• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al-Qaeda Backers Found With U.S. Contracts In Afghanistan

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Someone’s definitely lining their pockets… and it’s not just the “terrorists".​



By Tony Capaccio
August 1, 2013


Supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have been getting U.S. military contracts, and American officials are citing “due process rights” as a reason not to cancel the agreements, according to an independent agency monitoring spending.

The U.S. Army Suspension and Debarment Office has declined to act in 43 such cases, John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, said today in a letter accompanying a quarterly report to Congress.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Al-Qaeda Backers Found With U.S. Contracts In Afghanistan - Liberty Crier

Who's on first? No he's on second.
 

Ford289HiPo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
106
Reaction score
51
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have been getting U.S. military contracts, and American officials are citing “due process rights” as a reason not to cancel the agreements, according to an independent agency monitoring spending.

Depends on the contract. I had Al Sahwa and AQI sympathizers as informants in Iraq. Sometimes, you have to play both sides to get what you want.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Depends on the contract. I had Al Sahwa and AQI sympathizers as informants in Iraq. Sometimes, you have to play both sides to get what you want.

Sometimes dealing with CI's becomes a fickle and feckless operation. Contracts are another thing. It's like hiring the people that will attack you as a security and protection team.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
DFAR Section 52 has ample teeth to disqualify any company that is truly a threat. And if a company lies in the Reps and Certs, then the company can be suspended or debarred, and the company's officers prosecuted and put in jail.

There also may be a reason, as Ford289HiPo alluded to above, that certain companies were issued contracts. Sometimes you buy apples from a guy when you actually are getting intel. Easier to buy apples than to write a contract for other things.

But? Who knows?
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Sometimes dealing with CI's becomes a fickle and feckless operation. Contracts are another thing. It's like hiring the people that will attack you as a security and protection team.

You're finally going to get support from me. I think hiring a known terrorist as your security detail is a really dumb strategy. Dangerous for sure to be protected by your assassin.

Maybe there's a kick-back. Al Qaeda is paying off McCrystal and Dunford. That would make some sort of sense.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yeah, why did Bush get us intangled in that morass again? Oh yeah, Reagan supported the jihadists with arms and money and training against the forces of progress and doomed Reaghanistan to become the staging ground for 9-11. Thanks Reagan for the conservative foreign policy that just keeps giving.
 

Ford289HiPo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
106
Reaction score
51
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Contracts are another thing. It's like hiring the people that will attack you as a security and protection team.

How would you guard against it? We aren't mind readers. We can't determine everyones political leanings, or what actions they may take for that matter.

In all reality, it must not be that much of an issue. After all, we had Ugandans and Nigerians as security in Iraq, along with Pakistani/Sri Lankan/Indian/Filipino workers doing everything else under the sun to support the troops. Any of them could easily bring mayhem if they desired. I often wondered about the TCN's that worked in food services and how easily they could introduce poison into the foodstuffs.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Back in '92-'93, we had known al Qaeda members that both worked for Mohamed Farrah Aidid and inside the wire for the UN. During one firefight, I saw the same guy firing at us that was in our compound burning our non-classified trash the day before.

Its been that way for thousands of years.
 

Ford289HiPo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
106
Reaction score
51
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, why did Bush get us intangled in that morass again?

We were attacked during his watch. Remember the planes flying into buildings?

Oh yeah, Reagan supported the jihadists with arms and money and training against the forces of progress and doomed Reaghanistan to become the staging ground for 9-11.

WoW! The USSR was the "forces of progress"? :shock:

In case you didn't realize it, the Taliban was formed and funded by the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) post-Soviet pullout. The Paki's were "supposed" to be on our side. After all, we gave them arms to defend against mean old India.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh yeah, Reagan supported the jihadists with arms and money and training against the forces of progress and doomed Reaghanistan to become the staging ground for 9-11.

The Soviet Union was a force of Progress?
A force for progress implies that they were tolerant of homosexuality and other such pragmatic no-no's.

Communism and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexuals were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties[12] across the globe during the 20th Century, as most communist parties followed the social precedents set by the USSR.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy


The USSR was not progressive in the terms of tolerance. In terms of government intervention it was ultra progressive. The USSR was never going to win anyway. The British empire lost twice when they tried. The British empire was the most powerful force on the planet at the time. The US was building up to civil war the first time and recovering during the second. The Soviets never stood a chance, their tactics focused on Brute force and oppression (like the ideology). The USSR did not stand for any form of Progress other than progress in repression and torture.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We were attacked during his watch. Remember the planes flying into buildings?



WoW! The USSR was the "forces of progress"? :shock:

In case you didn't realize it, the Taliban was formed and funded by the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) post-Soviet pullout. The Paki's were "supposed" to be on our side. After all, we gave them arms to defend against mean old India.

I guess you're right on the fact that we were attacked on Bush's watch by people that trained how to fly those planes in the U.S. while Clinton was president. His State Dept. appointees gave them the visa's. His DOJ established the walls blocking the exchange of intelligence between agencies allowing the attack to progress. Had the attack taken place on 9/11/00, would you be saying something different?

Oh surely this government supplied the ISI with funds to supply the Taliban and al Qaeda. Charlie Wilson(D) aided and abetted the ISI and al Qaeda in the 70's and into the 80's.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
We were attacked during his watch. Remember the planes flying into buildings?



WoW! The USSR was the "forces of progress"? :shock:

In case you didn't realize it, the Taliban was formed and funded by the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) post-Soviet pullout. The Paki's were "supposed" to be on our side. After all, we gave them arms to defend against mean old India.

Wow, it's almost as if you don't know anything about the history of Afghanistan. Much like Reagan and Bush!
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Soviet Union was a force of Progress?.

Yep, as between jihadists and guys who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls.

You do realize that the Russians were invited in by the modernists of Afghanistan after their government was attacked by the warlords and jihadists? You don't. Oh well, just like Reagan

But I'm glad you think roads, hospital, schools and science are bad, and side with the jihadist. You and Reagan sitting in a tree!
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yep, as between jihadists and guys who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls.

That is true

You do realize that the Russians were invited in by the modernists of Afghanistan after their government was attacked by the warlords and jihadists? You don't. Oh well, just like Reagan

But I'm glad you think roads, hospital, schools and science are bad, and side with the jihadist. You and Reagan sitting in a tree!

The Jihadists and the Soviets were as bad as each other, the Jihadists were/are ultra conservative, the Soviets were communists. The Afghan government may have been modern, but they were failing their country: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to government expectations the reform was neither popular nor productive. Agricultural harvests plummeted and the reform itself led to rising discontent amongst Afghans.

The Afghans were discontented with their government (which was instated by a coup) and rose up against it. Therefore, only the ruling (and richer) members of Afghan society wanted communists in (kind of ironic). Going against the will of the people, it was to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary of Communism in Asia.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
That is true



The Jihadists and the Soviets were as bad as each other, the Jihadists were/are ultra conservative, the Soviets were communists. The Afghan government may have been modern, but they were failing their country: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Afghans were discontented with their government (which was instated by a coup) and rose up against it. Therefore, only the ruling (and richer) members of Afghan society wanted communists in (kind of ironic). Going against the will of the people, it was to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary of Communism in Asia.

Nope, the Russians were not "as bad" as jihadists. They didn't promote superstition or stone women to death or throw acid into the faces of schoolgirls. They didn't force women to wear burkas or destroy precious ancient artifacts because they were built by Buddhists.

More importantly Russia didn't carry out 9-11-- the jihadists Reagan supported did.

Instead, the Russians, along with the progressives who threw out the monarchy, were for building schools and hospitals and roads and a modern economy based on law. Not that the Russians didn't have their own self-interest involved. They did, but since when was that a bar for the US to act to help a foreign country modernize.

To equate the Soviet Union with madmen from the 12th century is silly and why Reagan's foolish support of the jihadist lead to 9-11. We should have supported the Russians in modernizing Afghanistan. If we had, we would be there now fighting Taliban freaks and their jihadist worldview.

Any ideology that can't tell the difference between jihadist terrorists and their dark age mentality, and the Soviet Union and its attempts at modernization, really can't be taken seriously.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope, the Russians were not "as bad" as jihadists. They didn't promote superstition or stone women to death or throw acid into the faces of schoolgirls. They didn't force women to wear burkas or destroy precious ancient artifacts because they were built by Buddhists.

More importantly Russia didn't carry out 9-11-- the jihadists Reagan supported did.

Instead, the Russians, along with the progressives who threw out the monarchy, were for building schools and hospitals and roads and a modern economy based on law. Not that the Russians didn't have their own self-interest involved. They did, but since when was that a bar for the US to act to help a foreign country modernize.

To equate the Soviet Union with madmen from the 12th century is silly and why Reagan's foolish support of the jihadist lead to 9-11. We should have supported the Russians in modernizing Afghanistan. If we had, we would be there now fighting Taliban freaks and their jihadist worldview.

Any ideology that can't tell the difference between jihadist terrorists and their dark age mentality, and the Soviet Union and its attempts at modernization, really can't be taken seriously.

The Soviets were just as bad but in different ways. The Afghans didn't imprison thousands for disagreeing with them (more like hundreds), nor did they have forced labour camps where millions perished over a period of at least 70 years. The Soviets brainwashed their people into believing that communism was the best system in the world. The US wished to use Afghanistan as a buffer against the spread of communism in Asia, due to foreign policy at the time the US believed in the domino affect and therefore they would foolishly try anything to halt the spread of communism (despite a near Socialist system being in place in Afghanistan) and to do harass any soviet interests, hence why the US still has a $1 Billion per annum embargo on cuba. Which is pretty pointless, seeming as how if Cuba was opened up, they would become more and more western.

I believe that the US should simply have given non lethal aid, if any at all to the Afghan people, since the jihadists were(/probably still are) being supported by Pakistans ISI as well as many Islamists across the Muslim world. They already had support and Pakistan was receiving American aid that was going to Afghanistan in the form of rifles and other such military hardware. The Soviets were better off leaving the Afghans to it, alongside the Americans. It was the Soviet Unions Vietnam.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're finally going to get support from me. I think hiring a known terrorist as your security detail is a really dumb strategy. Dangerous for sure to be protected by your assassin.

Maybe there's a kick-back. Al Qaeda is paying off McCrystal and Dunford. That would make some sort of sense.

McCrystal is no longer involved in military operations.
 

Ford289HiPo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
106
Reaction score
51
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More importantly Russia didn't carry out 9-11-- the jihadists Reagan supported did.

Instead, the Russians, along with the progressives who threw out the monarchy, were for building schools and hospitals and roads and a modern economy based on law. Not that the Russians didn't have their own self-interest involved. They did, but since when was that a bar for the US to act to help a foreign country modernize.
Did you really say that? The Taliban were formed by the Paki ISI after the USSR-Afghanistan war.

The USSR wanted a warm water port. If their takeover of A-satn had been successful, they would only have had to annex a small portion of Pakistan to gain that access. They could have cared less about roads or schools.

To equate the Soviet Union with madmen from the 12th century is silly and why Reagan's foolish support of the jihadist lead to 9-11. We should have supported the Russians in modernizing Afghanistan. If we had, we would be there now fighting Taliban freaks and their jihadist worldview.
/
We ARE there fighting Taliban freaks and their jihadist worldview. Where have you been?


Any ideology that can't tell the difference between jihadist terrorists and their dark age mentality, and the Soviet Union and its attempts at modernization, really can't be taken seriously.

LOL! You are seriously funny!
 
Top Bottom