British troops investigated for heroin smuggling

reply to post by jerico65


People just throw numbers around as if they're facts. Nothing like a good generalization to start more Internet POP culture misconstrued perception.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jerico65

 

People just throw numbers around as if there facts. Nothing like a good generalization to start more Internet POP culture misconstrued perception.

The left in the U.S. uses that tactic practically every day - a lie repeated often enough will become the "truth".

Perfect example: Bush "lied" about WMD's in iraq. The truth is that Bush - like all leaders - has to rely to a certain extent on the advice of trusted officials that work for them. If the advisors are wrong, then so become the leaders. However, that hardly makes them "liars".



But never mind all of that. The liberal media and their sycophants here on ATS have been screaming "Bush lied" ever since. And so now the uneducated and the naive believe that's what really happened.

reply to post by centurion1211

Perfect example: Bush "lied" about WMD's in iraq. The truth is that Bush - like all leaders - has to rely to a certain extent on the advice of trusted officials that work for them. If the advisors are wrong, then so become the leaders. However, that hardly makes them "liars".

Ohh darn, you are one of those who still believe Saddam was equal to dodo al-qaeda big mama.. Funny movie.



I love you

reply to post by oozyism


In fact hundreds of WMD's were found in Iraq.

www.foxnews.com...

And Saddam's atrocities are no more:

fdd.typepad.com...

I feel sure that there are plenty of thankful persons for his passing.

reply to post by space cadet


Those WMDs were all from prior to 1991, don't follow FOX news, they have an agenda, and don't trust anything they say without investigating it first:

A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 – 15 months after the technical report was written – said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.[88] "No one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMDs)." General Tommy Franks December 2, 2005

en.wikipedia.org...

On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed.[90]

en.wikipedia.org...

On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been previously "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[92]

en.wikipedia.org...

In a July 2, 2004 article published by The Associated Press, and Fox News, reported that Sarin Gas warheads dating back to the last Iran–Iraq War were found in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. The Polish troops secured munitions on June 23, 2004, [95] but it turned out that the warheads did not in fact contain sarin gas but "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals"—and it transpired that the Poles had bought the shells for $5,000 each.[96] The United States abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.

en.wikipedia.org...

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."[97] Among the key findings of the final ISG report were:

en.wikipedia.org...

What did Bush say? He said that Saddam was building WMDs, but every bomb that was found, they were all pre-1991.

Bush said Saddam was with Osama bin Laden, helping the group, that there was a relationship with them. That was clearly proven to be false claim.

Bush said Saddam could attack the US within couple of days using WMDs, but from the evidence above, all WMDs were dismantled, they were old and useless, they never had any new WMDs, their were no factories building WMDs, there was absolutely no evidence, except for trashed WMDs:

The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had at this point cost $300 million and was projected to cost around $600 million more.

en.wikipedia.org...

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the U.S. military announced that it had found chemical weapons. All of these claims were based on field reports, and were later retracted. After the war, many cases – most notably on April 7, 2003 when several large drums tested positive – continued to be reported in the same way.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another such post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention,[citation needed] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present.[104] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran–Iraq War. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Iraqi Freedom documents refers to some 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon." At one 1996 presidential meeting, top weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid, describes his conversation with UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus: "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details." At another meeting Saddam told his deputies, "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."[111] U.S. Congressman Peter Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining documents on the Internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents.[112]

en.wikipedia.org...

In regards to your 500 weapons found in Iraq, using FOX news:

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

www.defense.gov...

They are old and useless.

In regards to Iraqis happy the US took down Saddam, that is kind of odd, because Iraqis kinda asked for help from US a long time ago, like the time when Kurds and Shias were being massacred? Remember that uprising against Saddam? Where was US back then>? Ohh shiz, that is when the US was backing Saddam, and it was the West who helped Saddam build those weapons of mass destruction.

Back then Saddam was a puppet of the US empire, that is why the US helped Saddam in every way, even when Saddam started bombing Iran with WMDs. It was the US which blocked the condemnation of Iraq in that unjustified war.

Then when Saddam changed, and didn't follow the US orders, that is when the US sanctioned Iraq, which cause the deaths of over a million Iraqi infants and then invaded Iraq, which cause the mess it is today with no functioning government etc..

So yes, people are happy that Saddam was taken down, but people are not stupid in to forgetting why.. Why did the US back Saddam when he was bombing killing Kurds and Shias + bombing Iran, which has cause over a million deaths? but when he stopped all of those murdering bigotery, the US took him down?

It is kind of awkward, they say if you got a dog which don't bite with the orders of the master, what is the use? You take that dog down and get another dog..

reply to post by space cadet


Those WMDs were all from prior to 1991, don't follow FOX news, they have an agenda, and don't trust anything they say without investigating it first:

A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 – 15 months after the technical report was written – said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.[88] "No one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMDs)." General Tommy Franks December 2, 2005

en.wikipedia.org...

On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed.[90]

en.wikipedia.org...

On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad. The Iraq Survey Group investigation reported that it had been previously "stored improperly", and thus the gas was "ineffective" as a useful chemical agent. Officials from the Defense Department commented that they were not certain if use was to be made of the device as a bomb.[92]

en.wikipedia.org...

In a July 2, 2004 article published by The Associated Press, and Fox News, reported that Sarin Gas warheads dating back to the last Iran–Iraq War were found in South Central Iraq by Polish Allies. The Polish troops secured munitions on June 23, 2004, [95] but it turned out that the warheads did not in fact contain sarin gas but "were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals"—and it transpired that the Poles had bought the shells for $5,000 each.[96] The United States abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005.

en.wikipedia.org...

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability."[97] Among the key findings of the final ISG report were:

en.wikipedia.org...

What did Bush say? He said that Saddam was building WMDs, but every bomb that was found, they were all pre-1991.

Bush said Saddam was with Osama bin Laden, helping the group, that there was a relationship with them. That was clearly proven to be false claim.

Bush said Saddam could attack the US within couple of days using WMDs, but from the evidence above, all WMDs were dismantled, they were old and useless, they never had any new WMDs, their were no factories building WMDs, there was absolutely no evidence, except for trashed WMDs:

The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had at this point cost $300 million and was projected to cost around $600 million more.

en.wikipedia.org...

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."

en.wikipedia.org...

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several reported finds of chemical weapons were announced. During the invasion itself, there were half a dozen incidents in which the U.S. military announced that it had found chemical weapons. All of these claims were based on field reports, and were later retracted. After the war, many cases – most notably on April 7, 2003 when several large drums tested positive – continued to be reported in the same way.

en.wikipedia.org...

Another such post-war case occurred on January 9, 2004, when Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120-mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained a blister agent, a chemical weapon banned by the Geneva Convention,[citation needed] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present.[104] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran–Iraq War. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Iraqi Freedom documents refers to some 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon." At one 1996 presidential meeting, top weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid, describes his conversation with UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus: "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details." At another meeting Saddam told his deputies, "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."[111] U.S. Congressman Peter Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining documents on the Internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents.[112]

en.wikipedia.org...

In regards to your 500 weapons found in Iraq, using FOX news:

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

www.defense.gov...

They are old and useless.

In regards to Iraqis happy the US took down Saddam, that is kind of odd, because Iraqis kinda asked for help from US a long time ago, like the time when Kurds and Shias were being massacred? Remember that uprising against Saddam? Where was US back then>? Ohh shiz, that is when the US was backing Saddam, and it was the West who helped Saddam build those weapons of mass destruction.

Back then Saddam was a puppet of the US empire, that is why the US helped Saddam in every way, even when Saddam started bombing Iran with WMDs. It was the US which blocked the condemnation of Iraq in that unjustified war.

Then when Saddam changed, and didn't follow the US orders, that is when the US sanctioned Iraq, which cause the deaths of over a million Iraqi infants and then invaded Iraq, which cause the mess it is today with no functioning government etc..

So yes, people are happy that Saddam was taken down, but people are not stupid in to forgetting why.. Why did the US back Saddam when he was bombing killing Kurds and Shias + bombing Iran, which has cause over a million deaths? but when he stopped all of those murdering bigotery, the US took him down?

It is kind of awkward, they say if you got a dog which don't bite with the orders of the master, what is the use? You take that dog down and get another dog..

nm

Originally posted by Thepreye
If you think about it it had to happen, loads of tough men in positions of trust, many from poor criminalised areas, poorly paid for the incredibly hard job they do, surrounded by a commodity worth a thousand times more, 2 years pay profit on every kg if secretly taken home and sold to an old school mate hmmm no brainer.

What are you trying to say, that this is secretly conducted by a few low-level bad apples? This is a large-scale black operation that funds CIA operations within the region.

Interesting tidbit.


Flood of Afghan heroin fuels drug plague in Russia

"The Russians have had opportunities to come to the table on this and to provide alternative options," the official said. "If this really was a priority for them, we could work something out."

In Russia, it's much easier to blame a U.S. conspiracy than to bring up the subject of corrupt officials, the Russian mafia and their involvement in the drug trade.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I dont consider myself naive slayer...

Just gotta wonder how them sneaky Russians are sneaking out tons of drugs from right under the US militaries 100000+ troops noses..You know, the US troops we see gaurding the poppy fields..

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I dont consider myself naive slayer...

Just gotta wonder how them sneaky Russians are sneaking out tons of drugs from right under the US militaries 100000+ troops noses..You know, the US troops we see gaurding the poppy fields..

Gee, maybe because the US is the one supplying drugs to Russian addicts? The Russian drug czar already brought this up with international media a few months back after heroin use in southern Russia increased by like 500% since the Americans invaded Afghanistan.

Ironically enough most of it is reported to be smuggled into Russia, via Georgia. After the South Ossetian conflict, it is obvious that Georgia is a complete pawn of American interests, one of which is to destabilize Russia via drug trade and supporting anti-Russian rebels and governments in the region.

Originally posted by gandhi
Half of the soldiers coming back from Afghan are addicted to heroin.

Really? Hadn't heard that myself.

Sure, some naughty ones *may* be smuggling drugs back. But I haven't heard any statements suggesting the UK soldiers were coming back from Afghan addicted to heroin, let alone half of them.

Care to share your links to this? I'm keen to read them.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

So how are the Russian Mobs getting these vast quantities out of Afghanistan if not with US military assistance..

I just dont see a Russian plane landing at a US airbase..

Mate, I was just answering Slay's post..

As my post above shows I think its thanks to Air America..

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by oozyism

 

In fact hundreds of WMD's were found in Iraq.

Come on, you can't be serious.

Straight from you own shady source...

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Thanks for spreading more propaganda. That's really what we need more of.

And Saddam's atrocities are no more:

The same Saddam that reached power with direct support from the US?

I feel sure that there are plenty of thankful persons for his passing.

There are also plenty people who are dead!!!!! But nice job justifying an illegal war. You and GW should be very proud.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I was just wondering how prevalent this is in the British army,and found this from 2006:

A newly-issued report highlights the scale of the drug-related dismissals that take place within the British Army each year. According to the Royal United Services Institute, 769 positive tests for drugs including heroin and ecstasy were recorded in 2006 - over 250 more than had taken place in 2003. Over the same three-year period, the number of tests where coc aine played a part increased four-fold.
A common outcome from a positive drug test is dishonourable discharge from the armed forces.

www.armedforces-int.com...

Although this is an interesting statistic, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of the soldiers and their location, as drugs use in general in the UK is on the rise, especially coc aine. Therefore it makes sense that UK soldier's drugs use should rise in line with other British citizens.

As for the previous claim that 50% of British soldiers are addicted to drugs, I'd like to see your evidence, as I have many friends in the Armed Forces and as far as I am aware, I only know one who even touches drugs, although most of them are pretty heavy drinkers, but who could blame them after what they go through?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
In Russia, it's much easier to blame a U.S. conspiracy than to bring up the subject of corrupt officials, the Russian mafia and their involvement in the drug trade.

Originally posted by CynicalM
I dont consider myself naive slayer...

Just gotta wonder how them sneaky Russians are sneaking out tons of drugs from right under the US militaries 100000+ troops noses..You know, the US troops we see gaurding the poppy fields..

You are both right!
The Obama Administration and Russia are working together!
It's that simple.

What you don't think so?
Think of the UN Security Council, both are permanent members, also check out who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and who are the largest arms dealers/buyers on the planet.

You might find the list to be interchangeable.

If both countries can work together on arms trafficking i'm sure they can do the same on drug trafficking.

Think about gangs, sometimes they have to work together with pacts so one doens't go into the other's territory.

This same type of thing went on during the Vietnam War. With all that illicit material around, it is only obvious soldiers would be tempted to taste the illicit fruit. Plus, there is money to be made from it. Most of the armed forces are under-paid for what they have to do in some of the harshest backwaters on the planet. It is naive to think that some would not partake in capitalizing off of it. Afghanistan seems like a smorgasbord for criminals such as arms smugglers, narcotics traffickers, corrupt bureaucrats, and organized crime. It is in confusion where criminals operate the most freely. We having seen it with organized crime during Prohibition and the Great Depression, and more recently with the criminality that took place in Iraq and during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It seems criminals function the best when there is a state of emergency, crisis, or conflict?

"When the cats away the mice will play." That adage has remained during the modern age of drugs and guns. Some call it warfare, but now it is nothing more than a capitalist venture and virtual atm machine. Perhaps, the resurgence of the Taliban to levels unseen since the war began can be attributed to the criminality taking place under the noses of bureaucrats in Washington and NATO Security Forces and the major cash crop which is the poppy. As Slayer69 has mentioned in his previous posts, Russians thugs are in the region and have a role in some of this.

Over the last few years, as the war in Afghanistan has intensified, there have been disturbing accounts surfacing in Badakshan of how Russian gangsters have been buying heroin which they then pay for directly in arms to Taliban officials at remote bazaars in the region.

One place, known as the Joint Bazaar, covering about 2000 square metres and surrounded by concrete walls, developed a reputation as something of a ‘clearing house’ in this arms-for-drugs trade. Here it’s said to be not uncommon for both sides to exchange a kilo of heroin for 15 Kalashnikovs, which are then moved to the battlefronts of Kandahar and Helmand where they are doubtless used in action against British and other ISAF soldiers.

www.heraldscotland.com...

Guns for drugs! Perhaps, they ought put a tariff or something on that illicit business ventures? Maybe there is? In criminal circles, I believe it is called a "Street Tax?" We know what happens after it though, drugs are in the streets of Western Europe and Russia and more security forces are killed by the Taliban. Moreover, we can only speculate what role the intelligence services are playing in all of this, but they may very well be profiting off of some this for their black op projects? They have done it in the past with Columbia and South East Asia. It would be naive to think that the mischief is not taking place in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Karzai government seems to be more like a crime syndicate than a legitimate government with aims of crushing the insurgency and finding viable alternatives for impoverished Afghans to make an honest buck?

The U.S. and its allies have in the past 18 months built an array of Afghan units to investigate and prosecute graft, providing everything from sophisticated wiretap technology to training in forensic accounting. Armed with those abilities and help from foreign mentors, the Afghan investigators have uncovered graft on a scale that has surprised even the most cynical Western officials, said people with knowledge of the efforts. That has created a new predicament: To pursue it all would mean "going after almost every senior member of the government," said another U.S. official.

online.wsj.com...

The article cited above points out that President Hamid Karzai is doing everything in his power to hinder Western Advisers from assisting Afghan investigators from rooting out corruption as well. Perhaps, the US gold boy may suffer a similar fate as another golden boy in, Ngo Diem, who succumbed to assassination by US backed thugs?



If Hamid continues to play around with bull he may get the horns? How can we be certain that in the corruption free-for-all, US taxpayers dollars are not finding its way into the hands of the insurgency and narcotics traffickers to buy military hardware for their efforts to keep Afghanistan a destabilized cesspool and money making enterprise? It is devolving into a disaster over there and the military is running around the country playing a game of cat and mouse, as the big wigs are fattening their pockets in all the chaos. The story of the British and Canadian soldiers being suspected of trafficking narcotics is only a tea leaf in regards to the big picture of what is taking place in Afghanistan. One thing is for certain, it looks to be just another nightmare to go along with others we have been made to deal with at present.

Originally posted by gandhi
Wow, just wow.

Use the soldiers to make your money, and if they get caught, they get the blame.

Total B.S.

Half of the soldiers coming back from Afghan are addicted to heroin.

edit on 12-9-2010 by gandhi because: (no reason given)

WATCH AMERICAN GANGSTER! You will be amazed of how things can go down. The product is worth more then GOLD PER OUNCE. The math is simple

Question many must ask is, IF THIS WAS OCCURING AND CERTAIN GOVZ. GET STRONG OFF IT WOULD "YOU" BE MADE IF YOUR COUNTRY WAS COMPETING AS WELL??????? BECAUSE IF THEY DIDNT YOUR COUNTRY FALLS BEHIND.

Russia suffers through terrorism and other hostile political/military actions every single day. They are a real country with real problems and they conduct real solutions. How the hell can people sit on here and suggest that the Russian government is involved in getting their own people addicted to heroin for profit? Pure idiocy.

This is a CIA operation. CIA has a official budget and a non-official one that is funded mostly by drug money, and has been operating like this for fifty years. This specific involvement in Russia has pissed the Russians off, even to the point where the Russians have told the Americans to do their job of destroying the heroin trade in Afghanistan, to which the Americans replied that they didn't care.

Don't you think it is suspicious that all this heroin is going through Georgia, a US puppet state that is obviously hostile towards Russia? But I guess we're talking about those fundelmentally corrupt Russians, right?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Don't you think it is suspicious that all this heroin is going through Georgia, a US puppet state that is obviously hostile towards Russia? But I guess we're talking about those fundelmentally corrupt Russians, right?

You may have a point to a certain extent, But to ignore the very long and proven history that Russia has with their heroin problem wont erase the fact that there is mass corruption in the Russian Government just like anywhere else in the world.

Don't you think it is suspicious that many here are in denial of that very real fact?