• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Drug Money Finances Terrorism

LostAngeles

Penultimate Amazing
L
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
10,109
Did you know that? It's a fact? Just listen to Nick & Norm debate it:





How compelling! I can't believe I wasn't aware of this before! From now on, it's all homegrown for me!

Unless...

Oh noes! What about the domestic terrorists? And all the terrorists who sneak in over the Mexican border!

What ever shall we do?! How can we have our sweet, sweet cocaine and still be safe!?
 
Yeah, the old hippie couple in with the basement pot farm they tend to help pay for cat food get their orders right from Osma Bin Ladin.

And today's rhetorical question is: Has the government really run out of lame excuses to keep drug prohibition going?
 
I don't know or much care who your sources in the OP are talking about but people raising a few pot plants in their basements clearly don't finance terrorism but they get busted and sent to jail, sometimes for a very long time. Ironically the world's largest drug producers and smugglers worked with impunity under the benevolent look the other way policy of American armed forces.

But poppy cultivation and the heroin trade in Afghanistan does and the U.S.from the beginning did nothing to stop this cultivation but in fact maintained a virtually hands-off policy in order to "pacify" the war lords, drug lords and the smugglers known as the Northern Alliance with whom the U.S. formed an alliance to get alQueda and the Taliban. Needless to say Bush & Co's plan to play ball with the drug smugglers and farmers really pissed off Britain but Blair couldn't do anything about it. Everytime Blair brought it up in public with Bush standing nearby Bush just ignored him and didn't say a word.

Everytime Bush's original Director of the DEA (Asa Hutchinson) brought it up it was quickly quashed. He was finally replaced by a DEA director who played well with the administration. Asa Hutchinson was transferred to the DHS as an Administrator in charge of Transportation and Border Security in 2003.

Now that NATO is there this might change. Then again it might not. Afghanistan went from practically no poppy cultivation under Taliban rule to the world's largest supplier of heroin under Karzi and U.S. occupation. And the the local profits from this trade find their way to Taliban coffers and for terrorism operations including alQueda.
I don't get Congress completely ignoring this but so far they have.

Here's a recent (Mar 2007) UN report on the problem and it is a problem:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21752&Cr=afghan&Cr1=

You can't make this stuff up. I wonder how many of our troops returned from Afghanistan hooked on heroin which is cheap and plentiful in the country thanks to the unholy alliance between the Bush administration and the drug dealers.
 
Last edited:
What I posted consititutes irrefutable proof. If you don't feel like looking at it, then don't bother posting in this thread.
 
I don't doubt the irrefutable proof you cite. My sound card is fried. If it is about the heroin trade emanating from Afghanistan I agree with you. If it is about people raising personal use or small quantities of pot in the U.S. and being prosecuted and jailed for this I agree with you. I also don't doubt that law enforcement, starting with the White House and the USDOJ is more than happy to say terrorism is being financed by people growing pot in their basements in Podunk USA. But they conveniently ignore the fact that Bush, Cheney and the Pentagon have been self-financing terrorism since they invaded Afghanistan by allowing the heroin smugglers to operate unimpeded. It is a disgrace. A national scandal as big as all the other scandals this White House is piling up.
It is beyond belief:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,370130,00.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5NjViZGE1YjBlYTNmNDZlNzg5ZDc2OWMyNWU2NzE=


"Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 percent of the new legislators have links to warlords. The New York-based rights group singled out Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a powerful militia commander whose guns ravaged Kabul residents in the 1990s, and Mohammed Fahim, a former defense minister, who has been accused of war crimes.

... A European diplomat, who asked not to be named, reckoned that about 20 legislators still have active private militias and that at least 20 more have been involved in drug smuggling."
-- San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 19, 2005



Commenting on the elections, Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President of International Crisis Group, had stated:

"It's not merely about drug money financing candidates. Drug lords are candidates."
-- Boston Globe, Oct. 20/04


"Abdul Karim Brahowie, Afghanistan's minister of tribal and frontier affairs, says that the government has become so full of drug smugglers that cabinet meetings have become a farce. 'Sometimes the people who complain the loudest about theft are thieves themselves,' he says."

-- Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2005
Click to expand...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MED20060318&articleId=2125
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you can refer me to a transcript of the video in your post. It isn't clear from looking at this where it was originally broadcast. Thank you.
 
Maybe this and this will help you. I suggest you read the entire page carefully too since it's clear you couldn't be bothered to read more than the title of the OP.
 
I read the Nick and Norm link you provided immediately above and the comments such as this one with interest:

Look at Druglords. Then look at Bin Laden. Somehow, I suspect that, if this was true, the Towers would've been destroyed with nuclear devices rather than stolen comercial planes, and Bin laden himself would have a MUCH nicer crib.
Click to expand...

While this is an interesting statement that may ring true, it isn't. The reason is that whoever made it has no knowledge of recent history. When binLaden hatched his 9-11 scheme the Taliban banned opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan so there were no drug profits. After the Taliban was driven from power by the U.S. with the help of the drug lords and smugglers the planting and smuggling resumed. And now the Taliban and alQueda sit back and reap a heathy % of the profits as payoffs or tribute. The fact that these terrorists don't have nicer cribs is that they must subsist where they are safe and that includes the rough terrain between Pakistan and Afghanistan. You can be sure they do spend their money on financing operations elsewhere, however. I am sure they would love to get their hands on a nuclear device and plant it in the West if they could get one and manage to smuggle it in and have the expertise to arm and detonate it. If you recall they were studying this possibility as notes were found in some of their hideouts on this.


I agree that drugs produced in Latin America and SE Asia are not linked to any sort of terrorism we should be concerned about and this is a ploy by the government .....payoffs to insurgents/rebels/guerillas, considered terrorists by their governments, occur in some regions from drug smugglers. However, that ploy is not in play for opium poppies grown in Afghanistan with the blessings of the self same U.S. government and other coalition partners (see article on Germany in Afghanistan in Spiegel above) that say drugs from Latin America, Asia or pot grown in the US for that matter is. The U.S. government continued to pursue and prosecute certifiable HIV, glaucoma and cancer patients trying to buy pot while they allowed the opium growers, smugglers and heroin processors in Afghanistan to operate unimpeded. This is hypocrisy at new heights.

Who are Nick and Norm besides two guys talking in each other's face? I am not familiar with them. Your OP link, incidentally, brings up only their two videos so don't mouth off at me for not reading the whole page. It wasn't there and I am not a You Tube expert.
 
Last edited:
I researched the Nick and Norm "commercial" and found this review. I also found a transcript of Nick and Norm arguing about driving an SUV with the gasoline purchased funding terroism. I am sorry, I didn't realize that you posted this YouTube video as a joke or spoof which it appears to be.

The fact is the Bush White House from day one has entered into an unholy alliance with Afghan drug producers and smugglers and in the years we have occupied Afghanistan the U.S. has enabled it to turn into the #1 heroin producer in the world while hypocritcally pointing to non-Afghani sources of drugs and their users as supporters of terrorism. Clearly alQueda and the Taliban benefit from Afghan's new status as a the world's number one heroin producer. The terrorists have fostered the perfect biological weapon: opium. It addicts millions of people worldwide while helping to fund AlQueda and a resurgence of the Taliban. And The Bush White House turns a blind eye in order to stay loyal to his alliances with the drug lords and smugglers.

Talk about giving "material assistance" to terrorists. This is a prime example.

The frat boy in the White House considers loyalty more important than anything else. He has demonstrated this time and again as one after another of his buddies go down. He remains loyal to the smugglers, war and drug lords who gladly helped the U.S. finish off the Taliban...er, temporarily. It's really sad.

This is not a funny subject. It is damn serious. Here, check out the Nick and Norm review at the irrefutable comedyzine:

http://www.comedyzine.com/tvcrjan03.html

And here's good old Nick and Norm irrefutably pursuing SUV drivers as funders of terrorism:

http://www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/Point.html

So while Nick and Norm irrefutably satirize this situation, here's some recent reports on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6604485.stm


Drug traffickers have a symbiotic relationship with insurgents and terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaida. Instability makes opium cultivation possible; opium buys protection and pays for weapons and foot soldiers, and these in turn create an environment in which drug lords, insurgents and terrorists can operate with impunity.
Click to expand...
http://origin.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5750985

The author is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Although the Taliban formerly banned opium poppy cultivation, there is mounting evidence that some insurgents have become involved in the trade. At a March meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Antonio Maria Costa, reporting on the latest opium crop survey in Afghanistan, said, "The vicious circle of drugs funding terrorism and terrorism supporting drug lords is stronger than ever."
The U.S. State Department's recent International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said Afghanistan remains the largest producer of opium and trafficker of opium and heroin. (See related article.)
Click to expand...

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070428114220tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

I trust you are not a heroin addict. I suggest that if you were and you were paying US dollars to heroin dealers then you are helping to finance terrorism, Nick and Norm not withstanding.
 
Last edited:
Another great reason to end prohibition. Think about it. The War on Drugs itself puts money in terrorists' pockets. If we ended prohibition then little or no drug money would flow to terrorists. The war on drugs drives up the price of drugs, which makes drugs profitable for criminal organizations and guerrillas. Because if prohibition was ended legitimate companies could produce the stuff and the price would fall making it of little interest or profit for terrorists.
 
Puppycow said:
Another great reason to end prohibition. Think about it. The War on Drugs itself puts money in terrorists' pockets. If we ended prohibition then little or no drug money would flow to terrorists. The war on drugs drives up the price of drugs, which makes drugs profitable for criminal organizations and guerrillas. Because if prohibition was ended legitimate companies could produce the stuff and the price would fall making it of little interest or profit for terrorists.
Click to expand...

When you suggest "ending the prohibition" are you specifically referring to:

1. Doing so by allowing legal over the counter sales of a now prohibited drug?

Or do you think the now prohibited drugs should be available by prescription only?

2. Which drug(s) in the War on Drugs are you referring to?

Since the specific terrorists we are talking about are AlQueda and the Taliban reaping profits from opium production in Afghanistan are you saying opium and its derivative, heroin, should be sold over the counter? Opiates are already available by prescription.

In fact it has been suggested in one of the refs provided above, I believe by Britain, that the
opium poppy farmers in Afghanistan be converted en masse into a supplier of raw opium for the prescription drug market as one solution. This suggestion goes the way of other suggestions to convert these farmers into growers of high end/expensive spice herbs such as saffron.* The war/drug lords and smugglers are cut out of the picture as their services won't be needed so
what do they do?

They threaten the farmers and their families, burn them out, kill them and their families. Set an example.

Hence the "Drug War" is still a Drug War even if the governments' side declares a unilateral truce. There is no way getting around the need for violent response unfortunately.

The rest of the drug war, against meth, cocaine, pot, whatever, is irrelevant as these illicit substances have little or no financial impact on the bottom line of alQueda or the Taliban. Opium does.

*References:

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=122&id=3897

http://www.dacaar.org/dacaar.asp?news=152


http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2004/Mar/31-711510.html



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9512774

Nevertheless, a senior Afghan counter-narcotics official in Helmand declared the operation a failure. He likened it to emptying the sea with a cup.

Helmand is virtually the capital of world opium production. It's also a major stronghold of the insurgent Taliban, which is said to profit from the opium trade.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steve:
To your question 1: Yes. I would regulate and tax it, prohibit all forms of advertising and put strong warning labels and risk information in each package. Even the packages must be monotone and not attractive like cigarrette packs. We would warn children in school and make public service announcements, but it would be legal.

2. I believe all drugs should be put under a similar regime, but specifically opium and its derivative heroin and cocaine (coca leaves) are the crops that matter for narco-guerillas.

I do not take drugs and I realize how harmful they can be, but I don't believe in the nanny-state "saving people from themselves" by throwing them in prison. Is a person better off in prison than addicted to drugs? Is society better off paying to keep them in a cage at a cost of $40,000 dollars per inmate? I say no.
 
SteveGrenard said:
I don't know or much care who your sources in the OP are talking about but people raising a few pot plants in their basements clearly don't finance terrorism but they get busted and sent to jail, sometimes for a very long time. Ironically the world's largest drug producers and smugglers worked with impunity under the benevolent look the other way policy of American armed forces.

But poppy cultivation and the heroin trade in Afghanistan does and the U.S.from the beginning did nothing to stop this cultivation but in fact maintained a virtually hands-off policy in order to "pacify" the war lords, drug lords and the smugglers known as the Northern Alliance with whom the U.S. formed an alliance to get alQueda and the Taliban. Needless to say Bush & Co's plan to play ball with the drug smugglers and farmers really pissed off Britain but Blair couldn't do anything about it. Everytime Blair brought it up in public with Bush standing nearby Bush just ignored him and didn't say a word.

Everytime Bush's original Director of the DEA (Asa Hutchinson) brought it up it was quickly quashed. He was finally replaced by a DEA director who played well with the administration. Asa Hutchinson was transferred to the DHS as an Administrator in charge of Transportation and Border Security in 2003.

Now that NATO is there this might change. Then again it might not. Afghanistan went from practically no poppy cultivation under Taliban rule to the world's largest supplier of heroin under Karzi and U.S. occupation. And the the local profits from this trade find their way to Taliban coffers and for terrorism operations including alQueda.
I don't get Congress completely ignoring this but so far they have.

Here's a recent (Mar 2007) UN report on the problem and it is a problem:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21752&Cr=afghan&Cr1=

You can't make this stuff up. I wonder how many of our troops returned from Afghanistan hooked on heroin which is cheap and plentiful in the country thanks to the unholy alliance between the Bush administration and the drug dealers.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree that the drug/war lords should be pacified. And as soon as they have been, we here at Shady Rest have a fine selection of plots where they can spend eternity waiting for "the Trump that never blows" (as we like to call it in private conversation).:D
 
Puppycow said:
Steve:
To your question 1: Yes. I would regulate and tax it, prohibit all forms of advertising and put strong warning labels and risk information in each package. Even the packages must be monotone and not attractive like cigarrette packs. We would warn children in school and make public service announcements, but it would be legal.

2. I believe all drugs should be put under a similar regime, but specifically opium and its derivative heroin and cocaine (coca leaves) are the crops that matter for narco-guerillas.

I do not take drugs and I realize how harmful they can be, but I don't believe in the nanny-state "saving people from themselves" by throwing them in prison. Is a person better off in prison than addicted to drugs? Is society better off paying to keep them in a cage at a cost of $40,000 dollars per inmate? I say no.
Click to expand...


While I respect and appreciate your views, I think before legalizing drugs in the manner you suggest (over the counter, non-RX) that WE as a society must decide in advance if we want to tolerate the problems this could cause which will intrude on our lives:

1. An increase of failures at work and school
2. An increase in accidents, vehicular or otherwise, that could claim the lives of others (innocents)
3. An increase in physical elder, child and spousal abuse
4. An increase in other inter-personal conflicts

I say “increase” in the above categories because we already have these things. Do we want more of them? Predictably legalizing and making cocaine, meth and opiates more widely and legally available will increase the incidence of these consequences. We already live in a society that is at least partially impaired a % of the time by prescription meds and alcohol. Do we want to increase that level of impairment? Do we want our authorities, our police and military and politicians, for example to operate under the influence of these "now" legally available substances? Would you honestly want your adult children (age 21 or older) living their lives dependent on these "now" legally available substances? How about your wife? Your parents? How about your President? Your Governor? Your local Councilperson? How do you feel about young children being parented by people on these substances? Can you reliably convince they are bad for you while at the same time allowing one to hop down to the local store to acquire them legally? It’s a real tough sell. I know because this is what happens when you try to explain to kids turning 18 or 21 (and can legally drink alcohol) that booze is bad for them. They just nod but don’t completely believe it.

The nanny state as you call it is not just for for protecting idiots against themselves but also protects us against the idiots.We get both even though you say we should not need to be protected against ourselves if we are that stupid.

I frankly like the idea of not having to contend with people under the influence of opiates, meth,cocaine or even pot ….as well as drunk or on some kinds of prescription meds. But every day at work, on the street, talking with neighbors,strangers in stores and so forth under your plan we will be forced to contend with people operating under influences which cannot
be discerned just by looking at them …. and to alcohol and RX drugs we can now add a selection of others.

I agree that putting end users in jail for years is a costly and inefficient policy and that alternatives for end-users could be more imaginative, more effective and less costly. But that’s a whole other thread requiring specialized expertise.
 
Last edited:
whilst the anti-drug commercials are hardly likely to convince, drug money does finance (and has financed) organisations which come under (an ill defined) "terrorist" descriptor....

and on a far larger scale funds criminal activity the world over....

drugs are bad mmmkay....:)
 
Steve: I understand your concerns. Non-drug users are unlikely to support legalization if that means that there will be a new epidemic of antisocial behavior as a result. In fact if I thought there would be then I would have to reevaluate my position. I also admit that if the war on drugs actually worked so that drug consumption and abuse was very rare, and the costs of enforcing it were small but the effect of reducing drug-related problems was large, the policy would be justified. Economists have considered the costs and benefits and there is a good argument to be made that a roughly equal effect of reducing drug consumption could be made by taxes and regulation. I do agree that responsible people should not have to suffer from the effects of irresponsible people's choices, so crimes such as driving while under the influence of any mind-altering substance should carry stiff penalties.

I would also note that we have made considerable progress in reducing the rate of smoking without making it illegal, which indicates that there are other ways to do this besides with the legal system.

So, my argument is based on costs and benefits. I am claiming that compared to alternative approaches, our current one has a poor cost-to-benefit ratio, and that one of the big costs is that it puts money in the pockets of terrorists and other criminal organizations.
 
I guess we agree to disagree. Making meth, cocaine, heroin and pot available over the counter will result in more widespread use with the attendent problems we both seem to agree upon. This is what I believe. I do not think we should legalize such substances anew only to start a campaign to prevent people from using them a day later. Too many proponents of legalization overlook these problems, I am glad to see you recognize them. Now we need to recognize the difficulty we have treating those addicted or dependent on illicit versions of these substances and apply them to a whole new subset of the population who haven't been hooked mainly because these drugs are, in fact, illegal. In addition to laws legalizing such drugs we would also need whole new sets of laws dictating when they would be illegal to use such as during the operation of a motor vehicle or watching your children or performing heart surgery!

I envision a major nightmare for law enforcement in these unknown waters. I envision similar nightmares for users as these drugs alter the senses, create dependencies and cravings which cannot easily be turned off or turned on to conform to such necessitiies.
 
Last edited:
Well, I know what Steve's excuse is, but I have no idea about the rest of you. So let me just give a quick run-down.

Shortly after 9/11, I started seeing the ads in the OP on television. In them, these two men, over dinner discuss drug money financing terrorism. The younger one calls B.S. on it and asks, "Why should I believe that?"

"It's a fact."
"It's a fact?"
"F-A-C-T. Fact."
"So you're saying I should believe it because it's true? That's your arguement?"
"It is true."
THE END.

Part two runs along similar lines with yet another logical fallacy.

I was being sarcastic in my OP. I'm actually completely for reasonable legalization. I was faking buying into their whole arguement. I attempted to make light of the most transparent piece of B.S. ever attempted.

Still, not that this isn't still a good thread.
 
geni said:
Going by the sucess of FARC yes.
Click to expand...

Oh, it is true that a lot of drug money does finance these groups. The problem is painting such a thing with a broad brush. I take the hidden implication in these ads to be, "The drug users made the WTC attacks possible! They're just as bad and as evil!" But is some kid who's been growing his own for years from some seeds he got in his dimebag years ago, financing terrorism?

Not to mention the absolute horrendous arguement made in the ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom