Pages: 1
Topic closed
Last edited by rammunition (2009-11-13 04:15:42)
I don't think you read the article. I've read two random paragraphs and they basically contradict your point of view.rammunition wrote:
To kill British Troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/no … CMP=AFCYAH
The sooner we pull out the better, we should let the scum to our west sort out the problems they have created.
No, I've read the lot. The U.S pays suspected insurgents to not attack their conveys so they can reach their destination.Spark wrote:
I don't think you read the article. I've read two random paragraphs and they basically contradict your point of view.rammunition wrote:
To kill British Troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/no … CMP=AFCYAH
The sooner we pull out the better, we should let the scum to our west sort out the problems they have created.
The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money."
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-13 04:28:32)
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-11-13 04:25:04)
Money is also the big one for recruiting, when most fighters are paid around 300-500 usd a month, GDP per capita is around 800usd...Mekstizzle wrote:
I remember reading a story about how, I think it was Italian troops who were paying off the Taliban, or something like that. Italian, Spanish or German, I forgot. Anyway once their time was up and they left the area for the French, they didn't tell the French about it all so when they left, the money left, and the French were attacked.
That was around the time if you remember, when lots of French soldiers died in a massive ambush awhile ago.
Truth be told, the Taliban is just an umbrella word. Not all of them are fanatical crazy AQ Muslims hell bent on destroying the west, money usually plays a big part in it all, same thing in Iraq.
Fixed.FEOS wrote:
So...you're saying they get their money for IEDs to kill British troops from the US, who pays the Taliban not to set off IEDs to kill US troops.
Shoot the messenger eh? Its US officials being directly quoted, where's the emotion?Crackerjack, objective, non-emotional reporting there. Gotta love it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-13 04:31:29)
FixedFEOS wrote:
So...you're saying they get their money for IEDs to kill British troops from the US, who pays the Taliban not to set off IEDs to kill U.S troops.
''Who pays the Taliban not to set off IED's to kill convoys of certain companies, who decide to pay off the Taliban'' would be more appropriate. The Article talks about a company who refuses to pay the 'Taliban' (Four Horsemen International) and thus comes under constant attack.FEOS wrote:
So...you're saying they get their money for IEDs to kill British troops from the US, who pays the Taliban not to set off IEDs to kill troops.
We created huh? do tell, cua I can't think of a single instance where GB has not had their hand right there with us.rammunition wrote:
To kill British Troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/no … CMP=AFCYAH
The sooner we pull out the better, we should let the scum to our west sort out the problems they have created.
That's not what the article said, Ramm. You fixed nothing.rammunition wrote:
FixedFEOS wrote:
So...you're saying they get their money for IEDs to kill British troops from the US, who pays the Taliban not to set off IEDs to kill U.S troops.
i'm fairly sure ied attacks happen on us troops. probably more.rammunition wrote:
FixedFEOS wrote:
So...you're saying they get their money for IEDs to kill British troops from the US, who pays the Taliban not to set off IEDs to kill U.S troops.
They did "stop" heroin production for a year. By doing this, they improved their PR image (avoiding action by the West) and artificially raised the price of opium. It was a win-win, since they had a multi-year stockpile of opium, at the time. They made billions, and avoided negative consequences.Mekstizzle wrote:
Really though they probably get more money from ordinary Western civilians than any Government could hope for. You know, all that Heroin Opium shit. Although I always hear contradicting things about the Taliban and Heroin, back when they controlled Afghanistan you heard that they tried to stop Heroin production, but now you hear they are funded by it and encourage it. Maybe it's just cos back then was peace time and now it's war time so things change.
thats my problem with this forum. the PC police come crying about islam but could give a rats ass about this. fucking fail.ATG wrote:
Ram, perhaps you threads would go better if you didn't come in yelling, arms flailing and calling an entire nation scum.
How would you like it if islam was refered to as a goat fucking flea invested sewer religion?
Use some common decency, then your terrorist pr jobs will go over better.
Topic closed
Pages: 1
