Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So is it safe to assume...
12-22-2010, 08:06 AM,
#16
RE: So is it safe to assume...
I really think the war is about more than drugs. I disagree with the original premise the same way that I always have when people said it was all about oil. It's about so many more dimensions than that. It scares me when people here think so myopically. We here know better, don't we?
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
12-22-2010, 11:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-22-2010, 11:16 PM by triplesix.)
#17
RE: So is it safe to assume...
I agree that the war isn't solely about drugs. I have to say I was over-reaching in my choice of words. Clearly there are a number of motivations for all of the many players involved.

I think MasterMG came closest to an accurate summation of the situation saying the war was about drugs, domestic tyranny and domination over a hefty piece of Middle Eastern territory, but other posters brought up salient points regarding the not often considered complexities of these larger generalizations.

The issue of drugs is thoroughly entwined with nearly every aspect of the war. I think it's importance must be stated. The drugs are an efficient catch-all profit generator for all players involved. At the top, the heroin trade represents secret liquid assets, key to the global banking syndicate, as illustrated by Ctrl and FastTadpole. Also standing to make huge profits on the production of opium are "legitimate" pharmaceutical concerns who manufacture their own heroin: oxycontin, as pointed out by h3rm3s. On a lesser level, regional crime lords in the surrounding area stand to make huge sums of money by allowing the war to take place and find operations easier in the anarchic environment, thus becoming useful, favorable vassals to the invaders. At the middle level, soldiers stand to become addicted whether through proximity, guilt, depression, PTSD, whatever whether it begins on tour or when they return home. At the bottom end, heroin will find its way to the locals out of desperation. Destitute and devoid of hope, it will appear to be the most profitable option in a short list of bad options. From there it even stands to spread to the families of the soldiers, enduring their own kind of guilt and sadness in having a member of their family forever and fundamentally changed. And also at the very bottom end of the chain, the families of the farmers and the producers of the heroin itself are always within arm's reach of a hit and are extremely likely to become addicts themselves.

The heroin trade generates profit for the Narcissistic/Satanic Elite and misery in the common people their enemy. From top to bottom, no one is not getting profit from or the target of a heroin conspiracy. It also compounds the profits of the military-industrial complex by creating customers in the form of regional warlords now playing ball as well as the military, then engaged with elements that are resistant.

Heroin might not be the sole reason, but I believe it is extremely significant.
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
12-23-2010, 01:42 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-23-2010, 01:58 AM by h3rm35.)
#18
RE: So is it safe to assume...
Quote:Heroin might not be the sole reason, but I believe it is extremely significant.
trip6, my comment was more directed at pesecuted in Alberni than you. I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with your post and the depth of thought within it. I've actually cross-posted it to another forum.

When I said I disagree with the original premise, I meant that without the support of the rest of the post, which is where PIA seemed to be coming from.

I cross posted yours to a drug harm reduction forum where the question was asked:
Quote:The government has spent billions on the war on drugs that has created this situation, but at the same time we are fighting a war on terror. Terror that is funded almost soley by heroin.

How direct of a connection can there be between these two wars? Would you ever feel 'guilty' for buying a bag of gear after thinking this over? We're spending money to fight a war that perpetuates a war we spend even more money on.

Personally, I can think of far too many factors that would make this seem both a major issue and not-so-important to add them all together and make a good guess as to how much this really matters, but we will definitely see increased use and increased use will definitely send money into taliban hands. Thought this might make for a half decent discussion.

Let's also take a second to remember the soldiers who fought, continue to fight, and have fallen. Even though it's tough to support the war, I think we can all agree that we have to support our troops.

needless to say, this person doesn't really have a clue as to what they're talking about.
I responded this way, and added your post later as additional food for thought, (it was well received):
Quote:Sorry if this is a little long for some of you, but I can't see a topic like this and let it slide, so here goes...

First off, most of the drugs only make it into this country from overseas due to our own influence peddling, grift and corruption or our own agencies doing the importing themselves.

Our puppet prime minister in Afghanistan's brother is widely known as one of Afghanistan's drug king-pins, and there's not even an attempt on Karazai's part to deny it or distance himself.

We pay the Taliban for safe passage through tribal areas.

The CIA, DEA and the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) are close partners and the ISI is not only neck deep in organized crime and the weapon and drug trade in central and south Aisa, but we fund them to the tune of billions of dollars a year, and they go funding the Taliban -

Quote:ISI support "consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders." Despite billions of dollars in military assistance to the corrupt Musharraf regime and the equally venal Zardari administration, Pakistan's search for "strategic depth" against their geopolitical rival India has only resulted in a furtherance of ISI/Army connivance with the Islamist far-right.
&
Quote:Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan's spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.
Heard of the Mumbai terrorist attacks? They were planned by a DEA ASSET. The drug warriors ARE the terrorists.

Beyond this, if anyone believes were in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq because of terrorists, it's time they actually start trying to inform themselves, rather than slurping up the bullshit propaganda spewed by the mainstream media who are for the most part owned and operated by gigantic multi-national corporations that get massive contracts for war and security operations. We are there to hold influence in the region so that the TAPI pipeline can be completed and we'll have a modicum of influence over energy resources in a region that is surrounded by our two most powerful and likely enemies, China and Russia.

We also cuddle up with central and south american cartels in an effort to influence politics within their countries in order to gain free trade agreements and better prospects for mega corporations to basically enslave their populations so we can have more cheap plastic crap and politicians can have more campaign contributions and cushy, powerful jobs when they leave office. We train their founding members at our own military bases...
Quote:
Quote:For decades, investigative journalists, researchers and analysts have noted the symbiotic relationships forged amongst international drug syndicates, neofascists and U.S. intelligence agencies, documenting the long and bloody history of U.S. complicity in the global drugs trade.

Truth be told, there is no war on drugs and there is no war on terror, there's a geopolitical chess game revolving around resources and their routes of distribution, combined with an ever increasing desire of political and financial elites to subjugate the rest of us so that we become more efficient machines of production and consumption that will take less and give more.

So no. I don't feel guilty that "I'm supporting terrorists" by doing drugs. That's a pathetic straw-man argument created by the Government's propaganda arm, and I take George Carlin's quote to heart: "I believe nothing the government tells me. NOTHING!"

and lastly:
I have to say, fuck the troops. (I don't necessarily mean that for veterans of previous wars.) At this point anyone who's in the military knows how corrupt the Military Industrial Complex and the rest of the war machine are, and if they don't they're brainwashed and/or ignorant, murderous psychopaths that enjoy killing and torture and don't think twice about how they got into a position to do it in the first place, or they're just saying they don't while trying to figure out a way to profit personally from it. I could understand feeling for them back when this middle-east/south & central Asian clusterfuck began, back when they weren't being given the proper equipment and the idea of being stop-lossed wasn't common knowledge, but at this point, almost everyone who is in the military either signed up or voluntarily extended their commitment after they should have smelled the wafting putrescence from Washington. After the very first tour in Iraq, people should have had their heads examined if they though going down to their local recruiter was a good idea.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
12-23-2010, 12:05 PM,
#19
RE: So is it safe to assume...
Thank you for the clarification, h3rm3s.

Excellent stuff.
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)