{"id":5002,"date":"2008-12-11T16:07:42","date_gmt":"2008-12-12T00:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=5002"},"modified":"2008-12-11T16:07:42","modified_gmt":"2008-12-12T00:07:42","slug":"where-the-taliban-gets-their-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2008\/12\/11\/where-the-taliban-gets-their-money\/","title":{"rendered":"Where the Taliban Gets Their Money"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The subcontractors responsible for moving NATO supplies from Karachi to the forces in Afghanistan have reportedly paid millions of dollars in protection money, called the &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.timesonline.co.uk\/tol\/news\/world\/asia\/article5327683.ece\">Taliban Tax<\/a>&#8221; by the <em>Times<\/em>, to keep militants from attacking them. <\/p>\n<p>One company reported spending 25% of its security money to the Taliban, while another company is reportedly on such good terms with the militants that they send fighters to escort their convoys.<\/p>\n<p>It provides an interesting alternative explanation for the recent <a href=\"http:\/\/news.antiwar.com\/2008\/12\/07\/militants-torch-over-160-vehicles-bound-for-afghanistan\/\">attacks on NATO vehicles around Peshawar<\/a>, perhaps the depots fell behind on their protection fees. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The subcontractors responsible for moving NATO supplies from Karachi to the forces in Afghanistan have reportedly paid millions of dollars in protection money, called the &#8220;Taliban Tax&#8221; by the Times, to keep militants from attacking them. One company reported spending 25% of its security money to the Taliban, while another company is reportedly on such [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-5002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5002"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5002\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5004,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5002\/revisions\/5004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5002"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=5002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}