Multiple US Federal Agencies involved in supplying weapons to Mexican cartels

Nothing new unfortunatly. The CIA has been at the bottom of the opium trade across Asia since after WWII, they have been the backbone of the cocaine trade moving up and down the Americas since the 80's, and they have been supplying weapons to criminal organizations all along the way
 
So what you are trying to tell me is that the United States government has been hijacked by massive corporations and drug cartels to allow illegal drug and weapons trafficking to go unnoticed by the mainstream media and the public at large so that they can get away with huge atrocities and crimes against humanity? And it's all shielded by the war ond rugs and the war on terror to make everyone afraid of hispanics, blacks, and middle easterners while the rich white elite in cohoots with these cartels use more of the drugs than the stereotypes the perpetuate?

I don't get it.
 
Splinterguitar69 said:
So what you are trying to tell me is that the United States government has been hijacked by massive corporations and drug cartels to allow illegal drug and weapons trafficking to go unnoticed by the mainstream media and the public at large so that they can get away with huge atrocities and crimes against humanity? And it's all shielded by the war ond rugs and the war on terror to make everyone afraid of hispanics, blacks, and middle easterners while the rich white elite in cohoots with these cartels use more of the drugs than the stereotypes the perpetuate?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

No, that's why there's shitloads of agents and Mexican officials confirming the story... It's all made up. They were sending guns "to track them" and admitted "they had no way of knowing where they end up"

Check out the Bilderberg meetings that happen every year. Leaders from all kinds of major world corporations get together and secretly meet, with no cameras... And BTW, those corporations you speak of also own 95% of news all news media...

Ya these 120 world leaders and CEO's of corporations all meet in secret.. But there's no conspiracy there 8) And I'm guessing your all-telling media is going to tell you about that? Nope, they are too busy covering Casey Anthony... They are owned by the same global corporations whose leaders are attending this secret meeting...
 
Splinterguitar69 said:
Nothing new unfortunatly. The CIA has been at the bottom of the opium trade across Asia since after WWII, they have been the backbone of the cocaine trade moving up and down the Americas since the 80's, and they have been supplying weapons to criminal organizations all along the way
Click to expand...
you're clueless bro, sorry. they've been involved, no question - THAT'S THEIR JOB!!! drug trafficking is not only a massive industry financially, but it's social impacts are gargantuan (yknow i've always loved that word, so rarely get to use it in a sentence)
to say they're "at the bottom", or the "backbone", is showing your sheer ignorance of the drug industry. i know we're on a drug-based board, but don't worry most here are completely unaware of the bigger workings of the industries that provide the party favors. saying cia/dea "had their fingers in the dyke" would be far more accurate ;P


Splinterguitar69 said:
So what you are trying to tell me is that the United States government has been hijacked by massive corporations and drug cartels hijacked, no - influenced, yes. if you pay attn, you'll see anyone/group with massive amounts of power influences society and, thus, the government to allow illegal drug and weapons trafficking to go unnoticed by the mainstream media the media cares more about a 3rd grader bringing a joint to school than customs seizing a 1500ton loadand the public at large public only cares about sensationalism so that they can get away with huge atrocities and crimes against humanity? And it's all shielded "shielded"?.. by the war ond rugs and the war on terrorboth of those ideological wars' reasons are clearly obvious and again you're missing the bigger pictures to make everyone afraid of hispanics, blacks, and middle easterners while the rich white elite in cohoots with these cartels the stereotypical "rich white elite" that you're drawing a picture of is in cohoots w/ as many major businessmen as possible, regardless of ethics/legality use more of the drugs than the stereotypes the perpetuate?

I don't get it. keep reading DITM, sprinkle in some CEP, and you'll get there eventually ;PP
Click to expand...




severely etarded said:
It's in spanish, but it translates over :)

http://alanianseweb.blogspot.com/2011/07/el-gobierno-de-estados-unidos-surte-de.html
Click to expand...
here's an english article (may be the same thing as yours, didn't bother translating since i'd already read of this)

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/07/el-mamito-all-our-weapons-are-bought-in.html

all i'll say is that, obviously, SOME of the guns come from the US, and obviously we'll never know exactly how many relative to their overall guns, or what % is gov-sponsored and which is civilian straw-purchases. a look at the gun-caches they parade any/all traffickers in front of at the time of their arrest shows many us-weaponry, but also tons that you can't go and grab in a us gun store.
(i'll say one more thing on it, actually - this 'kingpin'(unsure wtf his role is, certainly not a major boss afaik) is throwing guesses and speculation left and right, accusing the gov of having a pact w/ the gulf cartel - a pact he can't prove or cite, just that he kinda "figures must be the case"..)
 
Last edited:
Was CIA behind Operation Fast and Furious?

New and troubling motive for Team Obama’s illegal gunrunning scheme

In congressional testimony, William Newell, former ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix Field Division, testified that the Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “full partners” in Operation Fast and Furious. Mr. Newell’s list left out the most important player: the CIA. According to a CIA insider, the agency had a strong hand in creating, orchestrating and exploiting Operation Fast and Furious.

The CIA’s motive is clear enough: The U.S. government is afraid the Los Zetas drug cartel will mount a successful coup d’etat against the government of Felipe Calderon.

Founded by ex-Mexican special forces, the Zetas already control huge swaths of Mexican territory. They have the organization, arms and money needed to take over the entire country.

Former CIA pilot Robert Plumlee and former CIA operative and DEA Director Phil Jordan recently said the brutally efficient Mexican drug cartel has stockpiled thousands of weapons to disrupt and influence Mexico’s national elections in 2012. There’s a very real chance the Zetas cartel could subvert the political process completely, as it has throughout the regions it controls.

In an effort to prevent a Los Zetas takeover, Uncle Sam has gotten into bed with the rival Sinaloa cartel, which has close ties to the Mexican military. Recent court filings by former Sinaloa cartel member Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, currently in U.S. custody, reveal that the United States allowed the Sinaloas to fly a 747 cargo plane packed with cocaine into American airspace - unmolested.

The CIA made sure the trade wasn’t one-way. It persuaded the ATF to create Operation Fast and Furious - a “no strings attached” variation of the agency’s previous firearms sting. By design, the ATF operation armed the Mexican government’s preferred cartel on the street level near the American border, where the Zetas are most active.

Operation Fast and Furious may not have been the only way the CIA helped put lethal weapons into the hands of the Sinaloa cartel and its allies, but it certainly was an effective strategy. If drug thugs hadn’t murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry with an ATF- provided weapon, who knows how many thousands more guns would have crossed the U.S. border?

To be sure, Operation Fast and Furious suited the ATF’s needs. It was all too willing to let guns walk to increase its power, prestige and budget in Washington. It actively recruited so-called straw purchasers and happily used American gun dealers as pawns. And it was only one agency in a mosaic of federal agencies helping the CIA actualize its covert plans.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/11/was-cia-behind-operation-fast-and-furious/

Surprise surprise, the CIA is the agency of secrecy and black ops 8)
 
Maybe i'm missing something, but is there *any* new data/evidence that's come out? Or is this more of an op-ed that the guy's writing based on the (old-ish) plumlee/zambada excerpts?
/didn't see any new factual material, just assumptions and innuendo
//not saying i doubt much of it, just hoping this isn't the same story by a more colorful writer (on mah fone, so googlin is limt'd ;p )
 
SangerRainsford said:
Maybe i'm missing something, but is there *any* new data/evidence that's come out? Or is this more of an op-ed that the guy's writing based on the (old-ish) plumlee/zambada excerpts?
/didn't see any new factual material, just assumptions and innuendo
//not saying i doubt much of it, just hoping this isn't the same story by a more colorful writer (on mah fone, so googlin is limt'd ;p )
Click to expand...
I think everything that's come out so far is pretty scandalous. You can make what you want of it, but I think the bottom line is that the federal government can't be trusted for a damn thing...
 
As i said, i don't doubt much of his conclusions - i was just curious if this was new, or the FOURTH manifestation of the same story in DITM... Have said this b4, but w/ the general interest f&f has generated, perhaps ppl may agree finally: we need to mega-thread for cartels/the border+mx wars.

And re "trusting" the gov, unsure exactly what you mean - are you against covert ops? How else, **within the paradimg of prohibition**, would you recommend this situation be addressed? Ignore it? Openly engage 'hostiles'? I see both of those as, frankly, TERRIBLE ideas. Curious: what your approach would be?
 
SangerRainsford said:
As i said, i don't doubt much of his conclusions - i was just curious if this was new, or the FOURTH manifestation of the same story in DITM... Have said this b4, but w/ the general interest f&f has generated, perhaps ppl may agree finally: we need to mega-thread for cartels/the border+mx wars.

And re "trusting" the gov, unsure exactly what you mean - are you against covert ops? How else, **within the paradimg of prohibition**, would you recommend this situation be addressed? Ignore it? Openly engage 'hostiles'? I see both of those as, frankly, TERRIBLE ideas. Curious: what your approach would be?
Click to expand...

The logical approach would be to legalize, however there are too many corrupt interests in the way for any kind of logic to prevail in this situation. Instead they want corporations like DynCorp and other shady "defense contractors", money laundering banks, and cartels to make all the cash. The people in charge of the federal government are not stupid - They fully understand what is going on, however the money maintains status quo.

People need to protest and start helping others understand how the government is raping civil rights and imprisoning it's own citizens for nothing more than personal/"corporate" profit. This drug war is unwinnable and everyone in Washington knows it, however apathetic to the problem

Alcohol is no different than any other drug. It used to also be prohibited, but when it was legalized and regulated most of the problems (product safety, racketeering, etc) just went away. In fact, some of the same cartels (same families just a generation or two prior) who bring in drugs today started their business smuggling whiskey over the border.

Drugs need to be just like alcohol - 21 to use/buy, you get a ticket for using them underage or possessing, and a state jail felony for getting caught providing them to minors. And a DWI driving on them...
 
Last edited:
You dodged my question, i said ***within the paradigm of prohibition***, getting sick of such little discussion in these threads outside of the usual circle-jerk of "end prohibition". This is bluelight, most everyone here wants prohibition repealed.
/and sinaloa cartel is one that can trace roots to prohibition
//why this fix on dyncorp from by you all of a sudden? AFAIK they aren't the biggest merc/PMC there anyways....
 
SangerRainsford said:
You dodged my question, i said ***within the paradigm of prohibition***,
Click to expand...
The only people who want prohibition to end are church-going bible thumpers who voted for Bush & McCain. Ron Paul even has that kind of voting base behind his presidential campaign and has a substantial amount of people who agree the drug laws are a gigantic waste of taxpayer money with little/no gain to the public.
getting sick of such little discussion in these threads outside of the usual circle-jerk of "end prohibition".
Click to expand...
That's because there's only one rational solution to this problem that was created in the first place by evil greed and fear-mongering propaganda...

I.e. 3+3 = x. Obviously x = 6. cannot be anything else, that is the only rational solution.

This is simple also. We learn in school to use history to learn from our mistakes, right? Ok, follow me.. Alcohol prohibition is taught in history... How did that work out, and how did the problems that arose resolve?

Drugs are no different from alcohol. booze are drugs too...

There's only one rational answer that makes any sense here. That is undisputable.

It's actually not a complicated problem! To a rational mind!

This is easy logic. People aren't stupid just very very brainwashed by properganer... very unfortunately.
This is bluelight, most everyone here wants prohibition repealed.
Click to expand...
Anyone who doesn't want to end the WoD clearly doesn't have the slightest rational problem-solving skills. That's why several people who don't use drugs knows drugs are drugs and are no different than alcohol, because they know alcohol is a drug too. The people who want drugs illegal are people making money off of them being illegal and other people who are simply just too ignorant to know that the alcohol they like to drink is also a drug! I mean what % of Americans never have a drink ever?

NSFW:
/and sinaloa cartel is one that can trace roots to prohibition
Click to expand...
No the Gulf Cartel too...
//why this fix on dyncorp from by you all of a sudden? AFAIK they aren't the biggest merc/PMC there anyways....
Click to expand...
sorry won't use them as an example. There's tons of them thats why I said "and others" but ya I won't mention the name again 8(
 
Last edited:
So you *don't* have any ideas within said paradigm? Gotcha.
/thanks for re-iterating the blatantly obvious reasons for ending prohibition. Sometimes ppl forget them.
//wtf do you mean "no" wrt sinaloa during prohibition?
///i never said dyncorp wasn't involved. I was asking why *you* have name-dropped them in 2 threads in 2 days, it's coming across like you just read some article about them and, being unfamiliar w/ the PMC industry, are trumpeting d.corp like it's some figurehead for private-enforcement interests

Unsure why you're being argumentative instead of just answering the question i posed. As you undountedly know, we're damn-near the same on these stances - so instead of circle-jerking and being so damn snarky on details, why not just answer my q and actually, you know, further a conversation?
 
SangerRainsford said:
So you *don't* have any ideas within said paradigm? Gotcha.
/thanks for re-iterating the blatantly obvious reasons for ending prohibition. Sometimes ppl forget them.
//wtf do you mean "no" wrt sinaloa during prohibition?
///i never said dyncorp wasn't involved. I was asking why *you* have name-dropped them in 2 threads in 2 days, it's coming across like you just read some article about them and, being unfamiliar w/ the PMC industry, are trumpeting d.corp like it's some figurehead for private-enforcement interests

Unsure why you're being argumentative instead of just answering the question i posed. As you undountedly know, we're damn-near the same on these stances - so instead of circle-jerking and being so damn snarky on details, why not just answer my q and actually, you know, further a conversation?
Click to expand...
no I know I just firmly think this equation has no other logical/rational solution.

I'm open to anything you can think of though.

/I thought I saw a "the" in the sinaloa thing. I believe all or most of the same entities behind alcohol prohibition are clearly behind drug prohibition.

/Didn't mean to come off wrong, kinda high right now trying this "dietary supplement" and been smoking weed :o
 
Last edited:
I agree the only way to truly end it is to end prohibition, period. But, i don't see that happening for a long time, certainly doubt i'll see it in my lifetime.

That said, within our current system, the approach of favoring - striking a deal, so to speak - with a single cartel has many benefits:
- The cartels fight for turf, if we work w/ a single cartel, we can essentially stave off their rivals for them. It doesn't mean no bloodshed, but it can reduce it significantly.
- it doesn't reduce the flow of drugs northward, it just changes who brought it.
- choosing the 'right' cartel to back (sinaloa, in the eyes of most it seems) means working w/ a group that's more about drugs than drugs+any profitable crimes.
Ill elaborate on that more in another post..

Now, how do we go about doing that? Honestly, one of the best ways i can think of is, essentially, by doing what we are now. We can't waltz troops over to selectively engage the unchosen cartels. We *can*, and seem to be, helping the 'chosen' cartel, both by arming them in the areas that still necesitate armed conflict, by turning a blind eye to important loads of theirs, and, with their help, actively pursuing heir rivals' loads/safe houses/etc.
I cannot say i like such a strategy, as it operates on an assumption of something i disagree with. But, assuming legalization is off the table - a fair assumption, despite how much i may disagree with it - this becomes one of the better approaches imo for the reasons already mentioned (doesn't hinder the drugs that get here, significant violence reductions, etc)
A major problem - aside from continued prohibition - is that the end of such a path necessitates a state-sponsored cartel. If/when that happens, it's a full-on monopoly, and is in bed with our prohibitionist gov. I don't like the majority of what that entails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top