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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Paying folks to turn their coat inside out and fight their former comrades is nothing new.

But that's a western concept that doesn't apply in Islam.
Muslims will kill their own if they turn. And not in a nice way either, usually they cut off the scrotum and leave them to bleed out in the middle of the road.
Payment from the US will be used to supply people like Karzai's brother a cozy retirement so that he might get out of the druglord business. Not likely, of course, but that's politics. In a way it's probably protection because he was the one who handed over the AQ tapes to the CIA before they reached the AQ website.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
For the hardcore Taliban, according to sharia once they accept the Jizya (more or less a tax to be allowed to be subservient to the muslims), they are forbidden to kill the payees.

Unless they payees revolt, or refuse to submit.

Hardcore? Like there is a softcore?


Yes. EXACTLY like there is.



Jizya is a tax for non-muslims to have free access to land. This applies to Israel, or Coptic Christians in Egypt, and other non-muslims on Islamic land. And at anytime can be revoked and those people are not protected.


Not so. Jizyah applies in any Islamic land, and is a tribute tax that Christians and Jews are allowed to pay to not be killed. Has nothing to do with land access. Curiously, non-muslims that are not the people of the book are not granted the right to pay Jizyah for peace. Their only choices are convert or die.

Interestingly, Bin Laden offered to let the U.S. pay Jizyah for peace in one of his speeches. Not to be allowed access to our own land, but rather to not be attacked further by Al-Qaeda. It's a form of tribute payment and admission of submission.



We can't pay to erase this theology,


I agree. Payments only strengthen the islamic notion of victory and supremacy.

Ideology is not what's being fought with the payments, it's economics of the less committed "Talibs". You know, the "softcore" ones, as you put it.

[edit on 2009/10/28 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Hah, we're paying the Taliban to switch sides? Not the first time that has happened.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JJay55

Originally posted by nenothtu
Paying folks to turn their coat inside out and fight their former comrades is nothing new.

But that's a western concept that doesn't apply in Islam.
Muslims will kill their own if they turn. And not in a nice way either, usually they cut off the scrotum and leave them to bleed out in the middle of the road.


True enough, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. You seem to lump all muslims together, which is a false paradigm. Some are far more rabid than others. If that weren't the case, I'd be deceased right now, and not arguing the point.



Payment from the US will be used to supply people like Karzai's brother a cozy retirement so that he might get out of the druglord business. Not likely, of course, but that's politics. In a way it's probably protection because he was the one who handed over the AQ tapes to the CIA before they reached the AQ website.


That depends entirely on how close the funds disbursement is watched. It could happen that way. Probably depends more on who hands the money out, U.S. military or U.S. civilian. Military has a more vested interest in not getting shot at, and so would most likely pay closer attention to funds disbursement.

[edit on 2009/10/28 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
WE (U.S.A.) would probably get off a lot cheaper if we just put all of these "terrorists" on the payroll. Makes more financial sense than spending billions monthly for very little result...not to mention the cost of American blood being spilled.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
This is a terrible idea.

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


Once again Dooper your armchair military experience really shines through. Did you learn that on the Xbox or maybe from some war comics.

Either way, remind me NEVER to vote for you if god forbid you ended up in some position of power.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Didnt we train the Taliban with the CIA a long time ago? Now we are going to pay them so that stop fighting us/Afghanistans (gov't). While we here in the US have kids who arent going to School on Fridays because of Teachers Furloughs, I call B.S. Maybe that money should be used to generate more business here in the US instead of another country. since we Americans are the ones who have paid that into the gov't. HOw much is Russia going to contribute, arent they suppose to help also in Afghanistan. (Since Obama isnt putting the missile shield up) Why are we in Afghanistan? And they want more troops?



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I think Google investigators should try to understand somethings. Alliances are not as simple as a James Bond plot. CIA may cut a deal with an organization at one point, because they share a goal. This does not mean the CIA sponsors and is in bed with these people for eternity.

Shared interest come and go. The US worked with Russia on many things, but not everything.

Another thing to think about. We get a lot of reports on warlords and corrupt governments complaining about American presence and interference. That is PR and sympathy seeking.

Never think these disputes were not raging before and there weren't tribal scale wars and massacres. The US there or not, these things have been going on since time immemorial. And would be whoever was acting as handlers.


M



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by dooper
This is a terrible idea.

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


Once again Dooper your armchair military experience really shines through. Did you learn that on the Xbox or maybe from some war comics.

Either way, remind me NEVER to vote for you if god forbid you ended up in some position of power.



Out of curiosity, what part of the concept that an intractable, but deceased, enemy can't point a weapon at you or pull the trigger is difficult to grasp?

Not being shot at is a form of peace. Not being bombed, or having any manner of nefarious calamity befall one is a form of peace.

Dead people have difficulty executing such schemes. Something about being motion-challenged.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by isa75
Didnt we train the Taliban with the CIA a long time ago?


No.

I've posted on this in several threads already. To avoid typing cramp, I'll just link to a couple of them.

post by nenothtu

post by nenothtu

post by nenothtu (at the bottom of the post)



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


I must take exception to your statement that the MSM is in support of the wars.

They sure as hell weren't when Bush was in office.

Like that little rooster wind vane on the barn? They blow with the wind.

One of my best friends was a Cambodian mercenary, and being a highly paid mercenary, believe you me - you get what you pay for.

If some within the rank and file need a bump to pull their freight and go home, then fine. I have no problem providing a bit of travel money.

But my way is much more effective, and you don't have to worry about them changing their minds later.

This general in charge - he's light years of our other generals - but he still doesn't get it. You have to hunt them, locate them, run them down, and kill them where you find them.

This has been proven twice by the only men to defeat the Afghans.

My great-grandmother Harlan's great-grandfather Josiah Harlan was the first American in Afghanistan. A soldier, spy, doctor, naturalist, and adventurer, he spent 22 years traveling through Central Asia, was surgeon to the Maharaja of Punjab, revolutionary agent for the exiled Afghan king, and commander in chief of the Afghan armies, only to be ejected by invading British. His journal tells of Afghan treacheries and loyalties.

The Taliban can be defeated.

They respect only one thing: force.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
It is a sad, sad day for America, for the American's who gave their lives fighting terrorism, and for all those brave men and women in our armed forces who lost their limbs, their eyes, and their sanity, when America stoops so low as to pay off the enemy. Something deep inside me says that this is no different than aiding and abetting the enemy. All we are doing is giving them the necessary funding to purchase more weapons and build more military installations with which to wage their criminal wars on America and the rest of the world.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 

Mr. Lizard, none - and I mean zero - armchair military experience.

I got mine first-hand. Hard truths, hard learned.

I don't know why you seem to have a weed up your butt over this, but if you can't swallow it, choke on it.

As a child, I shared your limited views on killing and strife in general.

What simple minds such as yours cannot understand, and cannot contemplate is that the truisms of a peaceful coexistence are at odds when it comes to the killing.

I can state with absolute certainty, that those I killed not once, in any form, every caused me another moment's trouble.

About those truisms. They are counter-intuitive. But they are proven over the written history of man.

For example. I know you'll really have trouble with this one, but that's because you have no first-hand knowledge gained through any personal experience:

"To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless." Michael Riggs

Sounds crazy, huh?

You, using your preferences, would rather see dozens of people die, for dozens of hours, for dozens of months, for dozens of years because you can't see that it might be more merciful to stop the killing quickly and with authority and a reasonable finality.

This is not a new concept.

Let me tell you the secret to successful warfare. Credibility. It's all about credibility.

Hesitation, mercy, a defensive mindset, sloth, conflict avoidance, and wasted effort do nothing to gain military credibility.

Alexander knew man. "It is important to win morally as to win militarily. By which I mean our victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce such peace as will admit no insurrection."

Credibility. Certainty that to fight this army, you'll ALWAYS lose.

"It is difficult to do one's duty. I was considered a barbarian because at the storming of Praga 7,000 people were killed. Europe says I am a monster. I have read this myself in the papers, but I would like to talk to people about this and ask them: is it not better to finish a war with the deaths of 7,000 people rather than to drag it on and kill 100,000?" Alexandr Suvarov, 1794

Sherman knew what it took. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.

Even Napolean. "If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter and consequently less inhumane."

"Limited war means unlimited suffering. Unlimited war means limited suffering." Michael Riggs

This isn't a question of whether a war is right or not.

This is about when you are engaged, how to bring it to a quick, decisive decision that will bring peace.

You hunt your enemy tirelessly, kill them in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, with the greatest efficiency, in the least amount of time.

When you kill enough, the other side quits.

So hurry and find that number.

And then the killing stops.

And the suffering.

Which is most merciful.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by newworld
 


I would'nt be surprized if the government was doing the same in Iraq because ive noticed in this deployment that attacks arent as frequent as they use to, they just stick to IED's now or have been doing so for quite some time.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

No, it may sound simple in your western terms but muslims don't interpret it the way you do.
Jizya is temporary and subjective. It always reminds non-muslims in Islam of their place and keeps them inferior.
There are no softcore or moderate muslims, that is also a western term.

It's easy to assume that muslims think in western terms but it just isn't so.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

I think Google investigators should try to understand somethings. Alliances are not as simple as a James Bond plot. CIA may cut a deal with an organization at one point, because they share a goal. This does not mean the CIA sponsors and is in bed with these people for eternity.

Shared interest come and go. The US worked with Russia on many things, but not everything.

Another thing to think about. We get a lot of reports on warlords and corrupt governments complaining about American presence and interference. That is PR and sympathy seeking.

Never think these disputes were not raging before and there weren't tribal scale wars and massacres. The US there or not, these things have been going on since time immemorial. And would be whoever was acting as handlers.


M


Hi mike.
always a good post!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stop-loss!
reply to post by newworld
 


I would'nt be surprized if the government was doing the same in Iraq because ive noticed in this deployment that attacks arent as frequent as they use to, they just stick to IED's now or have been doing so for quite some time.

Oh yes, this holy war declared by Islam will last as long as it takes them to convert every last one of us. They planned a distinct 7 phase strategy.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


True enough, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough. You seem to lump all muslims together, which is a false paradigm. Some are far more rabid than others. If that weren't the case, I'd be deceased right now, and not arguing the point.


Islam is one unit. They have stated that themselves and their plans are published to clearly lay out their strategy. I'm not lumping anyone, they have done it all by themselves. 57 OIC countries are under one law and it's fairly simple and unwavering.

The Koran is rabid, the degrees of humans is unimportant.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
At this point, the only way this war is going to be over is when the Afghans start to stand up for themselves. They need to stand up against the Taliban themselves, because we can't tell them apart from the regular population. That is what really turned the tide in Iraq. Sure the additional troops Bush sent in for "the surge" helped and they did a great job, but it was up to the people. Now if $1.3B will help do that, that is petty cash compared to the cost of this war.

I hate to leave that country in the mess that it is in, especially when the war was won soon after we invaded. It was when we moved all our assets to Iraq when things went to hell. We had that war won in 2001, but like others have pointed out, there's no money in a quick war.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
At this point, the only way this war is going to be over is when the Afghans start to stand up for themselves. They need to stand up against the Taliban themselves, because we can't tell them apart from the regular population. That is what really turned the tide in Iraq. Sure the additional troops Bush sent in for "the surge" helped and they did a great job, but it was up to the people. Now if $1.3B will help do that, that is petty cash compared to the cost of this war.

I hate to leave that country in the mess that it is in, especially when the war was won soon after we invaded. It was when we moved all our assets to Iraq when things went to hell. We had that war won in 2001, but like others have pointed out, there's no money in a quick war.

We can't tell them from the regular population because they are one in the same. They aren't western and they never will be. They don't want to change and they tolerate the Taliban.
Afghanistan isn't the West. Iraq isn't the West. The rest of the 57 OIC countries aren't the West. They don't want to be like us. War isn't going to change their mind, they love to fight. It's a job to them.

The danger come when Iran stockpiles a couple of nukes. They will and then there will be mass destruction... of Islam.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join