And a ton of dead bodies...and blood on its hands:
The lethal fallout from a botched operation by the US Department of Justice which allowed almost 2,000 illegally purchased firearms to be transported from the streets of Arizona to drug gangs in Mexico has been laid bare in a scathing Congressional report, which concludes that it resulted in countless deaths.
A mixture of arrogance, over-confidence, and staggering ineptitude by the Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF] was outlined in a 51-page investigation by two Republican members of a House panel charged with getting to the bottom of what went wrong during a two-year operation called "Fast and Furious".
It tells how, between 2009 and this year, the ATF instructed agents to turn a blind eye to hundreds of AK-47 assault rifles, sniper rifles, and revolvers purchased from gunshops in Phoenix and en route to Mexico. They hoped to eventually recover them from crime scenes and build a complex conspiracy case that might take down the leaders of a major drug cartel.
John Dodson, a special agent from Phoenix who eventually blew the whistle on the "flawed" operation, told congressmen his superiors would be "giddy" with delight when "their" guns were found at a crime scene in Mexico, because they believed it "validated" their tactic. With regard to potential loss of life, an ATF boss told him: "if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs."
They're murderers by proxy.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
as one who has worked for the Obama campaign in 2008, and generally supported many of his attempts at getting common sense into governance, this one pissed me off when I heard it. I suspect that some of this story is being skewed for political purposes, but the simple callousness of knowing that at least some people would be killed and injured with guns you let get across is stunning, and disappointing.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
this is Obama's fault because it makes him look bad. Meanwhile, he deserves little to no credit for ordering the death of Osama bin Laden, because that makes him look good.
ThunderBunny wrote:Nope. Just a common response uttered by the drug-using American idiots that feed money to the cartels because of their need for chemical 'fun.'
That's pretty weasel-like, even for flamebait. Am I a drug-using American idiot?
ThunderBunny wrote:I apologize.
Apology accepted, contingent upon you actually offering something intellectual to this topic to support your position.
No, you're right. It must be Bush's fault 'cause like see...Bush umm...appointed Eric Holder...no wait.
Eric Holder had nothing to do with this 'cause it wasn't really his responsibility...no wait. umm.
Just 'cause Eric Holder is in charge of the DOJ doesn't mean it's his fault that an agency under his watch would do this...wait umm.
wow. I ask a simple question and you AUTOMATICALLY assume I'm going after bush.
that's some serious crack you're smoking there.
this is Obama's fault because it makes him look bad. Meanwhile, he deserves little to no credit for ordering the death of Osama bin Laden, because that makes him look good.
yup. make a huge deal out of anything that's bad and make it look like it's obama's fault.
That's pretty weasel-like, even for flamebait. Am I a drug-using American idiot?
according to him, anyone who uses any kind of drug is an idiot, and a contributor to the cartels.
this is Obama's fault because it makes him look bad. Meanwhile, he deserves little to no credit for ordering the death of Osama bin Laden, because that makes him look good.
So how does this make Obama look good? Is it because he broke US and International laws to order an assassination? Sure there is one less terrorist but shouldn't he had his day in court. After all that is why the courts and tribunals were setup for right?
Heretic wrote:So how does this make Obama look good? Is it because he broke US and International laws to order an assassination? Sure there is one less terrorist but shouldn't he had his day in court. After all that is why the courts and tribunals were setup for right?
what about the terrorists in gitmo? shouldn't they have their day in court?
Here is the guilty person, the guy who thought this was a good idea and used it in spite of his agents protests:
A record was kept of their serial numbers. The idea was that this would later allow agents to link individual weapons to particular crime scenes. Somehow, this was supposed to help the ATF build up a nuanced picture of the complex structure of a major drug cartel, which would in turn lead to high-level arrests. But it wasn't to be.
There is just no way some agency back in the States was going to take that data and be able to turn it into evidence to cause the capture of anyone high up in the cartel. They are already known wanted men with protection from a corrupt government. Just go kill them and capture their property.
It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that Obama had direct knowledge and downright sanctioned even. Out of everybody in the whole DOJ, who do you think has face to face meetings with Obama? Even after many agents started complaining, they were told to shut-up or face consequences, that the orders came from above. Well, that is Eric Holder. I find it hard to believe Eric Holder would have put his whole job and reputation on the line had he not had assurances. Maybe getting those assurances while having a nice breakfast at the White House. It's something to consider for sure.
Ferno wrote:according to him, anyone who uses any kind of drug is an idiot, and a contributor to the cartels.
It's not even something that I'm interested in refuting in this thread. He already concedes that the government is responsible for these deaths. That's why he started this thread. For some reason that he will hopefully explain, he's against changing the government policy that leads to them.
ST wrote:Celebrating the death of people with blood on their hands is not so hypocritical.
If you think they're bad, you should look at where your tax dollars are going!
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Celebrating the death of people with blood on their hands is not so hypocritical.
Why?
You don't understand? Do you know what justice is? When a murderer dies it is not equal to when a non-murderer dies. Anybody who says "death is bad", willfully ignoring the fact that certain individuals cause death is a fool. The death of a murderer is a good thing in my book, unless they repent.
I wouldn't wish death on drug users, I would wish that they clean up their act, but a side-effect of people involved in crack, etc dying is that society is no longer burdened by a very negative influence; and TB is right that they are indirectly responsible for the violence that takes place in the drug trade. Dealers can drop dead, in my book.
Hehe, Kill em all and let God sort them out, Huh? I'd rather take my Lord's position and say "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?". It's gonna be hard for you Thorne. You will get the blessing of many but I'm not so sure the approval of One. Anyone that sits in judgement cannot spread grace, of which we all need some I'm sure.
flip wrote:Hehe, Kill em all and let God sort them out, Huh? I'd rather take my Lord's position and say "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?". It's gonna be hard for you Thorne. You will get the blessing of many but I'm not so sure the approval of One. Anyone that sits in judgement cannot spread grace, of which we all need some I'm sure.
If the government really wanted to get rid of the drug cartels they would legalize, produce and control the market for drugs themselves. That would make the drug cartel heads roll instantly, put pretty much every dealer out of business, erase the economy for a major portion of organized crime, virtually eliminate drug related violence, help protect the environment, make it easier for the users to get the help they really need, reduce law enforcement budget requirements, save countless lives, and generate more tax revenue all in one stroke.
Of course they won't do it because that would result in Mutually Assured Destruction, because the war on drugs is also the life blood of dozens of sectors of government and big players in private industry. Sure the users are party to murder in order to get their fix, but there is plenty of blame to go around since the privately owned prison industry, the justice department, the ATF, the FBI, and the police unions, etc all deliberately escalate the war on drugs despite having no intention of ever winning it just so they can maintain their ever growing budgets.
Both the criminal and the justice sides profit from fighting the war on drugs, neither side would ever want to win it.
You should be able to have some empathy for a drug user.
They don't get into using because they have a desire to fund a murderous organization, they do it to feel something fun. maybe subconsciously fill a void, etc.
Sure at some point they might be faced with the deadly side effects of their contribution but if they are hooked they are now suffering an addictive disease so rational thought doesn't win out.
It isn't the same as someone who's friends say 'Hey, come play this game it's fun' and then they find out the game is also responsible for the death of innocent people. At that point only a cruel person would continue the game...but since he isn't addicted he probably wouldn't continue.
Dealers are selfish and greedy (I assume dealers know what their business is a part of) so no mercy from me there.
Politicians and career people who ignore the death of innocents as a result of their bad ideas are like the dealers. No excuse to continue letting the guns go across the border.
I say Obama owns a part of the blame IF from whatever moment he became aware of it he didn't say stop it. Maybe he never did become aware of it.
Although some of you should say Obama owns a part of the blame the way Bush owned Browns inept performance as head of FEMA....liberals who so zealously said Bush killed Katrina victims with his crony FEMA appointment can now claim the blood of the Obama/Cartel guns....the rest of us rational people know better in both instances.
We can talk about meth/heroin/etc. addicts, but these drugs generate only a small percentage of the Mexican cartels' revenue. If this is all they made money from, they'd be in piss-poor shape. The cartels make a large fraction of their revenue from cocaine, but their most profitable drug is marijuana.
The language in this thread seems to reflect more so the drugs they make the least amount of money from and less so the drug from which they make the most. When you drink beer, do you do it to "get a fix"? When you drink beer, do you have an "addictive disease"? If not, then this language doesn't describe marijuana use, the cartels' number one source of income.
Heretic wrote:So how does this make Obama look good? Is it because he broke US and International laws to order an assassination? Sure there is one less terrorist but shouldn't he had his day in court. After all that is why the courts and tribunals were setup for right?
Not only is this sentiment very short-sided, it's also amusingly hippie considering who's saying it.
Handing a joint to someone is not the same thing as handing a murderous bastard the very tool he is gonna use to kill someone with, knowing full well that that is the very reason he is searching for weapons in the first place.
flip wrote:Hehe, Kill em all and let God sort them out, Huh? I'd rather take my Lord's position and say "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?". It's gonna be hard for you Thorne. You will get the blessing of many but I'm not so sure the approval of One. Anyone that sits in judgement cannot spread grace, of which we all need some I'm sure.
flip wrote:Hehe, Kill em all and let God sort them out, Huh? I'd rather take my Lord's position and say "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do?". It's gonna be hard for you Thorne. You will get the blessing of many but I'm not so sure the approval of One. Anyone that sits in judgement cannot spread grace, of which we all need some I'm sure.
Jeff250 wrote:... When you drink beer, do you have an "addictive disease"? If not, then this language doesn't describe marijuana use, the cartels' number one source of income.
Point taken. For the casual or non addicted users even smoking a joint, if it isn't domestic weed, you are likely funding a murderous cartel. Buzz kill for the conscientious.
I smell a sales slogan coming on.....'Only buy west coast sticky bud or Jesus will kill some ones family ....Jesus Escobar and Rodolpho Ramirez that is.'
Heretic wrote:So how does this make Obama look good? Is it because he broke US and International laws to order an assassination? Sure there is one less terrorist but shouldn't he had his day in court. After all that is why the courts and tribunals were setup for right?
Not only is this sentiment very short-sided, it's also amusingly hippie considering who's saying it.
So exactly how long have you personally known me now? Is it short-sided or short sighted? As far as I know short-sided may refer to a game of soccer. There is nothing wrong with terrorist having there day in court, or do you think the president or our government should violate our own laws or the laws of the countries they chose to carry out their plot of assassination in?
(Yes, I used the wrong word there for some odd reason.)
Well, I'd be interested in hearing you explain just how Obama violated our country's laws by the way in which he dealt with bin Laden. I'd be even more interested in hearing why we should have given a fig about the laws of Pakistan, considering at least someone intelligence services absolutely had to know where he was hiding, yet chose not to inform us about it. And most of all, I'd really love to hear how it would have been at all feasible to bring bin Laden back to the US and stage any sort of public trial (hint: it wouldn't have been). That doesn't even get into the fact that, as someone who essentially conducted an undeclared act of war on US soil, bin Laden never had any legitimate legal standing in the first place.
So you are saying we should just invade another country any time we choose and kill any one we want? Here I thought that the conservatives were the blood thirsty warmongers.
