, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The phrase “you’re either with us, or against us” is commonly used to polarize situations and force an audience to either become allies or to accept the consequences as being deemed an enemy.

Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not afford the luxury of neutrality.

 Only when there is absolutely no middle ground; does the phrase hold validity; as a logical conclusion.


·         Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, On February 28, 2006, stated, “You’re either for this bill or you’re against our future”,


  • Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 12:30 that He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”


  • Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a speech discussing the Chief Committee for Political Education, told the assembled delegates that “It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco.”


  • George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay “Pacifism and the War, If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.”


  • Benito Mussolini declared in speeches across fascist Italy: “O con noi o contro di noi”You’re either with us or against us.
  • In the movie Beauty and the Beast, Gaston tells fellow citizens of his village that “You’re either with us, or against us,” and thereafter locks up Belle and her father so he can hunt the Beast.


  • In the Dirty Harry movie Magnum Force, one of the suspects tells Harry Callahan, “Either you’re for us or you’re against us.”


  • Luke 11:23 of the New Testament of Christianity, said, “He who is not with me is against me…”


  • Mark 9:40, in a different context, he said: “…whoever is not against us is for us”


  • In the climax of the film Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Anakin Skywalker says to Obi-Wan Kenobi, “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” Obi-Wan responds, “Only a sith deals in absolutes.” 
  • Towards the end of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, Colonels Korn and Cathcart equate fighting for their country with fighting for the benefit of the two of them. Korn tells the protagonist Yossarian: “You’re either for us or against your country. It’s as simple as that.”


  •  A reviewer of Catch-22 found this “flawless” logical indulgence by the commanding colonels to be comparable to Heller’s parody of Charles Erwin Wilson’s statement, often paraphrased as, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country”


  • In a 1912 edition of John Bull’s Other Island by George Bernard Shaw, an advertisement for The Clarion, a socialist newspaper, used the phrase to attract those interested in the debate on socialism.


  • In the movie Ben-Hur, the protagonist meets with his childhood friend Messala. He has barely said hello to Ben-Hur when he is dunning him for the names of those Jews who are speaking out against the Roman occupation. Ben-Hur refuses to act as informer, and Messala utters, “You’re either with me or against me”.


  • In Act III of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, Deputy Governor John Dan forth states, “But you must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there is no road between.”


    • In Sophocles’ play Antigone, Creon states, “but whoever is friendly to this city will, in life and death be equally honored by me,” to explain why he buries Eteocles but not Polynices.

 Here comes the theme of this artistic phrase and ideology behind.


‘You are either with us or against us’

    • Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”


    • President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

November 6, 2001 Posted: 10:13 p.m. EST (0313 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN)President Bush said

There was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism.

In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said;

“Coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action.”

 He said he would deliver that message in his speech to the United Nations.

 “A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy; a coalition partner must perform,”

 Bush said.

“That means different things for different nations. Some nations don’t want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. … But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something.”

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

 “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,”

 He said.

“You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”


 “We’ll bomb you to Stone Age”, US told Pakistan


From Tim Reid in Washington


PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, the President of Pakistan, claimed last night that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb his country


 “In to the Stone Age”


If it did not co-operate with the US after 9/11


He said the threat was made by Richard Armitage, then the; Deputy Secretary of State [Armitage] said,


 ‘Be prepared to be bombed.


 Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age’,”


 President Musharraf said.


 “I think it was a very rude remark.”


President Bush, in an interview with CNN, said that he would not hesitate to authorize immediate American military action inside Pakistan if he had intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts.


 Asked if he would give an order to kill the al-Qaeda leader, Mr. Bush said “absolutely”.


President Musharraf was clearly angered by Mr. Bush’s declaration that the US would act independently of his authority inside Pakistan.


“We wouldn’t like to allow that.

 We would like to do that, ourselves,” he said.


It was too stunning and painful to hear the ‘all-time slogan of filmy expression’ from the one as long friend in need and; indeed.

How can one be so rude; when decades of friendship were the past as reality?

I understand! Friend ships between states; are motive based as interest.


 Such diplomacies have reserves of interest and reservoirs of benefits.


Such intimacies have portfolio of strategies and platforms of incentives.


But how can one defy the reality of truth as existence in terms of integrity and sovereignty.


Under what prerogative one can paste fate as disaster over the destiny of life as right.


What I know about America and its people; is and was; its unique exemplary rights of individual as resident.


 Hence an ultimate perception; that this country has a built-in belief of regards and award of acceptance as nation for its innate habitual tendency of being groomed activist to sanction rights to the nation and for the nation thereof to the people under the slogan and tag as human right activist.


All of a sudden things changed and charged mind against this concept of ethical belief.


New policies as order took over mind as sight with concept as belief that perception has no reality but emotions and feel.


Perception has no logarithmic calculation but misconception that is far behind the truth as understanding.


Putting an aerial view of previous few years and thereof resultant as observation; my personnel interpretation is that: still people in Pakistan, a major section; is not ready to accept and defy their own thoughts as feel that was once their belief as perception to own and patriot America.


However present episodic warfare as American treatment do embezzle their emotions hence to solitary confined; themselves as self exiled; thereby to avoid embarrassment from the hands of fundamentalist who are perishing with their illegitimate slogan  to verify and prove their doctrine; by these American acts .


Why should ‘not I say here the very same slogan; hence to convey my feel as long term affiliated attachments that


 “O Con noi O Contro di Noi” “you’re either with us or against us”


Every day I hear the sound of click; as something is broken.


Every day I see my self in despondency hence depressive confinement noting the naughty and notorious; gradual overcoming; of these fundamentalist.


Let me say here;


“You are either with me or with them”.


Let me tell you;


 “What’s good for me is good for you”


You know I have to pay a lot through the hands of these fanatics in lieu of your acts.


Why shouldn’t I say here?


Your acts are as equal as their actions; since you tease me by teasing them and they tease me to tease you.”


What more sacrifices and what major offer do you expect from us to pay you for your desire to be with you?


Don’t you think it is sufficient that we are routinely molested, maul treated, massacred for owning your concept as legitimate that these ravishers are against you hence against me therefore should be dig and dealt by any available modes and means?


Let’s come to the fact that we too want your enemy to be treated the way you like.


Let’s come to the point that we too want our soil free from all such evils that are perishing criminal strategies from here or any where against you or against me so to malign me by using my name and place hence to create fuss against our cooperative affiliations.


We want Osama bin laden to be killed and be nib as evil.


We want Bait ullah Mehsud to be dragged to the port of hang as hung.


We want every one hating you and me and this humanity to be dragged to the harbor of punishment may this hatred be in the name of races or religion.


So where is the difference for which we are being or been put as defaulter.


Now what is the point of litigation hence your rudeness to put my whole nation on the plateau of desire of your few controversial policy maker as judges; so  to bomb my children and nation and its functionaries hence to put us over the slab of slaughter as reversion in to stone age as declared by your functionaries as officials.


Here again I would say;


 O Con noi O Contro di Noi” “you’re either with us or against us”


America needs to understand hence to revise this policy of ‘sniper hit and run’.


Respect of domain and premises is an essentiality and rule of any business whatsoever.


As long as functionaries as governance are of the same opinion there is no point of indulging discussion in to rift of unpleasant conflict.


There is of course no point to enhance hence to extend attacks of drones in areas that are populated with and within Pakistan as administrative dominancy thereby dragging it toward the pot of Balochistan on grounds of presumptive suspicions.


This is a counter productive strategy and would put America in to exceedingly conflicting affairs of countercoup injury with conflicting relative relations as diplomacy.


Balochistan is not at all FATA or tribal regulated belt which may be put as threat or vulcanization.


This is too easy to “tag and move” hence “to take action in lieu” by expressing reservations of “presence of suspect as wanted.”


But rules of engagement within premise of defined sovereign as integrity; are rights of every state and any such visual acts as ideas; have essential placebos that are modus operandi of conflicting affairs.


We have define means and modes to cordon and siege profile targets and such requirement; if at all are necessity as information; calibrated cordoning and stratagem  is ethically under our domain of compulsive oblige as policy; which would definitely be regarded: keeping international requirement as obligation.


“Let me say here again either you are with us or you are at your own”. Since;


Pakistan is a sovereign state and we are bound to provide fuel as fire and feed as blood to this nation; if at all it’s a compulsion as requirement of homeland.


And one more thing! Who cares; hence to be reverted to Stone Age?


If life is for living: age is always for survival.


It’s our evolution as Stone Age which has revolutionized in to new revolutionary era of sophistication and advancement.


It is the same age when rubbing produced ignition as sparking hence fire.


People without freedom are slaves.


We are not slaves.


We are sovereign state.


This is rubbish that some Harry or Vijay will put us on slab thereby to hang our desire; hence besiege our children from free and freedom.


Respect of domain is compulsion and obligation of states and state and we believe such ethical practice would be the policy as courtesy of relation.