Drug money sustains al Qaeda

Washington Times ^ | 12/29/03 | Rowan Scarborough

[kattracks]

Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network has become deeply involved in international drug trafficking, using the money to buy arms and, possibly, radioactive material for use in a so-called "dirty" nuclear bomb, senior U.S. officials say.

The seizure earlier this month of boats carrying heroin and hashish, and operated by al Qaeda-linked persons, has brought to light an al Qaeda drug operation that has grown tremendously since the September 11 attacks, the sources say.

[Prime Choice]

How can this be? The Liberals assured us that there was absolutely NO connection between illicit drug money and terrorism!

/sarcasm

[Conservative_Nationalist]

Okay, let me get this straight. In Islam it's suppose to be wrong to drink liquor. We always hear about Liquor stores being bombed in certain places because it's against the religion. These Islamic terrorist want to ban alcohol in the countries they control(Or use to control such as Afghanistan) But they have no problem selling drugs which are way more dangerous and much worse for the body than is alcohol. These people are such idiots and I think we need to get more aggressive with them. We said we would get them no matter where they where but there are many in Iran and Pakistan that we haven't dealt with. We need to step it up soon and I really think we will.

[risk]

And Libertarians say that the war on drugs is unnecessary. I don't believe either the Dems or the Libertarians in this case.

[endthematrix]

I think the US drug legalization and decriminalization issue and it's connections with terrorist funding is more complex than at first glance. If they were smuggling oil, which smugglers do, would the premise change? Somebody is buying the product they sell. If they were manufacturing automobiles to the world market, would the government have the Ad Council spin an anti-auto against terror?

That said, the heroin is grown area specific and sold to the West. That makes our own citizenry complicit in their war production. Makes a case for growing your own.

[CWOJackson]

Good to see the reaction by average freepers to this issue.

[meenie]

The connection between terrorism and the drug trade is easy to understand. They are both terrorist operations. The increase of poppy production in Afghanistan and the Albanian drug routes through Kosovo do not signal that we are gaining much against the terrorist.

[CWOJackson]

Seems like we're gaining on the terrorists pretty well. Each day more of them are killed and arrested.

[Quiller]

But [Islamic terrorists] have no problem selling drugs which are way more dangerous and much worse for the body than is alcohol.

As with any religion, there are a lot of hypocrites in Islam. Bahrain is a small island kingdom connected to Saudi Arabia by a bridge. The judicial system in Bahrain decided to remain open over the Islamic weekend so the rich Saudis who came across the bridge and got busted (DWI, public intoxication, etc.) could get their cases adjudicated and return home in time to pretend nothing had happened.

Most accounts of the last few days the 9/11 hijackers spent before their attack include time at topless bars, drinking, etc. So it really isn't a surprise to hear that the terrorist leaders are willing to embrace what they are supposed to abhor, and even less surprising to see that Islamic leaders and mullahs tacitly approve of such activity.

[Imal]

And so, whenever you send money to terrorists, you are also supporting the drug lords.

[risk]

There are four problems with the idea of allowing the growing of one's own poppies and tolerating the refinement and synthesis of heroin:

1. Heroin is highly addictive and is often inappropriate even for self-medicating purposes (i.e. anything but having your arm taken off in an accident). Even in appropriate situations, there is almost always a better drug available.
2. Heroin addiction usually leads to violence-prone crimes like robberies, grand theft, and so forth.
3. No matter how much we'd like to believe the psychological health swamis, recidivism is usually a fact of life.
4. Last but not least: Hepatitis and AIDS are just a few of the communicable health risks that lurk around IV (intervenous) drug use.

Therefore, why would we ever allow this drug in "mature" settings, even for your survivalist medical kit? Heroin/coke/crack/crank/amphetamines/pcp and anything else on that level will produce tremendous violence, decay, and death whereever it is present. And if rare people can be responsible enough with their supply (i.e. a fictitious medical kit) someone will try to steal that from from them with a vengence, if the word got out that it was just sitting around. Why not just use a prescription when you need drugs? Perhaps the prescription process needs to be reformed, but given the dangers of drug interactions, I'm not sure that's even necessary.

Society ends up paying for narcotics use, and dearly.

But yes, I agree with your comment about other commodities -- anything that makes them wealth should be interdicted.

[leadpenny]

. . . average freepers . . .

Are there above and below average freepers?

[Imal]

The solution to the problem of Prohibition is more Prohibition.

[Imal]

I prefer to keep an eye on the median FReepers. Averages can be misleading.

[leadpenny]

I wanna know where I can go to find out my status?

[CWOJackson]

Keep an eye on this thread...the "others" will show up in time.

[risk]

I don't agree that there is a problem with prohibition. There's a problem with people not having any sense that their lives are worth something. We should be looking at that issue first.

[leadpenny]

And I always thought there were just two categories of FReepers: ept and inept.

[Imal]

People have been turning away from that question as long as there have been people.

Sometimes government doesn't have all the answers to our problems.

[CWOJackson]

There is also the smokey backroom variety but you're probably right...I guess they would fall into inept.