You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Terror Networks
WEAPONS OF THE WORLD: Cash
2005-03-10
March 10, 2005: Money is a weapon of war that is not often talked about. In the war on terror, money is often a more effective weapon than those that make loud noises. In Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world, there are many heavily armed groups that will take cash in return for information, protection or active participation in a fight. In the opening days of the 2001 war in Afghanistan, it was cash (in the form of hundred dollar bills) that made the big difference. Afghan warlords could see only a few Special Forces troopers and CIA field agents, and that didn't impress them much. Then they were offered cash, up to a few hundred thousand dollars worth (depending on how many gunmen the warlord commanded). That was an offer Afghan warlords could understand. Some of them had made cash deals with the Taliban, and a few had even allowed themselves to be bought off by the Russians during the 1980s.

Bribery is not unknown in the United States, but it is far more prevalent in those parts of the world where the war on terror is being fought. Saddam Hussein would regularly bribe those he could not terrorize or destroy. Al Qaeda understands the value of cash as a weapon. When Taliban control of Afghanistan evaporated in late 2001, it was cash, more than bullets, that got many al Qaeda leaders safely out of the country. Recently, the Pakistani army, after months of fighting tribes who were sheltering al Qaeda members, found a million dollars paid to tribal chiefs got them the cooperation that firepower alone was unable to extract. The chiefs said they needed the cash to pay al Qaeda back the bribes received to provide the terrorists sanctuary. Apparently there was a bidding war, and al Qaeda lost.

In Iraq, hundreds of ammo and weapons dumps were found. But the most useful munitions discovered was over a billion dollars in Saddam's cash. Most of this was turned over to the American combat commanders, who used it to hire Iraqis for reconstruction, security and other jobs. Cash went to buy building materials, food and other items Iraqis were in need of. Many American commanders also began paying "compensation" to Iraqis who lost property, or lives, during American military operations. This was nothing new to Iraqis, even Saddam would sometimes pay compensation. Whoever paid it, got come cooperation in return.
Posted by:Steve

#8  Dear idiots and liars:

Be men. Be truthful. Were not the Taliban and Saddam put in power by the U.S.? Only honest answers will be accepted.


In Jesus' Glorious and Holy name,
Dean Berry -- REAL American
Posted by: REAL American   2005-03-10 6:53:39 PM  

#7  Dear Clueless Troll: To be truthful, Saddam participated in a assassination attempt on Iraq's prime minister in 1959 and then fled to Egypt. He returned to Iraq in 1963 after the Ba'athists briefly came to power, and he played a significant role in the 1968 revolution that secured Ba'ath Party hegemony. He held key economic and political posts before becoming Iraq's president in 1979. The U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with his rise to power. You are a pompous ass, unworthy of making any pronouncements in Jesus' name.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-10 7:15:53 PM  

#6  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: REAL American TROLL   2005-03-10 6:53:39 PM  

#5  mjh, why any need for collusion? If it was a faked kidnapping why involve any iraqis except a couple of 'extras'. The whole thing smells and a faked kidnapping is a plausible explanation.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-10 5:01:34 PM  

#4  Same things that makes cars fast, cubic money.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-03-10 4:49:49 PM  

#3  To paraphrase 'The Right Stuff' - Do you know what makes rockets fly?
Posted by: Glereper Thigum7229   2005-03-10 1:26:15 PM  

#2  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall a hostage taker or a gun appearing in any of the videos with the Italian Commie Journalist, as there were with other kidnappings.

This has caused the conspiracy theorist in me to ask whether perhaps she was colluding with them for a cut of the ransom??? Why has there not been much discussion of this in the blogosphere?

I see no reason she would NOT collude with the terrorists. It's a win-win for her, she gets to support her terrorist friends and walk away a little richer...not to mention she is now the cause celebre of the anti-freedom left.
Posted by: mjh   2005-03-10 11:26:39 AM  

#1  It's bad enough when the bad guys use kidnapping as a fund raiser, and worse when folks pay the ransom. But our Italian journalist might have just been an excuse for passing cash? How many levels of hell are there, again?
Posted by: Bobby   2005-03-10 10:50:09 AM  

00:00