If you buy illegal drugs you're supporting terrorism?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ceLLriOT

Member
Mar 26, 2001
193
0
0
I thought the commercials were great, all they needed to do was put the little "Truth" logo at the end and tell us how much drugs can damage our bodies.
 

BuckleDownBen

Banned
Jun 11, 2001
519
0
0
I know you holier-than-thou types will label me as a "crack-head" or "druggie" so let me state right off that I don't do drugs. I smoke some dope in college, but that was 5 years ago.

First of all, when has any "Columbian drug-load" ever committed an act of terrorism? The people committing the violence in Columbia, and other South ans Central American nations are the para-military groups supported by our tax dollars. For instance, the death squads that killed those Catholic priests and nuns a few years back.

As far as the Opium from Afghanistan goes, the people that profit from that are the Northern Alliance, a group that terrorised Afghanistan to such an extent that the Taliban was able to step in. Bin Laden's group are the remnants of the force that the US, Saudi Arabia, and England put together and armed in the 70's to fight the Soviets.

The leading terrorist state is the US, along with its client states of Indonesia, Turkey, and Israel whom we provide with military and financial backing. It's the US tax dollars that are supporting violence, not the drug users.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
BuckledownBen, I would comment but I will just let other people give you hell.
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
1
0


<< What specifically about the commercial isn't true? Money paid for narcotics eventually goes to the pockets of drug lords in the 3rd world (and quite a few here in the U.S.) who are basically terrorists. What part of this do you doped out dipsh|ts not understand? >>



Ditto... Minus the dip*ts part. heh
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
1
0
InfectedMushroom said:


<< the drug lords do have a lot of money from the drug trade, but that doesn't mean they are all terrorists. look how bin laden made up his fortune. he inhereted a bunch, but then he also invested and had an import/export company and a construction company of his own. that made him a lot of money through legal means. he didn't have to deal drugs. >>



badluck said:


<< Yes, but many people make drugs in their own home / backyard who do not contribute to terrorism. That is why blanket statements don't cut it with me. Maybe you are the one who is narrow minded.....I'm just saying that if you make generalizations you are going to be called out on it. You need to learn how to take your personal feelings out of it and discuss the topic.

Judging by their own rationale, you could assume the U.S. supports terrorism as well. They did support the Taliban with financial assistance didn't they????
>>





I said: ;)

Gosh, some of you people make me sigh and shake my head. The commercials said you could be supporting terrorism. When you say they shouldn't make blanket statements, all you do is demonstrate your ignorance as to the true importance of the message.

What you want is to ignore the fact that buying drugs supports the dregs of society. Drugs (in the large scheme of things) will kill FAR more people than bin Laden did on September 11. Get your heads out of your butts and take responsibility for your actions.

When you buy drugs, you do support addiction and death. If not monetarily, then by your additude.

And yes, even if it's pot.

Epsilon
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
How funny indeed. You can tell the family of those judges and cops in Mexico and Columbia who are murdered each year by drug lords how funny the ad was.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
:p if the bush administration were serious they'd legalize marajana as long as its american grown by americans:p
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126


<< Bin Laden's group are the remnants of the force that the US, Saudi Arabia, and England put together and armed in the 70's to fight the Soviets. >>

You forgot Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Germany, and a half dozen other countries who were funding the resistance. Bin Laden's group is NOT a "remnant" of the Western support of the Afghan Mujahideen. Arab and other NON-AFGHAN fighters only represented a fraction of the Mujahideen we supported, the vast majority of our assistance went to AFGHAN fighters.

Bin Laden used his personal wealth derived from his family's construction empire to fund Al Qaeda, which merged with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Neither of which have benefitted directly from a nickel of U.S. assistance to Afghan Mujahideen. True, Bin Laden and several others received TRAINING funded by the U.S., along side thousands of Afghans who would later splinter into the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, and every other Afghan faction, but not the ideology that serves as the basis for Bin Laden's fundamentalist views and those that follow him.

Bin Laden was ALREADY organizing, funding, and training resistance fighters on his own when he co-founded Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) with the leader of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, Abdallah Azzam in the early 1980's. It seems he was rather determined to do this with or without Western support, and he had enough money to make a go at it.

Nobody could have predicted or known that we were training the future leader of an anti-Western terrorist organization, no more than any military or civilian police force could know or predict that one of its soldiers or officers might go-off the deep end and commit some violent crime.

EVERY Afghan faction has numerous members who also received training and other assistance from the US; the Taliban, Northern Alliance, and the various Pashtun groups. Could it also be said that the EVERY Afghan faction is "a remnant of the force that the U.S. blah blah blah"?

If you were supportive of the brutal Russian occupation in which 1 million poor and backwards Afghans were killed, and resent the West for preventing the Russians from doing to Afghans what Stalin did to Ukrainians, then just come right out and say "I am a communist who favored the Russian occupation of Afghanistan for the good of communism".

But, don't attempt to insult anyone's intelligence by spinning some half-baked "Berkeley-ian" or "Chomsky-ian" reason to slam the United States like "Al Qaeda is a remnant blah blah blah..."
 

bearmeat

Senior member
Apr 28, 2001
574
0
0
wow so that means 30 years ago... that commercial would say "if you buy illegal drugs, you're supporting Communism."
 

Stremik

Member
Jan 27, 2002
33
0
0
What the F... are you people talking about here?!!!! ........Pufffffffff What drugs? ....Puffff What Osama? Puffffff:frown:
The hell with Osama.Tell me why do you need to pin lables on each other? Is this the only way you can tell each other apart?
You shouldn't be watching anything like this. You'll live longer.
 

BuckleDownBen

Banned
Jun 11, 2001
519
0
0
tcsenter

Thanks for editing out the part of your post where you labeled me an idiot.

First off, just because I condemn the US aid to the Islamic militants who fought the Soviets doesn't mean I support the Soviets. There isn't anyone in their right mind who will defend the actions of 9-11, but this doesn't mean that everyone has to support what the Bush administration has done so far.

The Northern Alliance is a rag-tag bunch of warlords who have nothing in common except that they are all blood thirsty villians. I don't doubt that soime of the militants who foiught the Soviets are in the Northen Alliance. However, the Northern Alliance is primarily made up of Central Asians such as Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan. They are not Pushtin like the Taliban are. For most of Afghanistan the Northwern Alliance is a foreign force. In fact General Dostum, a prominent Northen Alliance warlord, was a general in the Soviet army. So I don't think its right to say that the Northen Alliance and the Taliban both arose from the Mujahideen.

As far as lots of countries funding the Mujahideen, that may be the case, but the CIA was certainly in charge of the operation. The CIA setup all the training camps the US is now destroying, and like you said provided them with military training. I think it would be naive to think that the CIA didn't also fund them.

What is happenning here is similar to what happenned with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He's been a tyrant the whole time he was in charge of Iraq. Before 1991, he was the US's "guy" even though he was gassing tons of Kurds. It was only when he disobeyed or misubderstood the US's orders, that we then villianized him. I think in the same way the US supported Bin Laden until he started to have his own ideas about the US military being in Saudi Arabia and the Palestine issue.

Like I said before, I don't support the Arabs. I'm not pro-communist. I just find fault with the way the US conducts its foreign policy. In this case, I think the US should have gathered evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, presented it to the World Court, and let that body do what it was created to do. Instead, the US has bombed many innocent vixtims of the Taliban and caused thousands of others to starve. The Taliban did say that if the US presented evidence then they woud give up Bin Laden. I know this would never happen because the US doesn't recognie the authoruty of the World Court or the UN.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126


<< Thanks for editing out the part of your post where you labeled me an idiot. >>

Crap, I didn't mean to edit that part out, I wanted to add not subtract. Sorry.

<< First off, just because I condemn the US aid to the Islamic militants who fought the Soviets doesn't mean I support the Soviets. There isn't anyone in their right mind who will defend the actions of 9-11, but this doesn't mean that everyone has to support what the Bush administration has done so far. >>

Your criticism centered around the U.S. support of the Mujahideen (which was started by the Carter administration), not with the Bush administration.

<< The Northern Alliance is a rag-tag bunch of warlords who have nothing in common except that they are all blood thirsty villians. >>

And the consensus is they are FAR better than the Taliban. Its not that they are angels, but they are unquestionably the lesser of two evils. That was our only realistic choice insofar as a counter-Taliban force went.

<< So I don't think its right to say that the Northen Alliance and the Taliban both arose from the Mujahideen. >>

So ignore fact if it suits you. They are afghans. Whether they are the Afghan majority has no bearing on the fact they are AFGHAN. All Afghan factions can claim Mujahideen who fought against the Russians, thus benefitted from US support in one way or another.

It certainly can be NO MORE erroneous to say the NA and Taliban arose from the Mujahideen than Al Qaeda was a 'remnant' of US involvment.

<< As far as lots of countries funding the Mujahideen, that may be the case, but the CIA was certainly in charge of the operation. The CIA setup all the training camps the US is now destroying, and like you said provided them with military training. I think it would be naive to think that the CIA didn't also fund them. >>

The CIA didn't set-up all of the training camps and bunkers, but a fair number. Bin Laden was erecting them at the same time. In fact, THAT is how he gained the attention of the CIA.

<< What is happenning here is similar to what happenned with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He's been a tyrant the whole time he was in charge of Iraq. Before 1991, he was the US's "guy" even though he was gassing tons of Kurds. It was only when he disobeyed or misubderstood the US's orders, that we then villianized him. I think in the same way the US supported Bin Laden until he started to have his own ideas about the US military being in Saudi Arabia and the Palestine issue. >>

The two issues are nothing alike except to say "the U.S. supported someone, somewhere, who turned out later not to be such a nice guy." That's a little too vague to get at the nature of why we were supporting who.

<< Like I said before, I don't support the Arabs. I'm not pro-communist. I just find fault with the way the US conducts its foreign policy. In this case, I think the US should have gathered evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, presented it to the World Court, and let that body do what it was created to do. >>

I'm pleased the U.S. didn't let the World Court get in a word edge-wise. Though many nations suffered loss, it happened on OUR soil and the US paid the brunt of the cost both in human and financial terms. The most appropriate response to 9/11 is no more for a court of law to deal with than it would have been to rely on some World Court to defeat the Third Reich. We will prosecute those who are still alive after we finish with them militarily, just as we did at Nurembourg. I don't hear anyone crying because the U.S. bombed first and prosecuted later during WWII.

<< Instead, the US has bombed many innocent vixtims of the Taliban and caused thousands of others to starve. >>

The U.S. hasn't "caused" anyone to starve. The United Nations was warning back in August this winter would prove to be the most brutal on record due to the culmination of three years of drought (not the US bombing which wouldn't occur for another two months). The U.S. has been the single GREATEST contributor of food aid to Afghanistan for the last few years. If anything, the U.S. has SAVED more people from starvation because the World Food Programme and other humanitarian NGO's have not been able to get food into many unstable and unsecure regions of Afghanistan, which they are now reporting success at reaching however limited, nor were they particularly comfortable operating in Taliban controlled areas, who always ensured adequate assistance was diverted for Taliban purposes FIRST before anyone else got fed.

Any unintended loss of life is regrettable, but was a necessary price to pay for the future stability of Afghanistan and the security of the United States. This was not our problem to begin with, but we were forced to solve it. Had Russia been allowed to have its way with Afghanistan, it would be yet another failed communist state replete with hungry masses and economic ruin not much different than Afghanistan is today - except perhaps with more standing buildings.

<< The Taliban did say that if the US presented evidence then they woud give up Bin Laden. >>

The Taliban's offer was a ploy. They would simply conclude the US had no evidence Bin Laden was responsible, despite the fact that EVERY modern nation on earth concluded he was. This would facilitate denial of Bin Laden's involvement, solidify doubts of Bin Laden's involvement among Bin Laden sympathizers (or US detractors), and bolster those already convinced of Bin Laden's innocence (or supportive of his actions). The US would be put on the defensive, forced to publicize potentially sensitive information in order to counter the Taliban's propaganda.

The Taliban KNEW Bin Laden was responsible, only a fool could believe otherwise given the manner Bin Laden and his associates have been gloating over their handywork, the almost unanimous international consensus that Bin Laden is in the business of international terrorism, the irrefutable evidence that his primary goal is to target U.S. interests, and his PUBLIC CONFESSION that he considers U.S. civilians fair game.

The question has never credibly or honestly been about "what evidence do you have that Bin Laden was involved?", the question was "how on earth could anyone not believe Bin Laden was involved?" What part of 'To kill Americans is to please Allah" is so f-cking hard for people to understand?

Of course, it isn't hard to understand. Its rather obvious. Those wanting 'proof' of Bin Laden's involvement are either confessing their rote stupidity, or they are disguising their support of Bin Laden's act and contempt for the U.S. with a false and deceptive appeal for 'proof'.

<< I know this would never happen because the US doesn't recognie the authoruty of the World Court or the UN. >>

The U.S. is a permanent member of the UN security council and probably commits more resources to the UN than any other nation. Its not that we don't recognize the authority of the United Nations. Its that we reserve the right, just as every other nation does and our UN charter acknowledges, to part ways with the United Nations when we believe that not doing so may be contrary to US interests.

Standard operating procedure, many countries do it. Even more would do it if they were in a position to. Its not as if other countries 'respect' the UN more, its that they don't have the clout to protest too much.

But, you're right we don't take the World Court too seriously, and thank goodness for that.
 

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0


<< I stared blankly at the screen when i saw this commercial... this is anti drug propoghanda at it's finest. >>



Hmm.. that's just sick. If at least pot was legal, then the DEA could be cut down, crime would reduce because people could get it legally, etc... we had the same problems with alcohol during Prohibition. You can consider today's drug laws to just be another form of Prohibition...
 

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0


<< How funny indeed. You can tell the family of those judges and cops in Mexico and Columbia who are murdered each year by drug lords how funny the ad was. >>



It's the government's fault for shoving the drug trade underground and then fighting it there. One of the most heavily used drugs, Marijuana, has been used by humans for thousands of years, and was legal up till a century ago? OR maybe even later than that... it was also in competition with cotton, and that wasn't good either :) So why keep it illegal? What the government's doing is just as silly as the alcohol prohibition was, and that's all this is, a drug prohibition. The states actually still have a bit of a prohibition (Can't drink till 21? Wtf? But its okay to get killed in combat....) which causes problem with college students binge-drinking the day they hit 21 and many teens drinking illegally. Again, this is also the government's fault for keeping it this way. If drugs and alcohol are so bad, then why do some European countries get along just fine with them? Don't blame the terrorists, blame government policies. Think outside the box.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0


<< If you buy illegal drugs you're supporting terrorism? >>


i'll go along with this to the extent that someone already pointed out that you're doing possibly the same by filling up your car at the pumps.
 

darkjester

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2001
1,424
0
0


<< if you buy slurpees your supporting terrorism.....
sorry, that was low :)
>>


Low and racist... but why am I chuckling? :D

Thank you, please come again!
 

Bellgoody

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
776
0
0


<< If you buy illegal drugs you're supporting terrorism >>



Hell, the way I look at it, if you buy legal drugs you're suporting the terror of runaway capitalism at it's worst. Look at the enormous profits of the phamacutical companies who justify their greed because of the "cost" of R & D. Right...

Older Americans being forced to go to Canada and Mexico because they can't afford the life-saving drugs their tax dollars created.

Now THAT's terrorism.
 

thereds

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2000
7,888
0
0


<< Pakistan is full of terrorists and morons just like you halfwit :disgust::| >>



I never once said in my reply that Pakistan didn't have enemies of the US.

Again, you assumed that I implied that.

Damnit, Travis, I've told you not to assume things.
 

Sciolist

Senior member
Jun 20, 2001
255
0
0
I can't believe no one has said this yet, but
In the words of the hero Todd Beamer, as said again by George W. Bush:
Let's Roll!

(Oh, that's not what he meant?)
 

Cooltech2k

Banned
Feb 9, 2001
2,001
1
0


<< lol...If you nef on ATOT, you're supporting the killing of MODs >>


LMAO..... Yakko Would Be Carrying a Shotgun...
 

lebe0024

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2000
1,101
0
76
Propaganda? Doesn't that imply some hidden agenda? Now, I don't know a lot about how things work with our government and propaganda, but it simply appears to me that the US sees a correlation, and is simply trying to kill two birds. Eliminate drugs, hurt terrorism. Simple enough.

If it was "propaganda", what other agenda could they have? I think people might be a little offended at that commercial because you're using drugs and you don't like someone telling you it's eventually filling terrorists pockets.

I know that EVERYTHING is considered "propaganda" on these forums, but here's some advice from U2 for some of you guys out there: "What you thought was freedom ended up to be bondage." I don't know many "free" drug users.