illegal drugs and terrorism

[SupDUDES]

Hey Mr. Blond, are you 18 years old?

 

[static_mind]

Pft, the bombing of Japan was a terrorist act. Good thing people like you arnt in power or we would all be speaking another language by now. Why on earth would we send or own forces into Japan and expect massive losses from the fantaical defences when we can bomb them and win. Maybe send an email to the governments that were under Japanese control, like china or email the RSL and ask them.

The second world war was very different to any other wars. What would have been the out come if we didnt drop the bombs? If we didnt firebomb japan?

More of our boys would be dead. War can be dressed up however people like, but in essence to hold back can often mean looseing. civilians die in war, they always have and always will. Deal with it because its not going to change.

 

[time traveler]

I fail to see the jump from the CIA involving themselves in drug money (well known) to them committing terrorist acts and financing a secret government, of which there is zero evidence.

Evidence gets erased. People get erased. I just think it amazing that illegal drug profits and secret black budgets apear to be in the same order of magnitude.

What terrorist acts? Covert espionage maybe, involving themselves in the politics of other countries, but terrorism?

I would call terrorism

Massive CIA Involvement in the inside job which was the demolition of the world trade towers. ( I have a documentary on 911 and intelligence agencies to back that up)

The overthow and imprisonment of the prime minisiter of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq by the CIA under operation Ajax in 1953

The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz president of Guatemala by the CIA in 1954 at the request of United Fruit Co.

The attempted invasion and overthrow of Cuba and Castro by the CIA which became the infamous bay of pigs.

The CIA profiteering by controlling the supply and law enforcment of cocaine to the American Public

And these are just the few that WE ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT.

I am not big on conspiracy theories.

Niether am i.

I prefer Conspiracy Fact.

Believe me.

There is one hell of an agenda at hand.

 

[SupDUDES]

Viva la Fidel!

 

[Mr Blonde]

Evidence gets erased. People get erased. I just think it amazing that illegal drug profits and secret black budgets apear to be in the same order of magnitude.

Well then without evidence neither of us can effectively argue about the secret government. I'll believe it when I see them as our overlords. :D

I would call terrorism

Massive CIA Involvement in the inside job which was the demolition of the world trade towers. ( I have a documentary on 911 and intelligence agencies to back that up)

The overthow and imprisonment of the prime minisiter of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq by the CIA under operation Ajax in 1953

The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz president of Guatemala by the CIA in 1954 at the request of United Fruit Co.

The attempted invasion and overthrow of Cuba and Castro by the CIA which became the infamous bay of pigs.

The CIA profiteering by controlling the supply and law enforcment of cocaine to the American Public

And these are just the few that WE ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT.

1) 9/11. I will refute your evidence once I see it; what is the name of the documentary? It's not Zeitgeist is it? 8) I am not very open to 9/11 conspiracy theories, I will warn you.

2 -5) How are these terrorist acts? A terrorist act is designed to force one entity (government, authorities, public, etc...) into doing something/allowing something to happen/whatever by putting the fear into them of what might happen should they not. Those examples you gave are direct coercion by intervening directly, e.g. overthrowing a leader who does not suit American policies, overthrowing a second leader who was viewed as bringing communism closer to America and interfering with the trade of a large company, the attempted overthrow of another communist leadership too close to home and using an illicit product to help support rebels in South American countries that were anti-communist.

By no means am I saying I agree with what has been done in these situations. But I wouldn't label them terrorism, and I also would say that sometimes interventions and conflicts are necessary.

I will be honest, politically when it comes to foreign policies and conflicts I am very right leaning and Hawkish. For example I am against the War in Iraq but because I believe there were better ways to subvert the government there and bring about democracy. War is always going to happen, but sometimes it can be avoided or made to be a lesser evil then it is.

Pft, the bombing of Japan was a terrorist act. Good thing people like you arnt in power or we would all be speaking another language by now. Why on earth would we send or own forces into Japan and expect massive losses from the fantaical defences when we can bomb them and win. Maybe send an email to the governments that were under Japanese control, like china or email the RSL and ask them.

The second world war was very different to any other wars. What would have been the out come if we didnt drop the bombs? If we didnt firebomb japan?

More of our boys would be dead. War can be dressed up however people like, but in essence to hold back can often mean looseing. civilians die in war, they always have and always will. Deal with it because its not going to change.

+1.

 

[moderateuser]

Good thing people like you arnt in power or we would all be speaking another language by now....

As a vassal state of Japan it is unlikely we would be speaking Japanese as a first language. Even if that were so, it is unlikely English would become extinct after only two generations. It is also interesting that people allways use the rather inane "speaking another language" argument. Is it because Australian history is so boring that we don't have any other more meaningful cultural identifiers we find it important to cling on to? How about,

"Good thing people like you arnt in power or we would all be having soy sauce instead of tomato sauce on our BBQs, or drinking saki instead of beer, or wearing kimonos instead of JAG jeans, origami birds instead of paper planes." Important stuff 8)

I have a feeling that the Japanese saw World War Two as an oppertunity to free themselves of the western cultural imperialism that had been infecting their language, religion, social structures and lifestyle since they engaged in trade with the Portugese a few hundred years earlier.

More of our boys would be dead. War can be dressed up however people like, but in essence to hold back can often mean looseing. civilians die in war, they always have and always will. Deal with it because its not going to change.

I think you'll find things are changing all around the place all the time. Infact the use of Atomic weapons itself marked a very significant change. Hitherto civilian death was largely a byproduct of war, that came about through pillage and rapine, as the Japanese were responsible for during their campaign for a pacific empire.

For the Americans mass civilian death, or the threat of it, itself became an intrument of war as with atomic weapons they could effectively hold whole populations hostage. I'm not, and haven't previously been, taking any ethical position at all. I'm just thinking about the mechanics and tactics employed by powers, and how moral distinctions made with loaded terms such as "terrorism" are often made arbitrarily.

And believe me, if people like me were in power the changes made would be more culturally destructve than learning Jap. Owari des, sayonara :D

 

[drug_mentor]

Time_traveler, I find your theories interesting and I am very opposed to such actions of the US Government and CIA but I have to side with Mr Blonde in thinking these are not technically terrorist acts.
Hiroshima bombing however, is debatable, as they used a big ass bomb to incite fear, or terror, in the leaders of that nation to the consequences they face should they not conform to what we wanted. I am not going to preach about "the poor civillians", but really it was unneccessary, sure more of our soldiers would of died had that bomb not been dropped but they signed up to fight a fucking war. The civillian casualties of the Hiroshima bombing are unrivalled by any terrorist attack and the casualties were by and large civillians who may or may not have believed in the war at the time, and if they did was most likely due to the brainwashing in their culture as opposed to any legitimate animosity towards us.
There is huge debate over allowing Iran to enrich uranium and have nuclear power plants because they 'might' or 'could down the track' be developing nuclear warheads, a bit one sided isn't it? The west can have and USE these weapons but a non western nation trying to develop a more efficient source of energy that could POSSIBLY lead towards the development and use of such weapons is banned.
This thread has gone fairly off topic, but I like where its going more than the initial point of the thread was . Keep the conspiracy theories and opinions on political histories and agendas coming people!

 

[Mr Blonde]

The civillian casualties of the Hiroshima bombing are unrivalled by any terrorist attack and the casualties were by and large civillians who may or may not have believed in the war at the time, and if they did was most likely due to the brainwashing in their culture as opposed to any legitimate animosity towards us.

Brainwashing? Any examples? Would our own war time propaganda or that of the US be considered brainwashing as well?

Rather then brainwashing, I'd say that Japanese who supported the war did so out of patriotism and the reasons moderateuser gave, i.e. they wanted to be more independent from the West.

There is huge debate over allowing Iran to enrich uranium and have nuclear power plants because they 'might' or 'could down the track' be developing nuclear warheads, a bit one sided isn't it? The west can have and USE these weapons but a non western nation trying to develop a more efficient source of energy that could POSSIBLY lead towards the development and use of such weapons is banned.

Another thing to think about is who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. When was the last time a Western nation used a nuclear weapon in war? And I'd rather see proliferation of nuclear weapons kept to a minimum, rather then constantly expanding. Plus, the Jewish blood in me has a vested interest in making sure no one else in that region has those weapons.

 

[drug_mentor]

No Mr Blonde, I don't have any "examples" of brainwashing of the Japanese people as in being forced to sit in front of a big screen with their eyelids taped open and propaganda films playing over and over. I think Japanese culture has been set up in a way the people aren't as open to the questioning of authority and therefore went along with what their Government was telling them alot easier, hence the willingness to do things like kamikaze and banzai charges over surrender. In that sense, the innocent civillians of the country were/are more susceptible to go along with whatever they are told wholeheartedly because of the cultural beliefs and customs instilled in them.
I agree with patriotism as a reason aswell but that relates back to what I am saying really and ties in with it. I agree with what moderate_user has said as reasons their Government saw it as an oppurtunity to be more independent from the west, but one only has to look at modern day Japan to see how readily the Japanese public embraces much of the western culture they are exposed to.
To answer your question "when was the last time a Western nation used a nuclear weapon in a war?" I would say, more recently than a non western nation (correct me if I am wrong).
I share your sentiments that the proliferation of nuclear weapons should be kept to a minimum, the thing is, Iran is being deprived of a technology because it would help them down the path of making nuclear weapons should they choose to take that path. They are not saying "Let us build nukes", they are asking for nuclear technology and the issue is "hey they might build nukes and use them". Plenty of countries have nuclear power but Iran is denied it because of the terrorist stereotype and because they are an "enemy of the west" basically.
I don't think Iran is more likely to use nukes than say, China, north Korea, Israel or Russia.
I believe the US if their back was against the wall would use nukes basically without consideration of other means. I would wager that even the most half assed attempt at an invasion of the US would result in the offending nation(s) being blown to fucking hell with nuclar weapons.
LOL at your vested interest statement, you know Israel is pretty gung-ho when it comes to millitary actions, I'm not saying its unjustified theres a lot of tension in that region. But if you look at it from a perspective of a major enemy of them in the region, I would be worried that they (probably) have them and I didn't and that they are a country that proceeds with millitary action despite the rest of the world being against it and the UN telling them to stop. For example its actons in the Gaza strip lately, I actually believe that action was justified given the rocket strikes and whatnot, but still from an enemies perspective you would have to be paranoid and want some form of "insurance" you could say.

 

[Mr Blonde]

No Mr Blonde, I don't have any "examples" of brainwashing of the Japanese people as in being forced to sit in front of a big screen with their eyelids taped open and propaganda films playing over and over.

Ha ha, damn, but you did expand on what you meant though. I'd like to agree that maybe their culture made them more accepting of the idea of suicide for the nation and in fact made it seem honorable. I don't think the same idea would have flown with many Allied nations... get it? Flown? :D

To answer your question "when was the last time a Western nation used a nuclear weapon in a war?" I would say, more recently than a non western nation (correct me if I am wrong).

True; going on 64 years actually. My point being that they haven't ever been used against another nation since, except for as a preventive tactic (e.g. the arms race, etc...)

But if you look at it from a perspective of a major enemy of them in the region, I would be worried that they (probably) have them and I didn't and that they are a country that proceeds with millitary action despite the rest of the world being against it and the UN telling them to stop.

I'll start with this quote and then address the rest of your post.

Look at it from the perspective of Israel, who has been hassled by it's neighbors since Jews first began legitimately buying land in the late 19th/early 20th century. Within a day of the declaration of Independence, they were attacked by a multitude of Arab nations, and have been antagonized ever since. Given the fact that so many in the region wish to push them in to the sea, and that they are far out numbered, having nuclear weapons as a deterrent is in their best interest. And to be honest, any Israeli use of their possibly limited nuclear cache is bound to draw a response from the Arab nations that would put an end to the Jewish state no matter what the cost. And Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it's nuclear arsenal.
It is unrealistic they will ever be used unless another nation in the region uses them first.

Which is where Iran comes in. They have a history of being anti-democratic, anti-Western and anti-Israeli. The country as it is now has the potential to be a highly destabilizing influence in the region, if they already aren't due to their support for various terrorist organizations (e.g. Palestinian groups, Hezbollah). Giving them nuclear arms would lead to an escalation of tensions; they would threaten their use against Israel, Israel would threaten back, and it's quite easy to see how it could play out. Iran, as a much larger nation then Israel, has a much better chance of surviving such nuclear attack as well.

I'm not against Iran having the technology to make power, but only if there are various safeguards in place and international monitoring. One things for sure, Israel will be watching the development of any nuclear plants and be in a position to strike if it ever looks like weapons are being developed.

 

[drug_mentor]

I can also see it from the Israeli's perspective dude, you (albeit somewhat jokingly) admited bias towards the Israeli's side and I was just trying to put across a different point of view. Out of the two countries I am definately pro Israel, I was pointing out the relative unfairness of them being denied nuclear power for concerns about development of weapons that other nations already have (ironically the nations most worried about Iran also developing them), I personally fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons but their entitlement to nukes wasn't really my point, infact, I think every nuke on the planet should be disposed of (assuming thats possible, I'm not entirely sure it is without discharging them lol).
I agree the Israeli's have got it tough in a sense of having no real allies in the region and I admire the strength and independence of Israel as a nation. However it is still practically unarguable that any country in that very unstable region couldn't use the same argument that "having nuclear weapons as a deterrant is in their best interest".
I hope you don't take this as an attack on the Israeli's because it isn't, but they are quicker to jump into military type action than most countries are, ofcourse this stems from circumstance but pretty much everyone in that region has got it pretty shitty, atleast they have managed to build themselves beyond being a 3rd world country unlike most.
You're reference to Iran's history of being "anti-Western" is kind of reinforcing one of my initial statements, which was that it is humorous to me that western nations can have nukes but non western ones can't (ofcourse China does but who can stop them lol, North Korea aswell but they have been bullied over the years by the international community in much the same way as Iran is in regards to that, the difference? They actually have them!).
The funny thing is I am not actually arguing for Iran as much as justifying my observation that the west is allowed shit that anti western nations can't have, for example nuclear technology.

 

[rm2x]

that the west is allowed shit that anti western nations can't have, for example nuclear technology.

that's because they are muslim, not goodly christian folk, or in israels case, blessed by god, therefore america gets it's blessings by protecting it

 

[deva]

I'd just like to say that this is one of the most interesting topics I have ever read here on bluelight.

It definitely reinforces my point that all the most interesting &/or intelligent people I meet are in some way involved with drugs (mainly users of course)