It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican Official Threatens to Unleash Cartels, Flood U.S. With Drugs and Narcotics

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll


Do you think then maybe the Chines overreacted back in the day to British importation of opium? Opening up free market opium use is very serious to a culture and this can be demonstrated. So what then are the Pharm industry going to make a cleaner safer heroin mix with almost no overdoses.......but the crap will still wreck you?




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BendingTheTruth

You mean like other country's do to us right now???



www.philly.com...

edit on 30-1-2017 by ttobban because: bad link



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I think you have me confused with another poster. I have not, and do not, recommend free use of opiates.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

So a 'Mexican official' huh.. thats all it takes to slyly mislead... but that official is 'Mexico’s former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, states the Mexican government is willing to counter U.S. President Donald Trump policy by unleashing drug cartels upon the U.S. border'

'Former' as in no longer a government official. but a government official per thread title and article... and everyone just went along... like a laser pointer pointed at a wall.

"Jaw Dropping" according to that absolutely unbiased site. yes its jaw dropping how simple twist of words can manipulate.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

Good point but you're missing a vital part of the equation.

Yes the vast majority of heroin on the streets of the U.S. is from Afghanistan, but who owns, transports and distributes that? The CIA. The poppyfields have nothing to do with the Afghan people or government nowadays.

That's why the former foreign minister of Mexico is pointing a gun with no ammo; our own CIA works with them to some degree. And I'm sure that if push came to shove, the CIA would find a way to stomp out any cartel that doesn't play by their rules.
edit on 30-1-2017 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If you've read all my posts in this thread, I had brought up that point exactly. It is a vital equation, but I do include it in my analysis.

Honestly... I want a line drawn in the sand on the CIA as much as I do cartels... but baby steps, baby steps...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: everyone

Here's one.





Sigh... Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ttobban
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If you've read all my posts in this thread, I had brought up that point exactly. It is a vital equation, but I do include it in my analysis.

Honestly... I want a line drawn in the sand on the CIA as much as I do cartels... but baby steps, baby steps...


I'm guilty of jumping thru this thread


I didn't read all the responses.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

You are being entirely unrealistic, if you think that any steps that can be taken, baby or otherwise, will have any effect until the MIC has already been defenestrated, decapitated, set on fire and burned from the face of the world. While they remain, they can counter or mitigate for any move made against them. They need taking down from the top down, not the bottom up.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

What point of "LINE IN THE SAND" are you not understanding? I said nothing more beyond that. This is a second time you put thoughts into my existence that I did not say. Please stop putting unforeseen outcomes to relate to my opinion of them.

I am not even saying I am right or wrong... all I state is which side of the the wall I will be standing on if and when it's built. I know I can't beat or eliminate the MIC... but nothing can force me to eat the soup they make.

I think of the line in the sand... not beyond. What happens after who stands where is an open chapter to be written... I could care less about what happened in past... I stand with the U.S., and not the cartels!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

The US may as well BE the cartels, for all that you can separate one from the other. Its peoples willingness to make lines in the sand, in the wrong place, and eat the soup they are fed by doing so, that makes all this possible. If folk were unprepared to accept anything less than the governance they are meant to have, rather than a disgusting tyranny in a pretty dress, this crap would not happen.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Mexican Official Threatens to Unleash Cartels, Flood U.S. With Drugs and Narcotics




now that sounds like Asymmetric War to my non-diplomatic ear...

Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ (re: WIKI)
edit on th31148579433430382017 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
As if the American people need yet another example of why the wall is a must.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Wait? Are we coming full circle onto blame again? First, we stretch into the MIC being responsible, then onto the real responsibility falling into the laps of those who draw moral lines in the sand and eat soup made by others, causing it all in the 1st place?

Is your input to purposely put a fog around the data and just keep going and going into opening up points into abysses? The odd factor about your points is that I completely agree, but having to dig to defend myself on points that are developing and changing every second of the day, and likely don't even hold, is nothing more than gas lighting debate. I find little value in the way I am perceived by others, but I highly value the input of others.

I am not speaking for folk... I am secure in developing my own opinions, thanks.

My point... enjoy your own soup.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

And how did CNN spin this threat after the interview? What was their anti-Trump rhetoric, in other words?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

I don't know many families who escape the scourge. I have a nephew sitting in jail today because of his behavior from meth. He milked his folks dry and now they can't help him. He belongs in an institution. He saw what meth did to others and still he chose to take his first hit. I don't know the answer but going after cartels wont change a thing. Like ISIS, uh oh another was just born.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

The point is, that if you really agree with me, then you ought to be dead against attacking this thing backwards.

Things we agree upon:

Nothing will change for the better, as long as the MIC remains.

The current measures have nothing to do with solving the MIC problem.

In order to solve the problem which is the ACTUAL source of all the drugs, terror, surveillance initiatives and so on, something must be done to destroy the deep state, the progeny of the MIC.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you agree with any small part of this, then you must surely know how futile, pointless, and actually harmful this recent batch of nonsense will be. You know all too well, that once efforts APPEAR to be made on a particular front, it is easy, beyond easy for a government to look as if it is doing the right thing, while actually achieving NOTHING. You also know that this kind of sleight of hand is not new, that it has defined the last few decades of policy and governance in general in the United States. You also know that for all that acts have been passed before on this issue, nothing changed. And you know that because nothing changed, people still die of drug overdoses, dirty needles, bad drugs...

You should not have to defend your point at all. The only reason you do, is because there is something wrong with it, and that is the fact that you are supporting this effort at all. Knowing how much of a sleight of hand trick it is, knowing that it is nothing else, knowing that all its going ahead will do is further obfuscate the reality of the problem it fails to deal with, how can you defend the action at all? How can you say that you are happy for up to $25 Billion dollars (the real estimated cost of the wall) to be spent on a parlour trick?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
If Mexico doesn't want to do anything about the drugs coming into this country then it should be open season on any Mexican smuggler that steps foot on our soil. We need to do whats best in protecting our citizens from the poison their bringing in. Heroin and coc aine are poison and people bringing it in should fear for their life.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I did not vote these clowns into office... I am stuck having to deal with the same problems all the red/blue supporters voted in.

At a certain point in time, one of 300 million determines that its best to wake up each morning, draw estimated conclusions on the offered data, and get through the day as best as possible.

I am fully aware I am stuck having to dance in this mess... but as an independent revolutionist by nature, I am aware that I have zero chance of being the DJ in this dance... I am forced to dance to the song being played.

Beyond determining who is with or against the U.S. going forward is all these events are... its like holding onto the chess piece to gauge a reaction of the opponent before moving. So, to support something that does or may not exist... or to say I support, is premature.

It's not defending my points... it's the fact that I have to remind you that, what you think is my opinion, is more then likely not my opinion. As I said before, I do not care to be perceived in any particular way by others. This is now stretching into insinuating insinuation... gas lighting.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
it sounds like the U.S. might need to liberate some land from mexico to create a buffer zone to go along with the wall.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join