Iran paying Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan

[SlyPokerDog]

Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times described how a man it said was a "Taliban treasurer" had gone to collect $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul, a reward it said was for an attack in July which killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.

The treasurer left with the cash hidden in a sack of flour, the newspaper said, and then gave it to Taliban fighters in the province of Wardak. In the past six months, the treasurer claimed to have collected more than $77,000 from the company.

The Sunday Times said its investigation had found that at least five Kabul-based Iranian companies were secretly passing funds to the Taliban.

The newspaper's correspondent, Miles Amoore, said he met and interviewed the treasurer, who he said had been an illiterate farmer who was taught to read and write, plus basic accountancy, by the Taliban last winter.

'For jihad'
"Iran will never stop funding us because Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad," the treasurer told Amoore.

In addition to the $1,000 bounty on U.S. troops, the unnamed man said Iran paid $6,000 for the destruction of a U.S. military vehicle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39014669/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

 

[Denny Crane]

So what do you think, SPD?

 

[Natebishop3]

I think that could be construed as an act of war.

 

[Rhal]

I think that could be construed as an act of war.

Just because they are Iranian companies doesn't mean that their government was behind it. If their is solid evidence that it was sanctioned by the Iranian government then that is an act of war.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So what do you think, SPD?

We pay more!

 

[jlprk]

Construe is as an act of war all you want. The US is economically devastated from the two wars it's already in. There will be no new ones in our lifetimes.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Construe is as an act of war all you want. The US is economically devastated from the two wars it's already in. There will be no new ones in our lifetimes.

If someone fucks with us we'll hurt them.

 

[jlprk]

I betcha you won't see another US war of the size of Iraq or Afghanistan in your life.

This country has a 1930s-sized Depression coming up in about 10 years, only this time we won't climb out of the pit.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I betcha you won't see another US war of the size of Iraq or Afghanistan in your life.

This country has a 1930s-sized Depression coming up in about 10 years, only this time we won't climb out of the pit.

People have been predicting the demise of the USA since 1776.

If you believe what you're saying you should leave.

 

[jlprk]

I seriously don't think we can squirm out of this one. After decades of the economy going downhill, I see the ruling intelligence agencies instituting radical change around 2050. The country becomes semi-socialist.

 

[Natebishop3]

I seriously don't think we can squirm out of this one. After decades of the economy going downhill, I see the ruling intelligence agencies instituting radical change around 2050. The country becomes semi-socialist.

2050? The country is semi-socialist now....

 

[Minstrel]

2050? The country is semi-socialist now....

As it has been for the past century and more. All the Western nations are somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism at one end and pure socialism at the other end. All Western nations are currently some mix of capitalism and socialism. So saying we're "semi-socialist" isn't terribly meaningful. We've been semi-socialist and semi-capitalist for a very long time. It's the exact mix of the two that we should use that is debated.

 

[jlprk]

Do I really have to add the phrase "a lot more" to "semi-socialist" to be understood?

It's just a psychic vision, so it's easy for you to knock down. I'm just putting my prediction out there. (I have more details, and it gets a lot worse late in the century.)

 

[Mediocre Man]

MISSION ACOMPLISHED!!!!!! Er wait?

 

[barfo]

Do I really have to add the phrase "a lot more" to "semi-socialist" to be understood?

I think if you added that it would make it much harder to understand. A lot more partly-socialist? A lot more half-socialist?

How about if you replace the "semi-" with "a lot more" instead?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's just a psychic vision, so it's easy for you to knock down. I'm just putting my prediction out there. (I have more details, and it gets a lot worse late in the century.)

 

[Entity]

Iran's been doing this in Iraq for many years. Not surprisingly, since it would seem to be an effective self-defense measure. If the US fails in Iraq/Afghanistan, it cannot move on to Iran, especially important since Iraq and Afghanistan are it's western and eastern borders. As unlikely as the US doing any sort of invasion right now would be, prolonging hostilities in it's neighbors would still keep US attention spread around the region and not solely focused on Iran, even if it was only for economic and diplomatic reasons.

Not a good enough reason for me to despise their actions against our troops any less, though.

 

[Denny Crane]

SPD - wrong Heston movie. Soylent Green is jlprk's vision.

 

[MARIS61]

We (us taxpayers) pay our soldiers a low hourly rate, and expect them to kill anyone they are told to kill whether it be women, children...

Economies around the world differ.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Construe is as an act of war all you want. The US is economically devastated from the two wars it's already in. There will be no new ones in our lifetimes.

Well, that's your pure guess. Frankly, I hope you're right, but I've learned never to say 'never'.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

We (us taxpayers) pay our soldiers a low hourly rate, and expect them to kill anyone they are told to kill whether it be women, children...

Economies around the world differ.

First, our military personnel are well paid. When I was an enlisted sailor some 20 years ago I made well over $36K per year.

As to you insulting remark about being told, and then willingly, going out to specifically kill women and children- that makes you as lower than a pedophile to me and probably 99% of anyone else who has served in the military. Whatever respect I may have had for you in some areas is gone forever. And by the way, I can't recall ever being told to go out and kill women and children- and I have personally served in battle situations. Your insulting pathetic ignorance is a complete joke.

 

[Denny Crane]

A buddy of mine has been in the Marines and now the Army for over 20 years. He's been deployed in combat situations 15 times. He says he loves to be deployed because of the pay. He gets hazard pay plus free room & board and medical care, and generally there isn't much to spend his paycheck on over there. He half jokes about guys coming back buying cars outright for cash, from all the money they saved.

I am quite thankful in recent days as he was scheduled to be deployed, likely to Afghanistan, in August. He showed up and there were enough guys at his position (Master Sargent) and skills/duties ahead of him that he didn't have to go. It's going to be great having him around here, and knowing that he's safe.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

A buddy of mine has been in the Marines and now the Army for over 20 years. He's been deployed in combat situations 15 times. He says he loves to be deployed because of the pay. He gets hazard pay plus free room & board and medical care, and generally there isn't much to spend his paycheck on over there. He half jokes about guys coming back buying cars outright for cash, from all the money they saved.

I am quite thankful in recent days as he was scheduled to be deployed, likely to Afghanistan, in August. He showed up and there were enough guys at his position (Master Sargent) and skills/duties ahead of him that he didn't have to go. It's going to be great having him around here, and knowing that he's safe.

Ask him if he is ordered to train his weapon on innocent women & children and kill them like Maris states they are.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ask him if he is ordered to train his weapon on innocent women & children and kill them like Maris states they are.

Of course he doesn't nor would he. The guy's a sweetheart of a person, and the ideal ambassador of good will from the USA to anyone where he's stationed. Hell of a sense of humor, and a big heart. And the USA invents smart weapons to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. If we wanted to wipe out Iraq, we could have (nukes).

 

[Natebishop3]

We (us taxpayers) pay our soldiers a low hourly rate, and expect them to kill anyone they are told to kill whether it be women, children...

Economies around the world differ.

If someone wants to construe that as an act of war against them, feel free. If the Iranian government (which it could very well be) is paying citizens of other countries to kill American soldiers, that is an act of war. Personally, I don't want to see us invade another country, but I wouldn't mind a few surgical strikes to set them back 30 or 40 years.

 

[MARIS61]

Of course he doesn't nor would he.

So you're saying he'd refuse a direct order, go AWOL, commit treason?

Just another freeloader taking government bennies under false pretenses. Where's your Libertarian outrage, Denny?

 

[Denny Crane]

So you're saying he'd refuse a direct order, go AWOL, commit treason?

Just another freeloader taking government bennies under false pretenses. Where's your Libertarian outrage, Denny?

It's part of a soldier's duty to refuse a direct order that would be an international crime.

In a similar light... A few years back, a military plane crashed into a gondola thingy in Italy, and the Italians put our soldiers on trial.

 

[MARIS61]

It's part of a soldier's duty to refuse a direct order that would be an international crime.

I'd love to see some verification of that from you. I don't think the whole military idea would work so well if soldiers were allowed to only follow orders they were comfortable with. Our armed forces break international laws on a daily basis.

It is my understanding that US soldiers can face court-martial and even be shot on the spot for refusing to obey a direct order in battle.

Maybe your friend is in the Salvation Army, or maybe he's in over his head.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'd love to see some verification of that from you. I don't think the whole military idea would work so well if soldiers were allowed to only follow orders they were comfortable with. Our armed forces break international laws on a daily basis.

It is my understanding that US soldiers can face court-martial and even be shot on the spot for refusing to obey a direct order in battle.

Maybe your friend is in the Salvation Army, or maybe he's in over his head.

Or maybe you're a liar.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd love to see some verification of that from you. I don't think the whole military idea would work so well if soldiers were allowed to only follow orders they were comfortable with. Our armed forces break international laws on a daily basis.

It is my understanding that US soldiers can face court-martial and even be shot on the spot for refusing to obey a direct order in battle.

Maybe your friend is in the Salvation Army, or maybe he's in over his head.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.