US to pay Taliban to switch sides

Originally posted by nenothtu

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.

Out of curiosity why do you assume i even think like you do?

But if we're going to juggle your way of thinking for a slight moment, you're absolutely right. Not being shot at is definately quite peaceful. In fact i'd further back up your claims and say dead people definately don't shoot back.

But then that's like saying. I'm trying to put this shelf up in my house, but for some reason it's quite wonky. How about if we knock the house down, there's a slim chance the awkward shelf might be level again.

The current situation reads like so: Hey this shelf is wonky. Let's keep buying shelves and destroy the old shelves until one looks less wonky.

Whereas my way of thinking is thus: Find out why the shelf is wonky.

On a serious note though: Is this not BLATANT evidence of what people have been hinting at for years????

Actually the Italians had been cleverly doing this secretly in their sector in Afghanistan (Caesar ain't no dummy)!

When the Brits took it over when the Italians went home (we came, we paid off the enemy, we ate some local pasta) thinking it was an entirely Taliban free peaceful area they ended up taking fire from the Taliban right away and constantly.

The Brits were pretty miffed at the Italians and accused them of bribing the Taliban not to carry out attacks in their sector. Italy denied this by saying Mamma Mia!

Pretty amazing how a guy can be a terrorist attacking a foreign invading army propping up a corrupt regime run on the profits of heroine sales to American junkies!

Thank heavens we don't let that stop people from getting their fix!

What a world!

Originally posted by dooper
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.

As opposed to soft truths , easily learned? Ok fair enough...

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.

I don't like that insult because i cannot understand it. Is the weed so far up my anus that i'd be partially ingesting it, partially extreting it and partially devouring it? If so, what's so funny about that? I can imagine i'd be in a lot of pain and would require immediate medical attention.

So much for jest eh?

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

As an adult you sound like the terminator.

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.

What simple minds such as mine can understand are there are those who have abandoned humanity through institultionalised activities and pretend to believe they are really thinking. They often resort to a sense of highly tuned egotism and consider other challengers as a threat, as you have so kindly demonstrated. Thankyou.

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

Again you sound like the terminator. Hurrah for your lack of human senses.

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

I don't think i'll have trouble for reading, reflecting and thinking about a quote, but i'm glad you care Dooper, you give me hope yet.

As for the quote: Well as 'crazy' as this sounds, the day i decided to reflect my ever growing and ever learning soul on the basis of one quote alone, is the day i stop thinking for myself.

Sounds crazy, huh?

You do a little since you mention it, but carry on.

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.

My preferences eh? How about nobody dies.

This is not a new concept.

No it isn't. Carry on.

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

No that's CREDIT. Money. Control. Power. Trade. Etc..

And the rest of your quote mostly involved conquerers and generals. So we'll stop right there, because thankfully i'm still in 2009 and you seem to be piping the horns of long dead figures who know absolutely nothing about life in the present chapter.

Thankyouverymuch.

Originally posted by JJay55
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.

Well Jay, I thought you had a clue from some of your posts, but this one, continuing error, gives me pause for thought. Jizya is no more "temporary" than Zakat. The only way to make it "temporary" is to undergo conversion, at which time one becomes obligated to Zakat.

I'm not ASSUMING anything, especially "my" western terms.

You can wipe 'em out as a unit if you like, I'll stick to the ones who present an actual threat, thanks.

Originally posted by JJay55

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.

Negative, young sir.

Your simplistic black-and-white worldview bespeaks of youth, without experience. It's a "kill 'em all, let allah sort 'em out" philosophy. Some day, it may come to that, but not is not there yet. You talk like the Brotherhood is all of Islam. It's not.

I do agree, however, that the Qur'an is rabid.

So let me get this straight....we bailout AIG, BOA and GM and now we are going to "bailout" the Taliban? Yeah, this is a good idea, "Governemnt run Taliban". I bet they get healthcare coverage with this as well. The good thing about this is our governemnt will probably run the Taliban into the ground just like Medicare. Perfect.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Out of curiosity why do you assume i even think like you do?

Had I assumed that, there would have been no need for me to post. I'm fairly certain I presented a view at odds with yours. Let me check again... yep, at odds.

The rest of the post was gibberish. Who told you this was a discussion about shelf-hanging?

reply to post by nenothtu


The U.S. did support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda you have been misinformed.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[18] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[19] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.

They have never "directly" admitted it, but there has been information leaked by FBI and CIA intelligence officers that have said the U.S. has backed both Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

You still probably believe the 9/11 official story as well...

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Emerald The Paradigm]

reply to post by nenothtu


www.hrw.org...

Negotiations to end the war culminated in the 1988 Geneva Accords, whose centerpiece was an agreement by the Soviet Union to remove all its uniformed troops by February 1989. With substantial Soviet assistance, the communist government held on to power through early 1992 while the United Nations frantically tried to assemble a transitional process acceptable to all the parties. It failed. In the aftermath, the U.S. and its allies abandoned any further efforts toward a peace process until after the Taliban came to power. The UN effort continued. but suffered from the lack of international engagement on Afghanistan. Donor countries, including the U.S., continued to support the relief effort, but as the war dragged on, aid donor fatigue and the need to respond to other humanitarian crises left the assistance effort in Afghanistan chronically short.

You need to research history bud.

The U.S. backed Iraq in its war vs Iran just like it backed the "terrorists" vs the Soviets in the 1980's, and the irony is that the U.S. has turned its back on both of the countries it helped, so much for its treatment of "allies".

I guess you cannot have it both ways. You cannot complain about the millions of people getting killed who are simply living in their country and defending it while also complaining about the money spent to avoid the killing. Either these people will die or will be given money as an alternative. It's a step in the direction of peace, however it's unlikely to work. These people need the money to help their lifestyles, once it's gone they will just go back to their same behavior. There needs to be a shift in the 3rd world to improving lifestyles. People that are living great lives are less likely to risk it through violence. People forget that violence is often a last resort, not the first.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Colopatiron]

reply to post by Colopatiron


Regarding path to peace..

Paying "terrorists" is going to do 3 things:

1)The United States will look like the biggest joke ever, and more "terrorists" will bully it around, and demand money.

2)The "terrorists" are not going to just stop fighting because they got paid. They'll use the money to buy more sophisticated weapons.

3)The U.S. has its head up their butt so much that they can't see clear. Its priorities are messed up. There's millions of people starving in this country, and they give tax payers money from the bailout to "terrorists". It will only cause more aggression and chance for a revolution.

But of course all the above were planned to create a New World Order after the U.S. fully crashes economically, then they will have to join the many other nations for the New World that's emerging.

The solution is VERY simple:

Bring back the troops, and stop the aggression in their lands via the forceful occupation. It's really that simple, but of course there's no money in peace making...

Originally posted by Colopatiron
I guess you cannot have it both ways. You cannot complain about the millions of people getting killed who are simply living in their country and defending it while also complaining about the money spent to avoid the killing.

Lets see some sources to back up these claims of Millions dead.
Source please?


[edit on 29-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

I just saw this thread. Wow, are the people who make these decisions sucking on lead lolly pops? No one seem to learn from past mistakes. Isn't the saying an stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The U.S. did support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda you have been misinformed.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets.[18] Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[19] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.

They have never "directly" admitted it, but there has been information leaked by FBI and CIA intelligence officers that have said the U.S. has backed both Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

The U.S. did not support either the Taliban OR al-Qaeda during the Soviet war. I have not been "misinformed". You, however, may have a spot of reading comprehension difficulty.

Your "supporting" quote specifically states that there is no evidence that the CIA supported either one. Know why that is? It's because neither one even EXISTED during the Soviet war. Can't support what ain't there. In your defense, the quote IS cleverly worded to get around that fact, and a couple others to leave a misguided impression without actually stating the erroneous. The Taliban and the mujahideen are two entirely separate things, and your quote cleverly fails to point that out, mentioning the Taliban in one sentence, and U.S. support for the muj in the next, with the intent that the reader confuse the two into one. They are not. The muj spent most of the Taliban years fighting the Taliban, since they were foreign invaders. They came from Pakistani madrasas ("talib" meaning student) and were a construct of the ISI in the 1990's. ISI aimed to use them to gain control of Afghanistan in the power vacuum left by the withdrawal of the U.S. and Soviets. At no time did they ever control more than 60% of the country. The mujahideen, like Ahmed Shah Masood, stood in the way of full control.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but there was no al-Qaeda at the time. He did do a lot of construction, not much fighting, and spent his share of daddy's warbucks to do it. He paid his own way, and actually refused CIA assistance.

You still probably believe the 9/11 official story as well...

Matter of fact, I do. Most of it anyway. I will continue to do so until credible evidence to the contrary is presented. So far, none has. As long as AQ is content to take credit for it, I'm content to let them have the credit.

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm

You need to research history bud.

Research history? I LIVED history, bud.

Since you appear to have difficulty analyzing your OWN "supporting" quotes, I don't suppose it would help to repost the links I've already posted, so I won't bother. You're obviously going to believe whatever will support your worldview, and won't have any problems being confused with facts.

You'lll just reject them out of hand, with neither analysis NOR consideration.

Originally posted by JJay55

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.

Wrong...

Before we ever got involved the Taliban were despised and caught up in a civil war with the Northern Alliance. Which were the ones who helped us overthrow them and kicked them to the curb. The Country was in the middle of a civil war. Why does everybody tend to either forget or over look that?

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.

See you loose credibility right here. They don't love to fight. That's a fallacy. They want peace just like everybody else on the planet. Contrary to pop culture internet voodoo theories. Afghanistan has not had peace for decades. They are tired of war The Taliban were religious nut bags who were forcing their twisted minority view of Islam on the whole country. Forcing them back into the dark ages even by Modern Islamic standards.

No they don't have to be like us. No one is advocating that. We are however guilty of dropping the ball after the Soviets pulled out by not stepping up and helping them reconstruct their country. That blame lies squarely on the Shoulders of the US Government and committees.

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

Good God just as I thought your cheese slid of it's cracker you pulled this out.

This is exactly why the west doesn't want Iran to get the bomb. What happens if for some reason there is another regime change in Iran. Whose going to make sure their nukes don't fall into the wrong hands?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by mr-lizard

Mr. Lizard.

I've worn a number of hats in my days, and one of those hats required me to terminate those who wore different hats than mine.

No big deal, you just hold a good, steady sight picture and ever so gently caress that trigger. The projectile does the real work, so no use taking credit for the hardest parts!

Persons institutionalized (I'm assuming you're talking about the military) have abandoned humanity?

But which side?

The side that shoots first?

Since due to great reactions, luck, and skill, I was able to prevail over my enemies - even though often enough I was shot at first - which of us abandoned our humanity the most?

He who shoots first, or he who shoots best?

You suggest I lack human senses.

Hey - my hearing on multiple occasions allowed me to hear them first and get the drop on them.

My 15/20 vision on many, many occasions allowed me to see them first, and allowed my accuracy.

My calloused hands and fine sense of touch on that trigger prevented me from pulling my shots.

My sense of smell allowed me to literally track them over two thousand meters upwind, where, yep. We again surprised them and interrupted their life.

I took great pride in my human senses. Didn't use the taste one much, but those other human senses really came in handy.

I know your preference is that no one dies. And it is our good fortune that as a species, the vast bulk of the population shares those feelings.

One little problem.

There's always a small percentage that don't play well with others. Some will kill you and yours just because they can.

We good guys like to call them bad guys.

Actually, we're not really good guys. We're more accurately good bad guys.

It takes bad guys to fight bad guys, because you've got to be one mean, determined SOB to kill those other mean, determined SOB's.

Just gotta out-SOB them.

Those borders you enjoy, the peace you have, the property you feel secure in, and the relative freedom you have was purchased.

Purchased by others who have done the fighting at some time in the past.

You are directly or indirectly a result of the total fighting - good or bad.

By other good bad guys.

Those dead generals you discount?

They knew.

Sadly, you never will.

reply to post by SLAYER69

They don't love to fight. That's a fallacy. They want peace just like everybody else on the planet. Contrary to pop culture internet voodoo theories. Afghanistan has not had peace for decades. They are tired of war The Taliban were religious nut bags who were forcing their twisted minority view of Islam on the whole country. Forcing them back into the dark ages even by Modern Islamic standards.

Right on!

Till after 9-11 the fight was between the Northern Warlords (not an alliance yet) and the Taliban. The Taliban were well funded by the Saudis and had tanks, etc. the Warlords had worn out AK-47s and little ammo. The Afghans hated the Taliban because of the obvious. Women had no rights, men had to recite koran and be soldiers for the Taliban.

Relief came in 2002 when the US supported the Northern Warlords against the Taliban and drove them back to Pakistan where they are today.

The Afghanis will take any offer of peace and protection whether from the US, the Afghan government or the Saudi funded Taliban. If we don't step up someone else will.

reply to post by nenothtu


After I glanced and saw the "I still believe the 9/11 official story" I stopped.

You are Wrong.

You can pretend that the U.S. doesn't back the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and believe in an imaginary boogey man. I mean after all 19 cave men hijacked a plane with box cutters right? Good One.

reply to post by dooper

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.

You are talking about terrorism here, I wonder if the CIA would pick me up if I made similar comments but from the opposite end.

Back on topic
The war in Afghanistan will never end unless another civil war is orchestrated, once the enemy is exhausted by fighting each other, America can come and claim victory, hence Iraq and WWII.

Same old tactics... Once you give money to a warlord to start some crap between the Afghan sects, I can easily see a civil war.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by oozyism]

reply to post by SLAYER69

This is exactly why the west doesn't want Iran to get the bomb. What happens if for some reason there is another regime change in Iran. Whose going to make sure their nukes don't fall into the wrong hands?

I see a problem with that quote and that is the fact that 'wrong hands' exists in every society, Americans has as much murderous bastards with no sense of emotions who have deep hate for many people systems and countries. That being said how can we be sure the nukes don't fall in to the wrong hands in the US?

More so how can we be sure if the American people are choosing the right people when voting?

For you to always pick on Iran is not rational a bit from a universal view of current world situation.