Multiple US Federal Agencies involved in supplying weapons to Mexican cartels

etarded - thanks for sniffing this one out . i have not seen it printed in the news sources that i read daily. that the truth is stranger than fiction holds true so very often .

fucking scandalous ! the ATF formerly the BATF is the crotch of law enforcement . the severity of it's bungling came to the forefront with the ruby ridge debacle.

i had a federal firearms dealer's licence even with a felony arrest. real and proper ignoramuses.
 
^lol are you serious?? was it a class III? For anyone that doest know, class III lets you transfer automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, full auto, surpressors, sawed off shotguns, ect...basically all the shit they DONT want most ppl to get their hands on.

my GF's dad cant legally buy guns bc of some little pot charge he caught when he was younger, to this day they still refuse him.

yet they let you get away with having a DEALERS license while having a fel on your record...lol what a country!
 
hobhead said:
etarded - thanks for sniffing this one out . i have not seen it printed in the news sources that i read daily. that the truth is stranger than fiction holds true so very often .

fucking scandalous ! the ATF formerly the BATF is the crotch of law enforcement . the severity of it's bungling came to the forefront with the ruby ridge debacle.

i had a federal firearms dealer's licence even with a felony arrest. real and proper ignoramuses.
Click to expand...

No problem :)

Happy to expose the story to the rest of BL :)

For some reason this story has been underreported...I don't think the establishment expected Sharyl Atkisson from CBS would ever interview some agents who would speak out. She's the only one who really broke the story. Other news outlets aren't even reporting it !!! And CBS only has a quick update here and there. I'm glad CBS broke the story though.
 
severely etarded said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/21/eveningnews/main20045609.shtml

This was a huge conspiracy involving multiple agencies at the highest levels of federal government!! Willingly, intentionally, supplying deadly cartels with weapons as the violence rises. Purely sickening!! :!

I think somebody should pay for letting all those guns walk. They were not trying to bring down cartels. Their intentions were criminal.

I have so much respect for these guys who are speaking out. They are risking everything!
Click to expand...

The CIA have been arming "bad guys" for a looooooong time my man. Remember when that plane-load of cocaine came down, and it was a CIA plane. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this is another fundraising oppertunity (for whatever agency...), obviously the money is coming from arms now instead of (or as well as!) traffiking cocaine(maybe this is happening as a result of spending cuts or under-funding?). You guys across the pond should give em a real hard time about this, its deep routed courruption, its immoral and wrong on so many levels, something should be done to ensure it cannot happen again, and the persons/agencys responsible should face criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
Rep. Issa criticizes ATF, threatens contempt proceedings

In a letter today, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, criticized the ATF for not complying with a subpoena issued last month and turning over documents related to Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious.


"If you do not comply with the subpoena, the Committee will be forced to commence contempt proceedings," Rep. Issa wrote to Kenneth E. Melson, Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20055691-10391695.html#ixzz1K83Rwnfg
 
Last edited:
I am not going to read this entire threat but as a veteran of the U.S Military I am able to tell you that NO CIVILIAN is allowed to own a rifle that is fully-automatic. It is illegal to modify weapons for full auto as well. Automatic pistols are more lenient and you may use them at the range but no concealment whatsoever; it best be out of sight in a center-console, drunk, or glove box and all of the places you store it must be closed shut. Some states have firmer restrictions upon firearms than others. South Carolina being perhaps one of the most relax weapon bearing state.
 
wow..
just to clarify, lest people take you at your word, you CAN own full auto's in the US. If you'd read the thread you would've seen that explained. Was the "drunk" option for storing a weapon a freudian slip?
 
'medicine cabinet' said:
yeah the one thing i dont get is, the cartels could literally have any thing when it comes to weapons....they are getting ar-15's and shit from US gun shops? they could buy an entire plane filled with 50 cal rifles, ar's RPG's, grenades, anti tank rifles.....and so on....

all it takes to buy an automatic weapon is $200 tax stamp....but to get that stamp you have to practically give the ATF a hand job.

ed to delete double post
Click to expand...

This thread is centered around corruption in government--though there are more angles than just the laws set in place.
Do you think that the cartels are necessarily just buying US weapons from honest salesmen?

I mean we have corrupt salesmen too.

People make profits off of black market drugs, they could also profiteer off of selling weapons to the black market...
 
Fixed5217 said:
This thread is centered around corruption in government--though there are more angles than just the laws set in place.
Do you think that the cartels are necessarily just buying US weapons from honest salesmen?

I mean we have corrupt salesmen too.
Click to expand...

I think your missing the point. The key point here is that the federal government agency whose main purpose is intended to prevent guns from going to criminals, was doing the exact opposite. American hypocrisy at it's finest!

It's the equivilent of something like if multiple DEA agents were to be caught running cocaine bricks to the cartels... Except these bricks ended up being used to kill people.. American people...
 
The key point, put more clearly, is that the ATF engaged in a VERY controversial tactic known as "letting guns walk". The idea is to see where they end up. Think of radioactive dye in your veins, or undercover LEO's participating in criminal org's to get inside to bring them down.
/not as simple as "selling cartels guns"
 
My point is that it's not much different.

Not many people other than narrow minded ignorant Americans have actually held respect for this endeavor.

It has continued, It's been a US supported institution now for some time.

What difference does it make that we're now supplying on that end of things?

What i was trying to say earlier, is that if we were not...the demand vacuum would somehow be filled.
 
SangerRainsford said:
The key point, put more clearly, is that the ATF engaged in a VERY controversial tactic known as "letting guns walk". The idea is to see where they end up. Think of radioactive dye in your veins, or undercover LEO's participating in criminal org's to get inside to bring them down.
/not as simple as "selling cartels guns"
Click to expand...

That's what they said anyway. The "to make an ommelette, you have to break some eggs" arguement is about as logical as comparing the situation by saying "to go to work, you need to get dressed in the morning."

Something else, I suspect highly criminal, was going on. That's just what it sounds like the supervisors were telling the lower-level agents, then when they informed their supervisors of the direct correlation between "gunwalking" and a rise in statistical violence, the supervisors made up the bullshit ommelette analogy (which obviously didn't even make ANY sense at all, which is why agents came forward in the first place).

The analogy makes no sense. Of course when you make an ommelette, you break eggs. You can't even make it without breaking ALL the eggs. lol. You can't go to work without getting dressed.

The way they made it seem was like to make an ommelette, sometimes you break an egg or two, but you don't break all of them, and then you will eventually get your ommelette....

wtf?

That's just plain irrational...

Plus, we broke mexican laws by doing that...

The agents involved can be prosecuted in mexico for guntrafficking
 
Fixed5217 said:
What difference does it make that we're now supplying on that end of things?

What i was trying to say earlier, is that if we were not...the demand vacuum would somehow be filled.
Click to expand...

There's a direct correlation to a rise in violence in the time period we were doing this..

It was pointed out to the supervisors, and all they had to say was "to make an ommelette, you have to break some eggs."

To make an ommelette, you have to break ALL the eggs. But nothing's actually being broken in this analogy, just cracked open in order to be cooked for food.

These guns were being trafficked in order to "get to cartels", which never lead anywhere, except to an increase in violence.
 
severely etarded said:
That's what they said anyway. The "to make an ommelette, you have to break some eggs" arguement is about as logical as comparing the situation by saying "to go to work, you need to get dressed in the morning."

Something else, I suspect highly criminal, was going on. That's just what it sounds like the supervisors were telling the lower-level agents, then when they informed their supervisors of the direct correlation between "gunwalking" and a rise in statistical violence, the supervisors made up the bullshit ommelette analogy (which obviously didn't even make ANY sense at all, which is why agents came forward in the first place).

The analogy makes no sense. Of course when you make an ommelette, you break eggs. You can't even make it without breaking ALL the eggs. lol. You can't go to work without getting dressed.

The way they made it seem was like to make an ommelette, sometimes you break an egg or two, but you don't break all of them, and then you will eventually get your ommelette....

wtf?

That's just plain irrational...

Plus, we broke mexican laws by doing that...

The agents involved can be prosecuted in mexico for guntrafficking
Click to expand...

Fine - we were doing it just to hook up some cartels w/ guns. We were just stupid about it and made a slight error, we used pheonix gun dealers instead of just moving planeloads right to Mx. Yeah, that's totally how it must've went.

We can definitely discuss letting guns walk, but if you think this was a cash-grab, I don't even know what to say to you. If you believe this was some attempt at a 'logistical' supply of arms to cartels, I don't even know what to say to you :\
 
SangerRainsford said:
Fine - we were doing it just to hook up some cartels w/ guns. We were just stupid about it and made a slight error, we used pheonix gun dealers instead of just moving planeloads right to Mx. Yeah, that's totally how it must've went.

We can definitely discuss letting guns walk, but if you think this was a cash-grab, I don't even know what to say to you. If you believe this was some attempt at a 'logistical' supply of arms to cartels, I don't even know what to say to you :\
Click to expand...

no no, not a cash grab. I just don't think it's a legit operation. There is a logistical error in rationality of the "gunwalking", it's not so much "they were really doing" as it is "wtf were they really up to?"

There's got to be deeper rooted reason leading somewhere underneath all this. The "ommelette" BS sounds so ridiculous it's kind of funny thinking about. I mean how can you even start making an ommelette without breaking the eggs??? That was just a really, really lousy analogy. Didn't these guys finish high school? That's like saying, "to drive somewhere, you gotta put gas in the car"...

But the supervisors were repeatedly warned not only what they were doing was illegal & unethical, but also not even working.
 
You're the only one who's used the ommelette analogy, dude.<unless someone used it in an article and I missed it... I think you started using it after I said that gunwalking is similar to an undercover participating in drug-deals>
The supervisers weren't "warned", again I may've missed it in an article, if so lemme know who said it. There were 2 (newb) agents who kept complaining to their supervisors, and were told to stfu. They eventually went public.

We've already gone around and around tho on why they may've done this *besides* simple gun-walking, on one of these pages I mentioned which cartels/where this kind of action could've been done, but in the end it just seems the ATF could not make money from fast/furious, they couldn't really help supply things better than status quo (since the arms were in such small #'s / it's far easier to purchase in Mx anyways), so we're really left w/ an 'occam's razor' situation IMO: they tried gunwalking in a situation where it was f'ing pointless, and the fallout was huge. They look like clowns because of it (esp w/ the ICE agents who were ambushed, one killed because of a serial# from one of the pheonix guns), and are stonewalling the investigations.
/it'd be more interesting if we found out they were favoring cartels, or just calentamiento las plazas (stir up shit to draw attn to a situated group in a spec. area), but it genuinely looks like a poorly planned, and even more poorly executed, tactic :/ And of course, after such a failure, it'd almost be expected that other agencies would help cover up the damage, hence other agencies' involvements.
I'm curious to hear some valid ideas as to another specific reason this went down, it's just that any I can think of are far less likely than simple incompetence. I cannot think of one solid reason this tactic would have benefitted us (even if the benefit would have pissed people off - there's just really nothing positive that can be gleaned from the approach ATF used)
 
for example, here's some of what I'd call the more "likely" reasons we'd want to supply them guns, and the reasons why these are likely NOT what was happening:
1 ) we wanted to supply arms to a single cartel
- unlikely we'd have them come to the US to get the arms, as that's not only risky, but it's far simpler to pay 3X as much in Mx to get said arms. Even if the favored cartel wanted to bring US weapons back to Mx, the arms would likely go south with the cash, and it's unlikely that they'd have stayed so close to the border - which we know happened from the ICE getting ambushed.
2 ) we wanted to supply to many cartels, in hopes of heating up all plazas / increasing general cartel fallout
- unlikely we'd bother making the deals on US soil. The ATF would've brought the weapons to Mx, not the cartels' soldiers to AZ to purchase the weapons.
3 ) we wanted to make $
- obscenely unlikely, there was fuck-all $ to be made in this op.
4 ) we were trying to see which gun-dealers in AZ were making sales to low-level traffickers/enforcers
- still kind of unlikely, as I haven't seen/heard of *any* fallout for the gun-dealers, and if this were the case, the ATF would likely have made one or more gun shops a scapegoat.

It really seems to boil down to
5 ) We did a dumb operation aimed at catching low-level enforcers/traffickers who, obviously- due to geography- were associated with cartels. The mission was an utter failure that would've otherwise been abandoned and buried, but it was brought to light b4 that could happen. After it was brought to light, other agencies are now helping to bury an embarrassing failure of an op.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top