It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US to pay Taliban to switch sides

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

US to pay Taliban to switch sides


news.bbc.co.uk

The US military in Afghanistan is to be allowed to pay Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul.

The terms are included in a defence bill which President Barack Obama is due to sign later on Wednesday.

Washington has authorised $1.3bn (£691m) for the fund.

Such payments have already been widely used by US commanders in Iraq, but it is the first time the system is being formally adopted in Afghanistan.

The move comes a day after eight US soldiers were killed in bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan.

The deaths make October the deadliest month for Ame
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Definitely a sign of success when you have to pay them to stop killing you. Funny that traditionally i thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists much less pay them to stop terrorizing.

All i know is that this imo is a new low and rather pathetic. The war is waged for drug profits and military industrial contract profits then tax payer money goes to paying off the enemy.

All the Taliban has to do is renounce violence what a joke what will stop them from taking the money and just disappearing back into the Taliban forces. It is not as though they will be held in US camps and forced to fight with the US. I don't even know the whole thing sounds insane.

Bring the troops home!!!

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


I see your point, but the fact is that this has proven to be a succesfful tactic. A lot of people in groups like the Taliban and Alqueda are just in it to get money for their families and not so much because they believe in it. So this is a good way to strip people out of those types of orgs without having to kill them or put our soldiers at risk. Plus it saves money as compared to invading an area and using up gas, weapons, etc..



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I think this is great. Money makes the world go 'round. I always say that boycotting works better than war, but i guess if neither works, you can just buy friends.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I think the US could have saved billions by simply giving away money instead of engaging a new war in 2001.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I can see this "strategy" backfiring big time. There is a big chance that the taliban members that get the money simply give it to their organizations and use it to buy more armaments, recruit faster, improve their organization overall, etc.

In my opinion the troops should come back as soon as possible from this useless war, and paying extremists is just going to add more fuel to the fire and cause the war to last even longer. giving your enemy money is one of the most retarded tactics ever.

Maybe that is the intent? fund the terrorists so the war will last longer for who knows what reasons?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
This is a terrible idea.

If you want peace from the Taliban, or peace from Al-Queda, you kill them.

It's guaranteed to work without fail.

Take the gloves off, replace our generals with Colonels or Captains who have personally taken scalps, hunt them down, and kill them.

This isn't rocket science.

We don't need 40,000 more troops over there. We need to go to the villages, arm the men with rifles and radios, tell them when the Taliban or Al-Queda approach, to give a ring.

Quick reaction teams, scattered through the countryside with close air support can hunt the down in an effective, timely manner.

Tell the village leaders that no "inform," their blood be on their own heads.

No one can fear two sides equally.

Just make sure they fear you the most.

The rest is easy.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
If ind this less than amusing..first of all, i dont know much about the taliban, but the news smears how comitted they are to the taliban...like they would die for ala and bin laden! They sound so cmitted, givng them money, they will only turn thier backs on us anyways...hell some oof them , supposedely, flew 2 airplanes into the trade centers..at least according to the CIA...so thiers your answer thier, how crazy n comitted they are.
Now, to give them allt hat money///is that what it takes here in america, for us civilains? start an out of ontrol terrorst group, to get get compensated to make any kind of real money? America cannot find the talkiban nor defeat it..this is like paying of the nazis to back off! in this case, the governemt is technically admitting defeat*



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


That would be the correct strategy to win this war and we simply cannot do it until we run through all the wrong strategies.

To improve your strategy a bit, I would say get rid of all the rules of engagement that makes it almost impossible to win a war.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Yep, this was just reported about an hour ago.
About 10 minutes ago, the Taliban stormed a UN complex in Kabul and killed three UN workers vowing to do so against anyone who participates in the upcoming election process.
They also say this is the first attack.

Seems a little odd.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 


Heh, if you have "rules of engagement" during a war, you are there for political purposes.
I would say that if there are rules of engagement in play, you don't need to be there in the first place.
Just pull out.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
What a f'ing joke! We can't beat the taliban so we are going to pay them off? LMAO! Pathetic. And what happens when we run out of money or the dollar collapse? What then? US government and military are a bunch of morons. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THEM OFF! WAKE THE F UP!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Every war has rules of engagement, we could have two armies in the middle of the sahara desert, no civilians around for hundreds of miles and there would be some ROE's.

Politics are the reason we have the ones that make winning an almost impossibility.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 


Of course you are correct.
I was talking about the Rules of Engagement that restrict a soldier's capacity to do his job in the presence of civilians.

If you are meant to fight a war that puts you in a compromising situation and the "powers that be" in the Pentagon/White House won't allow you to do your job as you were trained from Basic forward to do, you shouldn't be there as you are there for political purposes, not necessity.

If it were truly necessity, it would be like how we see Israel responding to threats on its border.
Unyielding and undeniable show of force.

When soldiers are made to tip-toe around their jobs, they shouldn't be there as their jobs are a matter of life and death.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



When soldiers are made to tip-toe around their jobs, they shouldn't be there as their jobs are a matter of life and death.


Amen to that.

Now let's go win some minds and hearts.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I think this is a grand, EPIC sort of fail, wrought of fail and made to fail. As already pointed out, these people are very committed. I Know no amount of money would suffice to keep me complacent if someone were to invade my country, and kill my relatoves. It's a basic matter of principal. I do not see many people over there falling for this, and I agree with the above poster that the money would most likely just be directed back to the people in charge of the attacks. Not to mention the fact that the ones calling the shots on the attacks may very well be able to pay more than us...

*edit to fix grammar

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ganja]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Perhaps by not invading Afghanistan in the first place or at the very least by withdrawing troops (instead of increasing numbers) it may have quelled tensions by now with the Taliban anyway.

Although it would have saved some time, money and lives if the initial offer by the Taliban to trial bin Laden was accepted.


U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden 7 Obtober,2001

archives.cnn.com...


Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over 14 Oct 2001

www.guardian.co.uk...

Unbelievable. What next?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


That will never change.

The only thing we can do is say we will follow some assinine rule and once out on the battlefield ignore it to save our own butts.

Its not really the PTB's that started the problem, it was the anti war crowd. But that is for another time and thread.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


The U.S. is paying off the Taliban, thought we were already doing that in Iraq? Isn't that us giving into extortion? I just want all the U.S. soldiers to leave from our military bases worldwide (80+ military bases worldwide folks). We need those soldiers here, so that they can focus on making the nwo plans usher in faster...ha hah hah!!!

Other than that, $1.3 billion, there have got to be starving millionaires here in the U.S. that could use some of that money. You know, to bail them out from their latest business failure.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
We are gonna give them money to turn around and kill our men and women? W...T...F...???!!! This sounds so GD retarded. Next I guess we are gonna help sight in their guns for them. Whoever had this idea is a traitor.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join