I am watching a program on the history channel, and it is about the drug trade of cocaine. The drug trafficing in peru is insane. It goes from peru to columbia to mexico to US and they even use submarines. I am trying to figure out where they go the submarines, but I think I know. The problem of course in these regions is abject poverty. These people will always be in abject poverty. There is just nothing that will really give them any money. Of course the other problem some might say is the "drug trade" too and say that if we legalize it will go away. That isn't the case. These guys are narco-terrorists and they will just become legalized versions of what they are doing. They would probably do forced labor. It wouldn't be pretty. There is no government regulation in a place like the jungle. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
Watching videos of their decapitating humans with hunting knives, machetes, and chainsaws, is pretty interesting. Messed up shit. Anyway, this is an interesting topic. And don't call them "terrorists". They're businessmen. They do business. It's never personal.
Well Blossom, I think in response to that 1st video I have a couple things to say. 1)The narrator seems a bit naive to some realities. He seems to think the police are in on some giant conspiracy. I say BS because the police are a bunch of F*cking morons. I have never really had a high attitude of cops, and I know plenty of nice LEOs. But I am not blind to the fact that they are generally not all that smart. Police are always behind and playing catch up to criminals, and they are rarely well informed. Like I have said a million times, they are a clean up crew. Don't expect them to stop anything. 2)What other crop are they going to grow in Afghanistan? We all know the environment of Afghanistan can only be described as harsh, and Opium is a hearty plant, "the plant is easy to grow. It does not require irrigation unless it is in danger of drying out, demands no expensive fertilisers, has few pests or ailments and, therefore, requires no insecticides or fungicides." Plus name any legal cash crop that can be grown for the same money? The thing is that while this guy is talking about how the Taliban kept the opium trade down, the Taliban was still a bunch of terrorist weasels. The people of Afghanistan would still live in abject poverty too. It certainly doesn't require a warzone like this guy is talking about for drugs to become a cultural facet for a society. Look at South America. Cocoa starts in Peru and gets manufactured and sent all the way up to the United States. Like I said before legalization isn't going to stop the violence of the drug trade. People are still going to be forced labor. Look at the diamond trade. Look at anything that is 3rd world labor and legal. I mean the drug trade is primarily fueled by the people who use. It would be nice to start posting adds of people getting murdered over cocaine and pot and all these other drugs people claim should be ok for them to introduce into their body. If they want to do something harmful for their body, just ingest bleach or something that isn't part of the trade of people being murdered.
They are "narco-terrorists." I would say the term terror is pretty broad. Castro was a terrorist, but he was also seeking power. But some of these groups have ties to communist overthrows and all that kind of garbage. But it is easy to say something isn't personal until you are the one getting a limb removed by a machete.
all terrorists are human.....hence the problem of eradication good thing god is one too..I guess jew gentile muslim ....benzamian snake worshipper... all irrelevant to her thank god.... hahhahhaaa yes kill each other over your books
Seen it. The action is justified. You are going to armchair quarterback a judgement call of something you can't possibily understand. Good guys aren't easily marked by IR strobe lights like video games. People don't show up as glowing beacons. So when you can ID people with AK47s and RPGs in a combat zone, what do you do? You shoot them. When people try to assist them? I mean seriously. It is an easy judgement call for someone who has nothing on the line, no friends in the danger zone, and generally no real concern for anyone in the situation. I mean what is the most critical situation you have ever had to make a decision had to make? I can hardly call that a terrorist act. That is what we call collateral damage. If you want to make a discussion, then ask why that video is classified, not if it was justified. It was. The cover up was worse than the crime in that instance. This whole thing is about the drug trade though. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to solve the problem? Is it even realistic to think about the drug trade? Reduce the demand? Reduce the supply? Any sollutions?
Pharmacy Their is such a thing as substance and the knowledge of it contained. Their are properties contained within each and every chemical trained. Their use abuse where the problem lies so is very consequential framed. Their there they're now row on a row of plants to row leaves in brained. Row your boat up the stream even if formed from the substance of wire. Row of plants with a furrow to drain the flood waters into the river's ire. Row or arguments over what is mine, is yours beyond furious funereal fire. Grow up growling grumpy bumpy grumbler thunderous aurora as the buyer. Food for fools to bring on to the table a more able kind of wiser justice. Good is God for putting up with our tantrums over oil beneath caps ice. Rude it is was will be to not obey the divine commandment ever so nice. Crude oils and fossil records all contain the power of ancient days dice. Chance encounters of the serendipitous third kind with rebellious angels. Mick Jagger stopped with sympathy for the devil over democratic angles.
Anything can be justified. "I am watching a program on the history channel [followed by personal commentary]." Were you sitting on an armchair while watching this history channel program, or were you at least standing up? I'm sure this is a fallacious argument of some sort. Man o'Straw, eh? Though, ironically, they do glow like beacons in a IR camera. According to you, if they glow, and they aren't ours, and they have weapons, logically they are the enemy, and they need to die. Such a beautiful and simple war code. American Libertarians and the NRA would be proud. ID weapons, or ID persons? They didn't ID anyone, just weapons (and incorrectly identified objects as well). Of course! Like a good neighbour, State Farm is there? Oh wait, that only counts in Kansas. In the third world that's considered insurgency. How ego and ethnocentric. Only thinking about yourself and your "buddies". Apparently the death of random sand n****** doesn't matter. We're used to hearing a few killed in Baghdad, a few there in Gaza, a few there in Palestine. Their lives are truly worth less than ours. The lack of respect is unfortunate, especially if it's for "them" that we're supposedly liberating the country for. If we're liberating a country on behalf of a people, it would seem to make all the sense of the world that it would be imperative not to kill anyone the liberation would benefit. Unless, of course, if we just don't give a shit about the people, and only give a shit about our American interests (which, as we know, is what counts. Saddam wasn't remove to liberate his people, he was removed because he was a "threat" (lol) to the United States, sand n****** and collateral damage be damned). I know a 20 year old that had sex with a 13 year old, and I'm saving it as a trump card. *Hardly*? Either you *can't* call it a terrorist act, or you *can* call it a terrorist act. If you can hardly call it a terrorist act, you can still call it a terrorist act. Sorry to burst your bubble, by the way, but by definition, "Shock and Awe" is terrorism. State sponsored terrorism, interestingly enough. But, if it's to defend American interests, than it's all cool and dandy. Talk about ironic. Again, anything can be justified. Justification is nothing. An insane person can justify anything and it is by definition "justified", yet it remains nonsensical. A cop can say, "show me your ID", you reach into your pocket, and the cop has legal justification to kill you on the spot. If they wanted to, any copper can kill you arbitrarily simply by asking you to access your pocketed ID yourself (as opposed to him frisking you) and then kill you on the spot because he believed you were reaching for a weapon. It's technically justified. Fortunately, justification doesn't excuse responsibility. The real question is how the pilots should have proceeded when they "identified" the weapons, how the pilots should have composed themselves during the engagement, and how the chain of command was uninterested in the lives of the population of the city at the time of engagement. There was no intelligence regarding this attack. This group wasn't hunted or procured. This was not bin Laden, this was not al-Awlaki. They were randomly encountered during patrol, and randomly engaged. I actually agree with you. The cover-up was worse. As terrible as the stupidity, ignorance and carelessness of the U.S. Army is concerned, the attempt to hide this tragedy (both regarding deaths of innocents and incompetence of the military) makes it worse. Sort of like how Obama is worse than Bush. At least with Bush I knew he was fucking me in the ass. Obama fucks you deeper and harder than Bush, but with all the lube Obama uses you don't notice your intestines are being torn apart. Armchair quarterbacking, bro? What do you know about the drug trade?
I don't think so. Make a case for rape. Out of context. I am trying to get a better grasp on the drug trade and also get different perspectives. I have already said that it is beyond my ability to "fix" said drug trade. That is what arm chair QBing is. Saying what should have been done to stop whatever is going on. And I was squatting. What does that count as? They "Glow" but it isn't what you see on TV at all. And beacons flash. Good guys only flash if they toss out an IR strobe. I had a nice long response to this, but I have a better idea. Let me ask you STRAIGHT UP: should the apache have fired at those people? Sense you appear to be all high and mighty on this horse of evil Americans, then let me ask you why do you think they shouldn't have fired? Another question: Do you have friends there? Anyone that has been under fire? Have you watched the FULL unedited, 39:29 version of the film? Or just this version? Becaue I can clearly see an AK47, you HEAR the talk of troops coming under fire, and on top of that I think even some of the subtitles are wrong. I think the "fucking prick" comment might have been "(inaudible) break" though that is irrelevant. I just thought about that during the chatter. Now you can't ID people from that gun camera either. It isn't possible. Did you actually SEE the resolution on the camera? Or were you not watching? Now sit your fat ass in a moving helicopter and view this through a screen with lower resolution than your computer on an eye patch mounted gun camera. Can you TELL that is a camera? Or does it look like an AK47? Hell does it look like an RPG? Can you tell? They IDed weapons while men were under fire. While they may have gotten it wrong, they did better than you or any of the wikileaks crew could have. Yea. You are right. Why else would someone pick up people with weapons? You are still applying post game logic to something that happened in the moment. Now let me highlight some things in your next statement. Is it? Are you sure that I am saying that they don't matter because of their race? You called them sand niggers. I didn't. So how is it ethnocentric then? I care about my friends more than someone I have never met. If I picked up a rifle to shoot your best friend, and your best friend killed me would you care? What if it turned out that I was 300m away from your friend, but someone was shooting at him and I was pointing a camera at him and he say the glint off the camera and you friend puts a bullet in my head and the shooting stops? Would you still feel the same way? Just like we are used to hearing that a few soldiers were killed, maimed, or wounded in bomb attacks. That we should do something about what is going on in _____(insert random nation). Easy to say we should do something if you aren't the one doing it. When did I say that is what we are doing? I am not an idiot. I know why we are there. It has nothing to do with liberation. What did you say before? Man of straw The only interest I have is in the safety of my people who are in harms way because some asshole politicians. And you haven't clubbed him like a baby seal? The attempt to dazzle enemy combatants? We attack military targets. Of course people like you don't understand WTF that means. You think that the enemy is wearing camo or something? They are dressing like everyone else. Every civi on the street. Do you think we should be going after al quedda? Cause quite frankly that is all I ever cared about. Sadly that wasn't what happened. You need to not live in the past Bret "lazyboy" Favre. You can ONLY judge these incidents in the context of how they occured. You can't add information that you later attain UNLESS that information was known AT the time. You can't add context that isn't relevant. You can't talk about Bush being an evil capitalist in the same context as some Army officer gunning down a few people with AK47s during a situation where a humvee element has come under fire. They aren't connected. Bush might be the reason they are there, but it has nothing to do with what is going on. So how should they have "proceeded?" The patrol comes under fire. They call for support. Airsupport spots men with AK47s. The "chain of command" being "uninterested" is crap. They checked back drop, and even avoided shooting at the mosque. They took CLEAR shots at the targets rather than shooting them through the buildings or using missles or rockets. They hit EVERYTHING they aimed at. Did they hit anything else? Like I have said. You can't judge this OUT of the moment. If you do that, you are wrong. Hell you can discuss what should be done NEXT TIME, but you cannot judge this incident as it stands like you are because the simple fact of life is that they followed rules of engagement. What else do you want?
Always this same ass shit. Yes, but he was in Afghanistan. He's back now. And on Lithium. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html "And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." -- G.W. Bush. You claim "it has nothing to do with liberation". Our Commander-in-Chief stated it had 1/3rd to do with liberation. Someone is full of shit. I might reply to the rest of the embarrassing apologetic diatribe later.
And what was his job? Have you ever even talked to him about what he went through? Have you talked to him about the possibility that He might have killed civillians because of orders he was given? Put yourself in his shoes before you attack the people in that video. Isn't that the EXACT same claim you made? I said that it isn't about liberation. I know what a lie is when I hear it. Like I said I am not stupid. I never disagreed with you. You are wrong if you think liberation is the reason we are there. It might be a stated objective, but that one objective isn't the reason we went in. Please do. I understand. I wrote a lot though. For now: What would you have done if you were in the seat of that helicopter?
If you believe in free will, which I assume you do, then you know that they're still in the wrong. Obviously if you have to save your life, you save your life. But, as you said, when you save your life, it's in the moment. You don't consider it--it just happens. For all other scenarios, there's consideration. Asking permission to fire is consideration. It's part of the rules of engagement, but if you're saving your ass, you fuck the rules. As you well know. The 'copter pilots weren't saving anyone's ass. So...Bush still isn't a criminal? Or is he a criminal in your eyes, but not being prosecuted/unable to be prosecuted because of technicalities? I'm the most dangerous thing in the sky. And I see you. And you don't see me. You don't even hear me. I would alert command of position of group, and observe group. I would not request to shoot. Would I happen to later be commanded to shoot, I would probably have to, even if I semi-objected to the order, but that's a different story. There was no imminent threat. There was a threat, yes, anyone with a weapon (or without a weapon) is a threat, ask a copper, but it was not imminent. There is a desensitization of killing someone from a few kilometers away, using fly-by-wire technology, thermal imaging, and mechanical aiming/firing cannons as opposed to musket row firing from 100 meters, as opposed to melee combat. You know this. There's a lack of respect. Unfortunately, many Americans have lost this respect over the years. Not all, but too many. "What does the marine sniper say he feels when he shoots an insurgent in the head?" "Recoil". "What does the Roman legionnaire say he feels when he stabs an insurgent in the heart?" "The other guy's sword in my leg".
yeah just nothing like those who blame it on just following orders hahahaha get in the gas chamber ooops I mean shower thats the orders hahahhahhaa another jarhead who took the training a little too literally shav tags yawny on the way out the door if he gets up he is a looney and Id avoid em unless bored
opium is sold legally as codeine when it is sold legally there is no terrorism involved, but when sold illegally it 'causes' social problems this is obvious, but if the laws were overturned there would be need for the legal system to pay compensation for the evil which it pursues so the problem gets worse the legal system is to blame 100% for the violence in the drug trade alcohol causes more harm than the most dangerous illegal drugs the prohibition made the problem worse to the point that america is just one big gangland its false science is exported all over the world, much like the nazis tried to export racism racism is the underlying cause of the ignorance as the alcohol problem proves marijuana is 'black' and 'mexican' and has never killed anyone hypocrisy will destroy the west just like it destroyed the nazis bad philosophy = destruction keep pretending otherwise lets see how bad the war can get b4 someone has a 'De Klerk' moment
Very true. It's all about control. How is the gov't going to control the populace if they are all high on drugs ?. In the UK earlier in the 20th century doctors could prescribe herion to addicts. There were very few addicts and they were mainly bohemian types living in London. There was no black market in the drug and those addicts lived a fairly normal life. Pure heroin does not kill anyone unless they take an overdose. When doctors were stopped giving herion the addicts had to get it on the black market and that's when criminal gangs got involved.Addicts started selling some to pay for their fix and more addicts were created. Herion was cut with all manner of harmful additives and purity varied . Make all recreational drugs legal and controlled,eg the same as alcohol in some Scandinavian countries and get the criminal gangs out of the loop. The establishment have this deranged idea that if drugs are legalised then every kid will want to try them. The opposite is more likely as drugs will lose some of their exotic appeal.
Criminal gangs like the government? You mean like the 80% of high school students? It isn't about the "exotic" effect. It is about getting high. That doesn't change if it is legal or illegal. Of course my big thing is that if you legalize the drug trade you are legalizing some nasty stuff. Do you think that they are going to up and grow these things somewhere else? That would be economically stupid. I think it would end up looking like the blood diamond trade. Does that seem at all off base to anyone else? I mean we aren't talking about a bunch of FFA members. We are talking about guys with AK47s willing to murder anyone that gets in the way of the most important thing $$$.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but there is no evidence that if recreational drugs are made legal that consumtion would increase. I presume that you are talking about cocaine production from south and central America.There is a demand in the north so if it was legalised it would remove the criminal element at least in the north. Remember prohibition?. Did it stop people drinking ?. Of course not .It just made lots of money for criminals. Alcohol is much more problematic than other drugs. In Scotland ,545 deaths were attributed to drug misuse in 2009. Parliament is currently trying to pass a bill to increase the minimum price of alcohol to around 45p per unit. This would help to remove cheap cider and vodka from supermarket shelves,and is estimated to reduce deaths from alcohol by 2000 per year. 2000 less deaths by just increasing the price slightly !!!> Judging by one of your previous posts you obviously missuse alcohol, but you seem to see yourself as superior to some kid who has a couple of joints.
