obligation under Jihad –  and also when I have thought about what this kind of battle is worth.

Question:- “Is Libertarianism a religion?” Discuss.

THIS is too much


David Davis

The citizens of Wootton Bassett ought not to be asked, any more, to do what they do, unless of course it is their will so to do.

Now, you and I both know that 199 soldiers killed in a minor regional war, far away, while assaulting some pre-capitalist-scumbags who do not represent even the mainstram of Islam, let alone the by-ways, is not a great number when you consider the figures for, say, the Battle of the Somme. Or even Alamein. But that’s not the point.

This government wants to pursue a war in Afghanistan, and even though it is composed of scumbag lefty liberalism-destroying Nazis, that does not detract from the premise that this war is a correct one. They could be the wrong people fighting the right war. The very fact that this “Taliban” chap does not come forward and surrender to us shows that we are right, since he keeps on fighting us, using whatever Ammonium Nitrate and diesel and aluminium powder that he can find in the local markets – for it shows that he means frankly and cheerfully to overwhelm us. He has the option to stop, and just go home and cultivate poppies or grain or cows or barley or alafalfa or jute or whatever, but he does not: he continues to fight us. We have to ask why.

We can test the premise by disengaging. If he come after us, then we were right. If he does not, then we were wrong.

So where does that leave the grand and noble people of Wootton Bassett? It is noble that they continue to turn out, but there is a limit to anyone’s store of pity and sorrow. You really can’t ask more of these great people than they have already given. If I was them, I would be rioting: for a change in Government such that if we are stuck in these blasted wars, because the other NATO buggers wearing hairnets won’t come out at night because they are sleeping after manning the photocopiers all day, then our poor chaps ought to have at least some of those South African mineproof thingies to go raiding in. (We raid, because we are right. Latin verbs…I raid: you take cover: he runs: we overcome: you surrender: they die. It is what you’d call an “Irregular Verb”…) Or even, at a push, the American humvee-dooberries that do the same thing. It is obnoxious to continue to protest that these chaps carry on dying becasue  their vehicles are made of rice-paper, and this Gramscoid outfit which says it pays them won’t give them something better, because it hates them and what they stand for.

Lots of Libertarians eschew force, in all contexts. That’s fine. I don’t think one ought to initiate it, but if there are dudes who openly state that their Nirvana is where you are dead and that whatever pre-liberal nastiness they like is the order of the day, then we ought to be eliminating them. The “Taliban” bloke is probably an Aunt Sally for the real enemy which is here at home. But the real one won’t take us seriously unless we have previously destroyed its sock-puppets for it, ideally on the Wireless Tele Vision, first.

Milibanana is actually right, but now, nobody will believe him: his party has done too much damage to what he purports to support, also favours “disarmament”, and won’t buy his soldiers any kit (so that they can die.)


David Davis

Here’s the milibanana on Afghanistan. there will be more about this later after I have done chores.

More later, here it is:-

I have concluded my household wife-imposed duties, for the present.

Now then: most British  libertarians are against our being involved in wars in Asia – or anywhere for that matter. They say that the UK has no “vital interest” in that region. I disagree absolutely, and the principal proponents of the “no involvement” school of thought know this quite well.

I expect to be aggressively excoriated in the next week, as a result of this opinion, mainly by friendly libertarians, some of whom even know me. Comments from all sides will be welcome, it makes life exciting.

Although “fundamentalist Islamists”, the “Taliban”, (whatever he is – I think he publicly hung a Wireless Tele Vision Set a few years ago for capital crimes – good bloke then) and “Al Quaeda” (whatever she is – I think she has a David Frost type TV channel like Big Brother?) do represent a threat to liberal Western civilisation, and certainly a threat to its spread (which is a Crusading-Duty and an obligation laid upon us) they do not represent such an immediate short-term threat as home-grown GreeNazis.

I have spoken about these latter kinds of Green-trons before, but they will have in the end to be sorted out separately: it is a different sort of war, and more tragic, for we will have to assault or restrain our own people, who grew up with us and whom we trusted, and whom we even shagged, sometimes, because we thought they loved us for ourselves. Sex makes war and conflict harder later – ask any divorcee.

[Don’t even get tempted, while drunk, to shag willing pretty hippie Green women who invite you back after a political argument which they say they enjoyed – you will live to regret it.]

However, if we leave this Taliban bloke untouched and unexterminated, then owing to the nature of state structure currently in Pakistan – and probably in other neighbouring outfits too in the medium term –  he will get his hands on far more powerful WMDs than he has at the moment, and our task of doing what the Milibanana says will be 1,000% more difficult. I believe that Baluchistan, a large tribal gathering of some 120 million people, struggling right now to keep some kind of writ running in parts of itself, has missiles called something like “Shitbag-3” , or some such resonant acronym. We will, later, face the possibility of actual anihilation, as opposed to daily humiliation.

If we do nothing in Afghanistan in these next two decades, then the kind of spectacle that the BBC is pleased to send you, underlining its policy-position that you should “get out” (and join places like the USSR – a failed state –  in ignominy) will be amplified a hundredfold: in Baluchistan, Kashmir, Persia and places to the North and West. Probably in Burma and Malaya too if you are not careful. India will probably hold out, and the Chinese, properly unscrupulous in the /correct sense/ of the word, will stand no nonsense in Tibet and other near places.

Milibanana’s problem as Foreign Secretary (is he still?) is that he knows what is being fought for as he in an intelligent man. He’s even a Jew, for f***’s sake – so he ought to know what I and he and our enemies are talking about. However, his entire policical historiography, and his whole educational upbringing,  is based in the belief about the iniquitousness of Western liberal Classical civilisation, and how it must be aborted and attenuated at all costs, as he is a paid-up GramscoFabiaNazi.

It’s not what he can’t say, that I compain about – it’s the way he can’t say it.

He can’t say, in front of his masters, that this war is a small, tragic and necessary part of the defence of Western Civilisation, for his masters in the GramscoFabian movement won’t allow it to be said on the Wireless Tele Vision.

Because he can’t now, any more, fall back on the simple truth – which is outlined above – he has to appear to panic at the severe (by our standards today…!…think of the Somme – 19, 247 killed on 1st July 1916 alone…) loss of life among British Soldiers – some of whom might even have been his constituents. He has to put, hastily and desperately, some sort of manichaean gloss on what is by our standards really bad news. He can’t, in fact, bury it, much as he’d love to: he has to say something approximating to the truth, but he can’t put it the way it ought to be. (He’s also terrified of what he thinks “Muslim voters” will do to his party at home here…but he need not be, for as I said, the British GreeNazis are far, far more potentially lethal to him and to us than anything Islam could even dream of.)

As regards, too, the sad fate of the eight British soldiers who died in one day just now, there could be a remedy.

British modern people are not accustomed to these kinds of Wireless Tele Vision reports. Every death is an individual sorrow for the man’s family. From this there is no escape.

We are not like Stalin, the archetypal Mark-III-GramscoFabiaNazi personified, who said famously “one death is insignificant”, but being ideologues like him we knew what he meant – that did not make him right however. We deplore both the deaths and also the effects of these deaths on the political morale of the UK. (OK some of us are at leats minimal-Statists and we think the British got it least wrong in terms of defining stateness…) Charges could be laid of course at the door of the present UK government, for both hating the Armed Forces for what they represent and for their ethos of loyalty to what they undertook to do.

But in the end, this Taliban bloke is getting his munitions form somebody. That somebody can’t be far away or we might have noticed. Perhaps it’s Russia. I would not evince surprise, as their governments always cheat and lie (more fool the Russian people for failing in the last 30 years to resist more, when they could.)

But perhaps it’s not Russia. I also don’t think it’s China or Japan or India or Iran or Korea or South Africa, or Israel, or Pan-Arabia, and the like.

The point of having Nuclear weapons is to be able to point them, in public of course, at someone that is upsetting your foreign policy objectives – providing he does not have either any, or as many as you do. Therefore, whoever is supplying this Taliban man with his IEDs, and thingies that blow up Land-Rovers, ought to be able to be threatened. Otherwise, there is no point in having sumbarines that can deliver such a weapon to anywhere in the world, form anywhere unknown.

I can’t really see whay we could have any problem in stopping these unpleasant deaths among our soldiers, whose only mission is to peacefully protect the longer-term-future-survival of Western liberal Civilisation.

Like we did over eradicating slavery, for about 200 years [ – AND we had to apoligise –  we WILL get you GramscoFabiaNazi bastards…one day…and you WILL pray to be sorry, and we will not let you.]

Liberals like us want to be merciful people, but the quantity of mercy (strained or unstrained) that you will now require, when we find you finally, has become too great for the market to provide – so you will have to make do with what will be available.

You yourselves, GramscoFabiaNazis, keep on trumpeting – especially in your text books for students – that “the market” “distributes goods and resources imperfectly”…so now you can eat your own words at last.

« Older Entries