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.

 

Report: Taliban Not Allied With Al-Qaida

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
it is sick Al-Quaeda dont even exist. origianaly termed on the bbc if i recollect correctly

kx




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Wow , drums , false patriotism , false adrenaline ...Mate ,you are stuck in 19th century civil war or Napoleon conquering.When duty calls now is calling for fueling the pockets for corporations ,military , oil and construction contractors and extending the military -industrial complex.


Exactly WHO are you, and what do you know of me, where I've been, what I've done, or what I've NOT done, that qualifies you to asses MY "patriotism", whether it is "false" or not?

Exactly WHO are you to determine for ME who and what I will fight for?

What gives YOU the authority to think for ME like that?

I assure you, adrenline is a very REAL thing, not "false" at all. You'd have to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time to realize that, though.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mek-Tech
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thank you and all the others for your service.
This thread has been one of the funniest and most eye opeing I'v read today.


I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not due any "thanks". I've never been official military, I'm one of those "evil mercenary" types (what they call "private military contractors" in this brave new age), and started out in that endeavor by dong "security" work, not through the military. I've BEEN to some of the same places as the big kids, and done some of the same things, maybe even for the same reasons - it's NOT always about a paycheck, contrary to what you're told - but that doesn't make me eligible for membership in that club. Hell, my brother, who did the same things at the same time, but did them as a Marine, has to buy my beer at the VFW club. I'm not eligible for membership, but he is.

I STILL do that sort of thing, in my dotage, but no longer go overseas to do it.

So no, I've already gotten my "thanks" in the form of paychecks, but I do appreciate the sentiment. There are others here, however, that ARE due it, and I respectfully redirect it to them.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by nenothtu
 


what is a soldiers "duty" "code" in your country under your countries law and under international law for that matter ,

what is the oath you have taken ?


My "oath" varies by contract, but some things are constant and immutable. Loyalty to family is one of those constants. Additionally, and early on, I took the oath to defend the Constitution from all opponents, and that remains in force, and will until I'm dead and gone. It was NOT an oath to "the government", the "powers that be" or any of that horse dung I see being spewed around here some times.

The contractual obligations remain in effect per what the contract states. I don't make promises I don't intend to keep, contractual obligations included. Some of those obligations expire at the end of the contract, and others, particularly "non-disclosure" agreements, remain in effect for somewhat longer.

Some could be said to still have some years to go.

At no time have I, or anyone I know, taken an oath to kill family on orders of "TPTB".



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


you do realize that you just admitted to braking international laws,

United nations mercenary convention

see you in hague



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


See you there. I'm acutely aware of international laws, and have my defense ready, since I've not broken any, nor have I (contrary to your "learned" opinion) admitted breaking (not braking - entirely different concept) any of them. I'm ready whenever you are. Serve the papers.

I won't post that defense here, because I believe that surprises are the spice of life, particularly to armchair lawyers who gain their knowledge of "applicable" law from the internet.

See you at the Hague!






edit on 2011/2/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   



Did somebody drop this?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The-Hammer



Did somebody drop this?


Wow! Is that a CBS Corporate Security patch from an overseas office? You know, they used to have that whole big "eye" thing going on... Now, the upside down shield is problematic, but sometimes those local patch-makers can't quite get the design just so...




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
it is sick Al-Quaeda dont even exist. origianaly termed on the bbc if i recollect correctly

kx


The point of the BBC documentary that I believe you are referring to, was that AQ is not and has never been an enormous and clear-cut organisation, and that certain politicians over-simplified AQ and exaggerated the threat that they pose in order to pursue a “War on Terror”.

It exists, but it has often been portrayed inaccurately by people who either couldn’t get their heads around it or were trying to manipulate others.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


It's my understanding that AQ is actually more of a "clearing house", staffed by co-ordinators and enablers, rather than doers. It's highly disorganized and decentralized, which is what makes it so tough to fight against. Contrary to prevalent conventional military thought, that very disorganization and decentralization is a strength, rather than a weakness as would be generally perceived by conventional types.

Using conventional tactics and thinking to attempt to oppose it is exactly what's getting them where they are. That's the way it was designed, and they fell for the trap.

And they're still falling for it, and trying to spread that thinking to the masses. They'll NEVER win that way.

They'll only get what we see here.




edit on 2011/2/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I've seen that someplace before....
It took me a few minutes to find it Neno, I think it's DynCorp

Mercs Win Billion Dollar Afghan Cop Deal. Again


The solution for Afghanistan’s endlessly troubled police force? According to the Army, the same contractors that have trained them for the past seven years.

Danger Room has confirmed that DynCorp, one of the leading private-security firms, has held on to a contract with the Army worth up to $1 billion for training Afghanistan’s police over the next three years. With corruption, incompetence and illiteracy within the police force a persistent obstacle to turning over security responsibilities to the cops by 2014, NATO has revamped much of its training efforts — except, apparently, the contractors paid lavishly to help them out.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Damn! CBS sure has a lot of Corporate Overseas Security, and they get to wear BEARDS! Where do I sign up for THAT?


Never mind.... the reason for the "no beards" rule is so that gas masks can take a proper seal, and they STILL haven't found those WMDs yet, have they? Nah, I think I'll keep it slick until they do...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Soshh
 


It's my understanding that AQ is actually more of a "clearing house", staffed by co-ordinators and enablers, rather than doers. It's highly disorganized and decentralized, which is what makes it so tough to fight against. Contrary to prevalent conventional military thought, that very disorganization and decentralization is a strength, rather than a weakness as would be generally perceived by conventional types.


Exactly, relying on and being a perfect example of how "you cannot destroy an idea".



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


One thing that ties alCIAduh to the Taliban is a Western inability to grok the facts.
Which is caused by nefarious control of the media and educational systems, and
by a intense desire for some to make their bible come true...
and by others because by keeping the westerners ummmm "confused", it is easy to turn them upside down and shake the nickels out



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soshh
 


They may not be able to "destroy" it, but they could cripple it up pretty severely if they went about it the right way.

Which they aren't doing, in my opinion.

Maybe they ought to brush up on Che, Mao, Marighella, Sun Tzu, Levy, and Musashi, and put a bit less stress on Machiavelli this time around.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I've killed in your name. Deal with it.
I've never been official military, I'm one of those "evil mercenary" types (what they call "private military contractors" in this brave new age),
I've BEEN to some of the same places as the big kids, and done some of the same things,
I've already gotten my "thanks" in the form of paychecks, but I do appreciate the sentiment.


your own words , not mine

and no im not an armchair lawyer as you like to put it , and changing mercenary to contractor still dont change the definition by international law,

the see you in hague remark was more a heads up , but reading through your post i noticed that you dont travel abroad any more so i take it hague has already been on your mind , ..



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The idea that el kayduh was not who they really are was made back in 2009 in the movie, "Men Who Stare At Goats" George Clooney was talking to the reporter in the hotel room and mentioned it.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by nenothtu
 




I've killed in your name. Deal with it.
I've never been official military, I'm one of those "evil mercenary" types (what they call "private military contractors" in this brave new age),
I've BEEN to some of the same places as the big kids, and done some of the same things,
I've already gotten my "thanks" in the form of paychecks, but I do appreciate the sentiment.


your own words , not mine

and no im not an armchair lawyer as you like to put it , and changing mercenary to contractor still dont change the definition by international law,


Ummm... I never made that change. Must've been someone else. That's just what folks are calling it these days. Pretty close to the same job, though. Semantic differences don't figure into my defense at all. The ELEMENTS for the definition under International Law, as well as US law, are all important.

ALL important.

Do you know that under US law one can lose his citizenship for engaging in activities traditionally considered as "mercenary"? Even though that's fact, you can count the number of people so sanctioned in the past century and a half one ONE hand.

That's because in law, those ELEMENTS are ALL important.



the see you in hague remark was more a heads up , but reading through your post i noticed that you dont travel abroad any more so i take it hague has already been on your mind , ..


Nope. I never worried about a Hague prosecution in the least. I know the laws, and always stayed within them. My reasons for not traveling abroad any more are entirely different ones, and have nothing to do with fears of prosecution, retaliation, or any of that bunk.

BTW, that UN Convention you cited didn't come about until 1988, when I was nearly done with my globe-trotting. It wouldn't apply in any event to the earlier excursions. What I had to act under was the Geneva Conventions restrictions on "mercenaries" for the most part, but which in some particulars were strikingly similar.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


a preemptive strike while going in to an other nation is called invading no matter how much you try to loop hole it ,
defending is something you do at homebase

same thing goes for "contractors" or mercenaries as its called in the rest of the world , just because us and uk hasnt signed any papers does not mean its still considered illegal by the rest of the world,

and the thing that you can loose your citizen ship because of mercenary activities , isnt that the main reason you and us an uk still refer to it as contractors ,

its made up loop holes , double thinking at its best , sure you might have had good intentions while doing your job but its still merc activities , ,



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by nenothtu
 


a preemptive strike while going in to an other nation is called invading no matter how much you try to loop hole it ,
defending is something you do at homebase


Being as how you're so sure of what I've done and how I did it, I'll take that as a compliment. Makes me an "army of one". I kinda like that notion, and never saw it that way before. Thanks!




same thing goes for "contractors" or mercenaries as its called in the rest of the world , just because us and uk hasnt signed any papers does not mean its still considered illegal by the rest of the world,


This "contractors" thing is a relatively new innovation in conceptualization. As near as I can tell, it's just as you say, a form of "newspeak". Before, in order to avoid the stigmatization inherent in the term "mercenary", we called it "security consultant" and such euphemisms. Same same, and a rose by any other name...

Like regular soldiers, every one considers mercenaries as lower than dirt - until they NEED some of them. Then they're good as gold... until no longer needed. Afterwards, the old stigma is back in full force. S'ok, we're used to it. We KNOW who gets the call when the muck gets too deep - those same pompous self-righteous crybabies are MORE than happy to pay anyone else to dodge THEIR bullets, even those "lower than dirt" hombres who haul their fat out of the fire time after time.

The rest of the world is of no concern at all unless one is THERE, and in those times I've found the rest of the world to be surprisingly lax in THEIR observation of International Law Conventions that they insist everyone else follow. You'd be amazed at what some of those "upstanding world citizens" will do in contravention to international law, all the while screaming for it to be "upheld", if they catch you. The key there is never to allow them to catch you, problem solved. Based on what I've seen, two things I've determined that I will never become are "prisoner" or "refugee". I'll die where I stand first.

I care nary a bit more for what "the rest of the world" considers illegal than they do, and in the same proportion. Seems fair to me.



and the thing that you can loose your citizen ship because of mercenary activities , isnt that the main reason you and us an uk still refer to it as contractors ,


"Still"? As I said above, that's a pretty recent euphemism. No, the citizenship thing is a bit more involved than that.



its made up loop holes , double thinking at its best , sure you might have had good intentions while doing your job but its still merc activities , ,


Indeed it IS "still merc activities". I've no quarrel with that assessment at all, and yes, as I said above, I agree that it's "newspeak", and to say it's "at best double thinking" is mighty kind of you. I personally could say worse, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join