Bill Clinton say's STFU to BLM

[DutchKillsRambo]

The CIA traded with drug distribution gangs, they weren't looking the other way. It was more like "give me access to this person or help in some way or information and we'll give you access to the US illicit drug market. That the trade was for intangibles is irrelevant. It was still participation in the drug trade.

Ensuring the drugs went into black neighborhoods was a cynical way to flood them with low cost drugs. Law enforcement actions in the War on Drugs broke black political power movements in the '80's to the benefit of Ronnie and George.

The CIA colluded with the drug gangs to benefit US political interests, both US and partisan interests, so, yes, the CIA are drug dealers.

I've read Webb's Dark Alliance too, and we're getting into semantics a bit here I think. The CIA has also knowingly looked the other way and colluded with Islamic jihadists, does that make the CIA an Islamic terror group? Of course not. It's Machiavellian realpolitik that has come back to bite us regular Americans many times. But words do have meanings, at least from a legal standpoint, and that's why I don't believe that the CIA would be considered drug dealers. At least not to the extent where they were flying in planes filled with coke, on official US government order, to Arkansas, is plausible.

I'm also gonna need some clarification on how the CIA ensured that only Black neighborhoods were exposed to the flood of cheap cocaine in the 80's. Arguments can be made for figures like Rick Ross, but I find the conspiracy theory that there was a concerted effort by the upper echelons of the US govt to ensure only Black neighborhoods were getting flooded with coke dubious if not outright ridiculous. It was a product with a markup of several thousand %, it was getting smuggled to anybody willing to pay, just as it is now.

I don't buy 9/11 truthers and I don't buy other CIA conspiracy stories, as like I've said before, the truth is outrageous enough. And the real high point of over-reaching drug laws and mandatory minimums reached its aegis under Clinton, not Reagan. But to his credit, he's been pretty vocal about his errors lately, for whatever that's worth.

 

[DutchKillsRambo]

So if I allow drug dealing in my house but I don't actually make the sale, I'm good? That's really good to know. Just in case...

No and I never said anything like that. I said if you allowed drug dealing at a friends house, then yes, you'd not be a drug dealer.

 

[OddBall1st]

View attachment 3653464

It`s a ploy to keep Hillary secrete. Pretty neat .

 

[bearkat42]

No and I never said anything like that. I said if you allowed drug dealing at a friends house, then yes, you'd not be a drug dealer.

In terms of the CIA, how could the United States possibly be considered "a friends house"?

 

[Fogdog]

I've read Webb's Dark Alliance too, and we're getting into semantics a bit here I think. The CIA has also knowingly looked the other way and colluded with Islamic jihadists, does that make the CIA an Islamic terror group? Of course not. It's Machiavellian realpolitik that has come back to bite us regular Americans many times. But words do have meanings, at least from a legal standpoint, and that's why I don't believe that the CIA would be considered drug dealers. At least not to the extent where they were flying in planes filled with coke, on official US government order, to Arkansas, is plausible.

The analogy of the CIA knowingly looking the other way to Israeli, Islamic or Irish terrorists isn't very good. The only way that analogy holds if if the CIA worked with a Jihadi group to enable terror strikes in the US. As far as I know, they didn't help anybody carry out a suicide strike or whatever but maybe you know of one?

The CIA sold access that expanded the US illegal drug market. The CIA opened markets to criminal drug syndicates and greased the wheels to protect shipments from customs searches. This was a crime of commission.

I'm also gonna need some clarification on how the CIA ensured that only Black neighborhoods were exposed to the flood of cheap cocaine in the 80's. Arguments can be made for figures like Rick Ross, but I find the conspiracy theory that there was a concerted effort by the upper echelons of the US govt to ensure only Black neighborhoods were getting flooded with coke dubious if not outright ridiculous. It was a product with a markup of several thousand %, it was getting smuggled to anybody willing to pay, just as it is now.

I don't buy 9/11 truthers and I don't buy other CIA conspiracy stories, as like I've said before, the truth is outrageous enough. And the real high point of over-reaching drug laws and mandatory minimums reached its aegis under Clinton, not Reagan. But to his credit, he's been pretty vocal about his errors lately, for whatever that's worth.

The CIA colluded with Nicaraguan drug smugglers to bring cocaine into LA where it was sold to gang members in that area. The cocaine was sold and distributed in LA to whomever wanted it. So, no, I'm not saying it was confined to black neighborhoods, it was however sold to gangs and the ones in Watts and Compton are specifically mentioned in the San Jose Mercury News articles on this subject.

It was best described in this way in an article on Huffington Post's archives:
This complicity of the CIA in drug trafficking is at the heart of Webb’s explosive expose — a point Webb makes himself in archival interview footage that appears in Levin’s documentary.

“It’s not a situation where the government or the CIA sat down and said, ‘Okay, let’s invent crack, let’s sell it in black neighborhoods, let’s decimate black America,’” Webb says. “It was a situation where, ‘We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it.’”

I can connect the dots and don't need proof that would stand up in court. The CIA has been doing this same thing since the 60's. Heroin from Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War wracked the black neighborhoods of New York. Crack cocaine was sold in LA to finance an illegal CIA operation in Nicaragua in 1984. Crack first appeared in 1984 in LA and by 1986 use had expanded across the country, mostly in black and inner city communities. The CIA were definitely involved in cocaine smuggling in LA in 1984. I'm connecting the dots between there and the rest of the epidemic.

 

[DutchKillsRambo]

The analogy of the CIA knowingly looking the other way to Israeli, Islamic or Irish terrorists isn't very good. The only way that analogy holds if if the CIA worked with a Jihadi group to enable terror strikes in the US. As far as I know, they didn't help anybody carry out a suicide strike or whatever but maybe you know of one?

The CIA sold access that expanded the US illegal drug market. The CIA opened markets to criminal drug syndicates and greased the wheels to protect shipments from customs searches. This was a crime of commission.


The CIA colluded with Nicaraguan drug smugglers to bring cocaine into LA where it was sold to gang members in that area. The cocaine was sold and distributed in LA to whomever wanted it. So, no, I'm not saying it was confined to black neighborhoods, it was however sold to gangs and the ones in Watts and Compton are specifically mentioned in the San Jose Mercury News articles on this subject.

It was best described in this way in an article on Huffington Post's archives:
This complicity of the CIA in drug trafficking is at the heart of Webb’s explosive expose — a point Webb makes himself in archival interview footage that appears in Levin’s documentary.

“It’s not a situation where the government or the CIA sat down and said, ‘Okay, let’s invent crack, let’s sell it in black neighborhoods, let’s decimate black America,’” Webb says. “It was a situation where, ‘We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it.’”

I can connect the dots and don't need proof that would stand up in court. The CIA has been doing this same thing since the 60's. Heroin from Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War wracked the black neighborhoods of New York. Crack cocaine was sold in LA to finance an illegal CIA operation in Nicaragua in 1984. Crack first appeared in 1984 in LA and by 1986 use had expanded across the country, mostly in black and inner city communities. The CIA were definitely involved in cocaine smuggling in LA in 1984. I'm connecting the dots between there and the rest of the epidemic.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you need to give me a blurb on a book I already told you I read.

Secondly, during this time period, the CIA absolutely gave money, weapons, and explosives to jihadis in Afghan / Pakistan. Mostly these groups carried out terror attacks in the Kashmir region, but the nucleus of pro Hekmatyar forces inside Afghanistan (the ones receiving the lion's share of US and Gulf States aid) became al-Qaeda. So no they never helped carry out a suicide attack in the US, but they did give cash and training, the exact matters being dealt with drug dealing accusation. You might not like the comparison but its still there.

As since I've already told you I've read Dark Alliance, along with McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin", a much better and more thoroughly researched book, I'm aware of everything you typed. That still doesn't make a secret CIA landing strip in Arkansas where they were physically running in drugs any more likely, which is all that I had initially countered.

 

[schuylaar]

Firstly, I'm not sure why you need to give me a blurb on a book I already told you I read.

Secondly, during this time period, the CIA absolutely gave money, weapons, and explosives to jihadis in Afghan / Pakistan. Mostly these groups carried out terror attacks in the Kashmir region, but the nucleus of pro Hekmatyar forces inside Afghanistan (the ones receiving the lion's share of US and Gulf States aid) became al-Qaeda. So no they never helped carry out a suicide attack in the US, but they did give cash and training, the exact matters being dealt with drug dealing accusation. You might not like the comparison but its still there.

As since I've already told you I've read Dark Alliance, along with McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin", a much better and more thoroughly researched book, I'm aware of everything you typed. That still doesn't make a secret CIA landing strip in Arkansas where they were physically running in drugs any more likely, which is all that I had initially countered.

no one makes heroin anymore..it's 100% fentanyl.

 

[Fogdog]

Firstly, I'm not sure why you need to give me a blurb on a book I already told you I read.

Secondly, during this time period, the CIA absolutely gave money, weapons, and explosives to jihadis in Afghan / Pakistan. Mostly these groups carried out terror attacks in the Kashmir region, but the nucleus of pro Hekmatyar forces inside Afghanistan (the ones receiving the lion's share of US and Gulf States aid) became al-Qaeda. So no they never helped carry out a suicide attack in the US, but they did give cash and training, the exact matters being dealt with drug dealing accusation. You might not like the comparison but its still there.

As since I've already told you I've read Dark Alliance, along with McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin", a much better and more thoroughly researched book, I'm aware of everything you typed. That still doesn't make a secret CIA landing strip in Arkansas where they were physically running in drugs any more likely, which is all that I had initially countered.

Selling access to LA markets to drug smugglers, protecting the shipments, using revenue from sales to finance an illegal war in Nicaragua is somehow not running drugs?

The Arkansas bit is @ThickStemz 's bit. He says a lot of things.

You are right about the CIA sponsoring jihadi attacks on Russian occupied Afghanistan. Its not much of a secret. Its also not anything like what you intimated when you said:

The CIA has also knowingly looked the other way and colluded with Islamic jihadists, does that make the CIA an Islamic terror group? Of course not.

The CIA colluded with a rebel army to take back their country after Russia invaded it. So we are now calling war against an invading foreign army of a terrorist act? I think you'll say anything to try to win a point. This is a fail.

 

[Fogdog]

Firstly, I'm not sure why you need to give me a blurb on a book I already told you I read.

This isn't exactly a private conversation. I included the blurb for completeness to explain a point because others might want in on the secret too. As shown above, you conceal and incompletely quote your sources to bolster a weak point. That's not my style.