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.

 

Taliban up bounty to $2400 for each Nato soldier killed

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Taliban up bounty to $2400 for each Nato soldier killed


timesofindia.i ndiatimes.com

Miles Amoore, Sunday Times, London, May 24, 2010, 01.58am IST

Taliban rebels are earning a bounty of up to 200,000 Pakistani rupees ($2,400) for each Nato soldier they kill, according to insurgent commanders.

The money is said to come from protection rackets, taxes imposed on opium farmers, donors in the Gulf states who channel money through Dubai and from the senior Taliban leadership in Pakistan.

So far this year 211 Nato soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, including 41 British troops
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I realize that the use of bounties placed on your enemies is nothing new. So in a sense this is not really surprising. That being said, aside from any political or religious ideology, how can you get the locals to fight a war for you? You pay them. Not with a paycheck, but with a bounty that can feed their families. It seems the Taliban and their supporters will do anything to both run NATO out of Afghanistan so they can resume power.

One of the ironic aspects of this, is part of this bounty comes from taxes on the opium farmers. Hmm...Aren't the opium farmers protected by the US and other NATO forces? Or is it simply the opium crops that are protected.

timesofindia.i ndiatimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well I would say that suprises me but I would expect nothing less from the savages.

However it does give me an idea!

Put a bounty on Illegals here in the US.

$100 per illegal found reported and deported!

I guess then we would not have anymore immigration problems.

But I digress.

Given the current rules of engaugement over there NATO troops are all easy targets.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
sounds like blackwater or DynCorp.

disgusting from both sides



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
How is the Taliban getting tax money from an industry they tried to eradicate and they consider unholy and is being grown in regions they don't control? This is something they eradicated with prejudice while they were in control but now not only do they tolerate it but they're making money off of it? Also where does the Taliban operate now? I thought we expelled them from Afghanistan? I r confused


[edit on 24-5-2010 by PatesHatriots]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PatesHatriots
 


It would seem the Taliban only practice what they preach only when it meets their purposes. Sounds like so many others huh? I'm assuming they themselves are simply blending into the local populace, while either they or their sympathizers conduct their operations. Then the way the article reads, they could be sitting in Pak while the bounty hunters are out doing their dirty work for them.

From what I've read and heard, the ROE's change sometimes daily, so it's little wonder they are able to conduct their raids so effectively.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PatesHatriots
 


Well, when we create an environment that awards medals for holding your fire, what do you expect? Once again, we are fighting a war with one hand tied behind our back.

McChrystal needs to go. He is too much a politician and not enough a warrior.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


I think $100 would be cheap since coyotes charge up to $4,000 per illegal to bring them across the border. Source

It has to be extremely frustrating to say the least to the troops in Afghanistan with the ROE's changing so often. I seem to recall reading a few posts here where sometimes the ROE's are changed at least daily.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Well I would say that suprises me but I would expect nothing less from the savages.


Wasn't there a bounty on Osama bin Laden? Who set that? Oh, the savages did.

It surprises me that someone who would call others 'savages' can't spell surprise!


I guess fighting an illegal war for the control of resources doesn't enter the equation.

It's a poor situation all round



[edit on 24-5-2010 by aorAki]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
We have bounties on Taliban too. Not every one of them, but the general idea is exactly the same.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


The bounty on Bin Laden is still $25 millionUSD FBI Ten Most Wanted

Maybe it would be more effective if it were lowered to $2,400.

Edit to correct it is UP to $25 million

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Wayne60]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The point is that the Taliban aren't the only people offering bounties. It just shows that people are. everywhere, motivated by money.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The point is that the Taliban aren't the only people offering bounties. It just shows that people are, everywhere, motivated by money.


[edit on 24-5-2010 by aorAki]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join