If you buy drugs... - ...you may be supporting terrorism

[synthesis]

What a crock of shit.

If you pay taxes, you are supporting Terrorism.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/mylai/MyLaiVictims.gif

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Communist Chris]

:confused:

[BasementAddix]

if u dont remember its from a commercial...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Basementaddix, are you denying the drug/terrorism ties?

FARC, anyone?

[truthaddict11]

of course drug $ funds terrorism the united states terrorism.

[canikickit]

I am in favour of buying drugs.

[Communist Chris]

Okay. That commercial sucks.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Communist Chris on 12:03 am on Jan. 8, 2003
Okay. That commercial sucks.

why?

[Communist Chris]

How do we know that drugs support terroism. I also think that commercial is to keep kids off drugs.

[Capitalist Imperial]

We know for a fact that drug money supports FARC.

[canikickit]

Buying heroin supports the CIA.

[synthesis]

Buying heroin supports the CIA.

And coke - from Colombia and Nicaragua.

The point of the post was that if you supply money to the U.S.'s all-consuming $600 billion per year military industry, which all tax-payers do, you support terrorism.

The picture was of the My Lai massacre by American G.I.s in Vietnam.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...cide/Mylai.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/Mylai.html)

Another ridiculous thing is the specific intent of the message - if you buy heroin, you may be supporting the Taliban - terrorists. However, the U.S. gave weapons and funding to the Taliban up till 9/11 - the same Taliban that was getting the same support from opium crops that it is now.

Not to mention the fact that the commercial lumps all drugs together, as if by buying a five-dollar sack of weed from the dude around the corner is tantamount to buying Afghan-imported heroin.

Fuckin' America.

[sin miedo]

"We know for a fact that drug money supports FARC." -CI

Buying drugs also supports the paramilitaries in Colombia who routinely kill innocent people, more so than the FARC. And many of these paramilitaries are pratically sanctioned by the military, or operate under complete freedom in government held territory without the military even lifting a finger to stop it. And Colombia's military is funded by the U.S. So what's your point?

Also, in Afghanistan, where do you think the Northern Alliance's funding came from. Do you believe all their weapons and ammunition were cold war leftovers provided by the U.S.? They were, and still are, active suppliers in the Heroin trade.

However, I do believe that buying drugs does only contribute to the cycle of violence caused by the drug trade. Unless you grow your own stuff there is absolutely no way you can be sure that innocent blood wasn't spilt so you could entertain yourself. But the only way that this cycle is gonna decrease in scope is if serious effort is made within drug buying nations to decrease its citizens demand for the stuff. Meaning more rehabilitation centers, smarter anti-drug campaigns, etc.

[canikickit]

However, I do believe that buying drugs does only contribute to the cycle of violence caused by the drug trade.

True indeed, it also contributes funds to Joe Soap the drug dealer's brand new £139 Euro Nokia mobile, so he can ring his "bird". Instead of being used to support the infrastructure and transport and education and health services. But hey, this way our money can go towards the guys who chase Joe Soap and his friend (and us) around in the "War" (sponsered by Coca Cola) on drugs. All on top of our fees for the infrastructure and transport and education and health services.

Isn't capitalism superb? No.

[rebel with a cause]

DyerMaker, I believe you're confused on the opium and the Taliban. The Taliban actually was virulently opposed to drugs, they practically wiped out all of the opium Afghanistan had. Now with this new "so-called" democracy in there, all those farmers have brought thier poppy seeds back out so the rest of the drug abusing world could have thier largest supplier of heroin back. That is the blatant hipocrisy about the ad. I will not deny that drug money does contribute to terrorism. But they should've done one about oil

every time ouu fill up your gas tank, you fund a terrorist

The U$ still imports 60% of its oil from Iraq

[mentalbunny]

I read something in the Big issue, following a load of some drug and seeing who gets what in terms of money, and the poor growers get a really bum deal, they themselves are users of the drug because their lives are so shit they need something to take reality away, and the bloody drug barons get a ton of cash. So buying drugs is supporting someone else's capitalism, someone who is not about to change!!

[sin miedo]

The Taliban actively engaged in opium trading. Read "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from sin miedo on 9:10 pm on Jan. 8, 2003
The Taliban actively engaged in opium trading. Read "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.

I thought the Taliban banned all poppy farming and opium exports. That's why as soon as they were deposed the poppy farmers started up again.

[sin miedo]

Is that why opium production actually increased druing the Taliban's rule? It is true, when they first entered Afghanistan they did try to curb drug production and usage. But as their vision of Islam and the Pashtunwali code spiraled into ever more twistedness they let the farmers grow poppies and taxed the drug traders that shipped the opium across Afghanistans borders.

On the topic of the Taliban, they were absolute cocksuckers, and while the Northern Alliance were questionable in some of the things they did, I fully support their U.S. aided victory over the Taliban. If only Masud had lived.

[Anonymous]

Its a sad fact but the accusition of a large amount of money leads to someone funding ways of getting more.
Drugs barons use money to fund private wars in which they can gain more land/money etc.

Ive never bought drugs in my life by the way.

[Tkinter1]

"U.S. gave weapons and funding to the Taliban up till 9/11"

Wrong. We gave the weapons to the Mujahideen to suppress the soviet invasion. Obviously that couldn't have been up till 9/11.

[Nateddi]

Wrong. We gave the weapons to the Mujahideen to suppress the soviet invasion. Obviously that couldn't have been up till 9/11.

This such typical utter right-wing idiocy. "The glorious liberators giving money to the 'mojuahadeen' (not taliban), the glorious liberators denounce the taliban after they oppress women, blah blah, bomb afghanistan, restore democracy blah blah."

Wrong. Bush kept friendly relations with the Taliban, including money deals, all the way up till 2001 (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm), when he gave 43 Million dollars to the Taliban to "fight drugs" (http://www.csis.org/isp/pubs/a_010716_benjamin.pdf).

Now for the moujahadeen. They are terrorist torturues of many factions, including bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. The US government began covertly giving them money and arms prior to the Soviet invasion. (http://members.aol.com/bblum6//brz.htm)

Well that's about it. Yet again facts defeat right-wing sugar-coated lies.

[Stormin Norman]

DyerMaker, I believe you're confused on the opium and the Taliban. The Taliban actually was virulently opposed to drugs, they practically wiped out all of the opium Afghanistan had. Now with this new "so-called" democracy in there, all those farmers have brought thier poppy seeds back out so the rest of the drug abusing world could have thier largest supplier of heroin back. That is the blatant hipocrisy about the ad.

Now that's funny! You assume that because the Taliban claimed to follow the teachings of the Q'uran that they had no involvement in the opium trade. That is false. Fact is, opium production increased when the Taliban came to power. I have read interviews where Taliban leaders used the Q'uran as justification for the sale of herion. It remained the prime source of revenue for the Taliban. Get this. The corrupt leadership of that country would not let their own people use herion, yet it was okay to put it on the world market in order to destroy the infidels. Sorry, but your facts are wrong, rebel with a cause.


they should've done one about oil
every time ouu fill up your gas tank, you fund a terrorist.

You are right. They should be demonizing the enemy and educating the American public that oil money funds our enemies. This is America's great weakness right now, and should be combated through the use of The AD Counsel, as well as a war in Iraq.

In the mean time we should find a way to put the brand of gasoline (where it comes from) on the pump, and allow the U.S. consumer to decide which regimes they choose to support. I guantee this action would destroy the al Saud family, although we would find ourselves cleaning up another mess made by fundamentalist Islam. This time it would be the opportunistic hardliners who overthrow a weakened Saudi government, which has posed a serious threat for the al Saud family for a long while, that we would have to combat.

Ask yourself, who are al Qaeda? What are their main objectives? If you know your world affairs, you will find that they are also the enemies of the Royal Family. In fact, their main beef lies in that government's alignment with the U.S. They think U.S. military bases should not be located on what they consider sacred land. This is a very complicated issue, but I contend that the only way to effectively draw al Qaeda out into the open is by destroying the Saudi regime. Rest assure those who rush to power in that region are the enemies we seek to destroy.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:03 am on Jan. 10, 2003)

[Stormin Norman]

Here are some credible sources that back my previous statements about the Taliban's involvement in the opium trade.

Nevermind the opening statement in this AP story. Top drug officials are trying to negate the claim that they are too soft on drugs.

From US-World News:http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2001-10...3/usw_opium.asp (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2001-10-03/usw_opium.asp)

If you don't trust the AP, will you trust the Deparment of State? Here William Bach, director of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, gives testimony to the Committee on Government Reform: U.S. House of Representatives; Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

From State Department:http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/rm/2001/sep...ep_oct/5210.htm (http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/rm/2001/sep_oct/5210.htm)

Here are some statistical facts about Afghanistan. From 1999-2000 they were the leading producer of raw opium.

From globalEDGE.comhttp://globaledge.msu.edu/ibrd/CountryEcon...ID=9&RegionID=3 (http://globaledge.msu.edu/ibrd/CountryEconomy.asp?CountryID=9&RegionID=3)

This last article exemplifies Islamic fundamentalist's hypocrisy in using potent drugs as a weapon against the infidels. Bin Laden dubs his super-heroin the "Tears of Allah".

Another US-News and World Report:http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/a...cles/heroin.htm (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/heroin.htm)

I hope this information changes your mind, rebel without a cause.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 3:57 am on Jan. 10, 2003)

[Stormin Norman]

From: Nateddi

This such typical utter right-wing idiocy. "The glorious liberators giving money to the 'mojuahadeen' (not taliban), the glorious liberators denounce the taliban after they oppress women, blah blah, bomb afghanistan, restore democracy blah blah."

Wrong. Bush kept friendly relations with the Taliban, including money deals, all the way up till 2001, when he gave 43 Million dollars to the Taliban to "fight drugs".

Now for the moujahadeen. They are terrorist torturues of many factions, including bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. The US government began covertly giving them money and arms prior to the Soviet invasion.

Well that's about it. Yet again facts defeat right-wing sugar-coated lies.

Hey moron! I don't suppose you understand the difference between humanitarian (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/fact/0416aid.htm) and diplomatic aid, like the $43 million given to help with our drug war that you mentioned; and covert military operations, like giving the Mujahideen stinger missiles.

I know you would like to believe as you do, Nateddi. However, your perception of reality is all screwed up. Look at the numbers the state department attributes to the total net income the Taliban gained through the opium trade. Now, look at the $43 million. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we offered them a comparable amount of money in hopes of offsetting production.

Of course, I would call these payouts a hopeful way of trying to change the politics of the region by getting them dependent on U.S. aid. It was seen as an alternative to brute force, and in reality it was another example of a failed appeasement policy. However, it was not some insidious plot to help the Taliban massacre the indigenous people, as your lies would have us believe.

The left's attempts to distort reality never ceases to amaze even me. Why can't you guys stick to the truth? Why must you always coat everything in misconceptions and deliberate engineering of the truth? Fucking liberals! Your anti_Americanism is a weakness that allows you to make yourselves come across as some of the biggest idiots.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 1:09 am on Jan. 9, 2003
"U.S. gave weapons and funding to the Taliban up till 9/11"

Wrong. We gave the weapons to the Mujahideen to suppress the soviet invasion. Obviously that couldn't have been up till 9/11.




The Mujahideen sound ike the people the US are supporting to take over Iraq, I might be wrong though as I only heard the name once before and can't quite remember it but mujahideen sounds similar I think.

Basically I think the message here is don't buy drugs and don't buy petrol! I do neither so i'm not supporting any "evil" regimes.

[Anonymous]

If someone else bought the drugs and you just happen to come across them then should you run away?

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Funky Monk on 7:03 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
If someone else bought the drugs and you just happen to come across them then should you run away?

Well I'm not sure, cos I have to admit I quite like weed myself. I'm not sure about what to do in this situation, I think you just have to trust your instinct, but also drugs are not necessarily grown/produced in countries with oppressive regimes, they can be produced in the UK (debatedly an opressive regime!) and the Netherlands and pretty much anywhere, so if you have contacts far enough up the chain then you can find out where the drugs came from.

[sin miedo]

The mujaheddin were the "holy warriors" the U.S. funded to beat back the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They were a motley army that consisted of many different tribes and ethnic groups that banded together (used loosely) for a bit to fight back the Soviets. They are not the Taliban. The Taliban were/are mainly children of Afghan refugees that fled the country during the war against the Soviets. They were educated in fundamentalist madrassas on the pourous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taliban is plural for 'student', Talib=student. Most were of Pashtun ethnicity, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (mainly concentrated in the southern region).

[Tkinter1]

"Wrong. Bush kept friendly relations with the Taliban, including money deals, all the way up till 2001, when he gave 43 Million dollars to the Taliban to "fight drugs"."

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? war on drugs? Oh wait, I forgot quotes mean "secret agenda to oppress civilians" my bad. I was talking about weapons. You're talking about anti-drug money deals.

[Anonymous]

I think something is going wrong if for any reason someone is giving money to an organisation which proves to be full of fuckwits who support mass-murderers.


Nice quote by the way, Machiavelli?