THE "War on Drugs" Thread (merged)

by **Bud Dwyer** » Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:39:09

"Mother-nature,
took away my fur,
gave me back,
pants and a shirt.
Took away my claws,
gave me a gun.
Took away my cause
and made me blind, deaf, and dumb.
Stole my wisdom,
sold me religion,
traded my insticts
for a strangers decisions. Listen,
She took away my sack of medicine
and when I got it back it had a negative stigmatism
called drugs and now you push
for fines and convictions,
confining me to live an UN-NATURAL exisistance.
What the f*ck is this, you don't own sh*t,
it's just there.
Popular opinion aint what everybody cares,
and half of us aren't fully aware that we're aware."

Funny sh*t, Itch. That fool had it comming.

by **Josephus** » Thu 16 Sep 2004, 19:36:09

I think it's actually pretty common knowledge that the War on Drugs is a lost cause and that there are a lot of double standards that apply. The government has now spent so much time and money fighting and demonizing "soft drugs" that to quit now would make them feel stupid. It's a case of cutting off one's nose to spite the face.

Even my grandpa, who disagreed with the counter-culture movement of the '60's and '70's and generally looks upon our modern culture with the disdain of those brought up in the pre-WWII generation, doesn't understand why the government is so unmoveable on this topic.

Especially in the case of marijuana. The best ideas would be to tax the hell out of it like they do cigarettes, only sell it through authorized dealers (like in the Netherlands) or let people grow it for personal use (like Spain, I think). But now that I've gone and read the link Matt provided above, I know it's a lost cause. But maybe not forever.

by **Carlhole** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 17:20:10

Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism by Peter Dale Scott

The American people have been seriously misled about the origins of the al Qaeda movement blamed for international terrorism, just as they have been seriously misled about the reasons for America’s invasion of Iraq.

The truth is that for at least two decades the United States has engaged in energetic covert programs to secure U.S. control over the Persian Gulf, and also to open up Central Asia for development by U.S. oil companies. Americans were eager to gain access to the petroleum reserves of the Caspian Basin, which at that time were still estimated to be “the largest known reserves of unexploited fuel in the planet.”[1]...
link

by **nuhax** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 17:28:27

Just another lame conspiracy theory.

by **The_Toecutter** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 21:14:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust another lame conspiracy theory.

by **CrudeAwakening** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 22:45:22

Yep, argument please..

by **nuhax** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:18:50

A few points, and I am not going to be online again until late or tomorrow so flame away...

This type of article is typical of conspiracy theorists and people like Noam Chomsky who take disparate facts and weave them into something which is not logically supported. They often use very bad and erroneous informal logic--for example... a terrorist once received money from the CIA, therefore the CIA supports terrorism. They conveniently ignore all the times the CIA eliminated terrorists!

1. "U.S. support for al Qaeda elements, particularly in Azerbaijan and Kosovo, has increased dramatically the flow of heroin to Western Europe and the United States."

Where is the evidence to support this? The article talks about US support for various elements and also that there is drug running. That's nothing new, and it doesn't mean US supported drug production or caused a big increase in drug production. Parts of these statements of supporting fact in the article may be true but do not *necessitate* it's conclusion.

2. "In short, the al Qaeda terror network accused of the 9/11 attacks was supported and expanded by U.S. intelligence programs and covert operations".

There are no facts in this article to support that view. They talk about 1 Al Qaeda operative who it is believed had a relationship with the CIA. Guess what? It's not a big freakin secret that the CIA tries to have an Al Qaeda operative in their pocket. I bet they are involved with a lot of unsavory people. As do intelligence services in EVERY country inclduing the Canadians, Birtish and French.

All of this doesn't mean the US is a big "covert" supporter of the entire organization of Al Qaeda.

by **threadbear** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:39:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nuhax', ' ')They often use very bad and erroneous informal logic--for example... a terrorist once received money from the CIA, therefore the CIA supports terrorism. They conveniently ignore all the times the CIA eliminated terrorists!

by **Specop_007** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:44:59

Thank the Democrats for getting us into this mess. (As usual, leave it to the Dems to screw it all up)

"America’s sponsorship of drug-trafficking Muslim warriors, including those now in Al Qaeda, dates back to the Afghan War of 1979-89, sponsored in part by the CIA’s links to the drug-laundering Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).[3] It was part of CIA Director Casey’s strategy for launching covert operations over and above those approved and financed by a Democratic-controlled Congress. "

by **EnemyCombatant** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:52:09

Nuhax, it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Quaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman is written by an economic hitman himself.

It is well documented and established fact that the US has always funded terorrism, particularly in Latin America in order to put in power a dictator that would be friendly to US corporation.

It's referred to as the military industrial complex.

I consider myself an expert on Noam Chomsky. Everything that Chomsky says is documented by mainstream news stories. Reason being, it is mainstream news that the US funds terrorist operations (well except on Fox News and CNN), including Saddam Hussein himself. Who provided him the bio/chem weapons to use on the Iranians and Kurds? I am sure you have heard of the Iran Contra affair also.

War is good for business. It's a turnkey solution.

US companies decide they want to capitalize on a countries resources and also pimp out the people there as slave labor. This is happening all across Africa by the Europeans. In order to do this, they support a brutual regime which terrorizes the people. Don't you wonder why the US supported the Taliban in the 90s? Because we thought we were getting oil pipeline contracts. When the Taliban said no, the Karzai (UNOCO advisor) is President and in charge.

It's not difficult to figure out.

by **EnemyCombatant** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:53:25

Specop.

The war against the people is a bipartisan effort. It's the only thing the politicians can agree upon.

by **hotsacks** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 23:55:43

So you are about to teach Mr.Chomsky logic? Would you share your lesson plan with us poor sods who always believed he knew a thing or two about logic? Fool that I am, I thought the father of semiotics might have some training in the subject
Gary Webb died for the sins of your ignorant,self righteous vision of The Tidy Life with its Ptemkin village version of party politics,it's power pandering,ass kiss,neurotic fear of questioning authority, and undying allegiance to the butter pot,pork barrel,pig trough vision of relativist liberalism.
I feel much better now,thank you.

by **nuhax** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 06:09:19

EnemyCombatant,

I think you have read some Chomsky and consider yourself an expert on international relations and Afghanistan, when in fact, like your mentor, you appear to have little understanding of what you are talking about.

Show me all your evidence that "it is accepted that the CIA formed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda during the Taliban war against Afghanistan".

Before scouring the various conspiracy theory websites you may want to read up on the difference between the Mujahadeen and Al Qaeda.

Also, the US did not *support* the Taliban. They refused to recognize them diplomatically as a legitimate government. They witheld aid and other items from them because of their human rights abuses.. and most likely for geopolitical and economic reasons. But it's quite a stretch to say the US was a supporter of the Taliban.

hotsacks,

You said "I thought the father of semiotics might have some training in the subject".

If you are talking about Chomsky, he's not usually considered the father of semiotics--that is Ferdinand de Saussure.

Being a famous linguistics theoretician doesn't make you an expert on politics so to me it's irrelevant. In fact if you judge a person's opinions based on reputation (I believe this is called ad hominem) then you're walking into a sinkhole because the vast majority of people out there consider Chomsky a kook. His political writings are not academic-oriented (unlike his linguistics) and used in the context of any serious political study would be laughed at--not necessarily only because of the content but because of the lax methodology.

Chomsky is a fiction writer who spins a narrative with the purpose of destruction. He takes a bunch of "facts", mainly anecdotal and drawn from secondary or third sources, and then incorporates them into his story. Meanwhile he conveniently skips all the facts that do not fit neatly into his story. His story has been going on since the 70s. Every book is the same it just takes new facts and applies it to the same plot. The plot is simple: destroy. Obviously you are aware he is a self-admitted anarchist. This is what he does. His goal is to tear down the established order, any established order and at all cost, which includes spinning tales he may even know to be untrue, competely devoid of any other constructive philosophy.

This gets quite old after a while. While most people grow up and get sick of him there are always the newcomers (mainly do-gooder students) and old-timers of the old New Left who smoked too much in the 60s. One wishes he would go back to linguistics full-time. But I admit it is entertaining to have a kook to kick around.

by **Jake_old** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 07:03:12

nuhax Have you read any of Chomsky's books? Has he ever presented falsehood as fact? Can you provide an example? Do you know of any literiture which effectively disputes Chomsky's analysis?

I only want to learn, but you provide no examples. Everything I checked about the facts Chomsky sites have turned out to be accurate. Obviously, I've not checked everything (not even close). Serious questions, please don't flame.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 13:42:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', '
')Has he ever presented falsehood as fact? Can you provide an example?

by **Ayoob** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 14:36:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedJake', '
')Has he ever presented falsehood as fact? Can you provide an example?

by **Carlhole** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 14:37:34

The substance of the original article above will be discussed on C-Span today and tomorrow. Author Nafeez Ahmed wll discuss his new book "The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism" on Saturday, July 30 at 8:00 pm and Sunday, July 31 at 1:00 pm and Monday, August 1 at 1:15 am

I just read the book. It's a complicated subject but Ahmed heavily documents his work, drawing from mainstream media sources, testimony, interviews, public documents, etc.

In a nutshell, the major thesis is that intelligence agencies allied to the US have co-opted Islamic Militants (al-Quaeda, or whatever) and have used them since the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of the Muhajideen in order to further the interests of the West. This policy has advantages and disadvantages (blowback). For example, the Wars in Kosovo and Chechnya both used Islamic fighters indirectly and directly who have been equipped by the West. I can't do justice to Ahmed's book here.

I suppose it would be more convenient if all the world's conflicts could be understood as "Us vs Them" struggles such as is usually depicted on TV - it's a whole helluvalot easier to understand something that is either black or white.

But, the Worldwide War on Terror and US encroachment's into Central Asia and the Middle East admits of alot of grey area. If our oil had not been so carelessly misplaced under all that Middle Eastern sand, then all these political intrigues would be nonexistent. But our oil has gotten itself under all their sand so now we have our present struggle.

This is why Prof. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis was all the rage back when Bush and Cheney were first elected - it permits an "us vs them" background to foreign policy decisions and allows 'Merka to wear a white hat (rather than a black or grey one) for all it's citizens to see and salute.

by **Jake_old** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 14:49:29

Ayoob with you

I've read Manufacturing Consent and seen numerous lectures, Distorted Morality being the most interesting.(oops had to edit)

I have checked 3 facts.

Terrorist acts commited by the US in Nicaragua

Terrorist acts commited by the British in Libya

Almost every country in the world used 911 to clamp down on their citizens.

Of everyone I have read he seems to keep to facts, no exageration. I would love someone to point me to a distorted fact that Chomsky has made.

Wish I could get C-Span

by **Carlhole** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 15:02:31

The following was posted by someone over at:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpo ... ostcount=5

The book, in my opinion, was a careful exposition of a thesis and a difficult read but worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

That was one of the best lectures on 9/11 and the history behind the Mujhadeen and "Al-Qaeda" I've ever seen.

Nafeez was absolutely brilliant with his focus, and his facts. He mentioned how there are SEVERAL pieces of evidence showing that the U.S., U.K., French, Pakistan and other countries were involved in creating, funding, and directing the actions of "Al-Qaeda".

He cited several instances of how Bosnia is now being used as a "base" for U.S. and European funded "Al-Qaeda", and mentioned other countries involved as well. Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to name two.

During the presentation, he mentioned several clues that we have been lied to by our Government.

One being that we simply didn't have the intelligence available to detect what was going to occur on 9/11. That it was an "intelligence failure". He gave one example of how hours after 9/11, through Echelon, our Government was able to ascertain that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the plot. They were able to, within hours, inform those who needed to know about it, and within an hour after that, have it on the "Mainstream Media".

That's incredible precision for an intelligence industry not capable of knowing someone like Osama Bin Laden was planning something like 9/11, before it took place.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Nafeez pointed out that David Schippers, the chief investigator for the Monica Lewinsky debacle, stated that several FBI personnel informed him prior to 9/11 that 9/11 was going to take place. He tried to contact Attorney General Ashcroft, and was ignored.

That is DIRECT evidence that it was NOT an "intelligence failure", but, as Nafeez called, a "political failure" instead.

Question and answer time was interesting as well. One participant asked Nafeez how the "9/11 Truth Movement" can maintain both the "LIHOP" theory and the "MIHOP" theory at the same time. He answered by saying that it is clear that our Government failed us. Period. We need to focus on that as a movement. That a THOROUGH investigation needs to take place because a CRIME did take place on American soil, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

John Judge, co-founder of 911CitizensWatch.org was the last to speak. There was an annoying woman who tried to question Nafeez's credibility, but because she was annoying, I'm not going to mention what she stated.

Anyway, John Judge stated that the 9/11 Report is WORSE than the Warren Commission Report. At least the Warren Commission report made available all of it's notes for people to browse through, and question. The 9/11 Report, however, did not list its' notes or mention several of the witnesses who testified. It did not discuss, and show the several videos available. They did not make the black boxes found by the NYFD available to the public, and so on. John mentioned that the National Archives is currently storing A LOT of information that could shed light on the 9/11. Unfortunately, even though every piece of information has been requested through the FOIA, it has been turned down on every occassion.

He also mentioned that the date for the information to be released is on the last day of the President's term, in 2009, when he may very well extend it even further. Something he has done in the past. Namely the Reagan Archives.

John ended by saying that this is our history we're fighting for. "Let's fight for it".

Everyone applauded him, and the lecture was over.

The fight, however, will never die.
__________________
No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG

by **Carlhole** » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 20:32:59

This links to an mp3 audio file if anyone wants to listen to the lecture. Peak Oil is mentioned near the end (if you place the slider about a half an inch from the end and start listening, you could catch the reference to PO).

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/07/nafee ... nload.html

THE "War on Drugs" Thread (merged)

Deep Politics: Drugs, Oil, Covert Operations and Terrorism

Who is online