Is the Iran thing also about Narco-Politics?

[SteveGrenard]

Is Iran helping to quash Afghanistan’s drug production/trade an indirect albeit definitive act of war against George W. Bush and allies who allowed and continue to allow this trade to proceed virtually unaffected by the presence of troops and weapons capable of wiping it out? At the beginning of our invasion of Afghanistan heroin was nowhere on the list of things to do. It was to take down Al Queda and the Taliban that supported it. The drug smugglers of the Northern Alliance were given a free pass by Bush in return for their acquiescence …. hence our easy invasion and take over of the country.

This also begs the question as to whether or not Iran’s war on Afghan narcotics a trade which Bush pledged to support, if only in secret, one of the reasons behind the Bush administration’s stance on Iran …. Along, of course, with the the nuclear ambitions of that country?

This story ran in the Arziona Star today:


http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/134110 (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/134110)



And lest anyone out there concludes that Bush and his allies in Afghanistan are trying to stem the Afghan heroin trade, then they should consider their conclusion based on the latest stats from that trade revealed in the Guaradian on June 13th:


British officials are bracing themselves for the result of an annual UN poppy survey due later this summer. Early indications show an increase on Helmand's 1999 record of 45,000 hectares (112,500 acres) and a near-doubling of last year's crop.

"It's going to be massive," said one British drugs official. "My guess is it's going to be the biggest ever." UN, American and Afghan officials agreed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1796590,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1796590,00.html)





Here is a recent brief analaysis that deals with the U.S. and British perspectives.




But officials say that given the political and security picture in the emerging democracy, it is better to leave the crop alone — for now.

The following are among the drawbacks of ending poppy cultivation:

•More than 80 percent of Afghans live in rural areas and a good portion of them live off poppy cultivation, especially in the south around Kandahar. There are no comparable crops that would bring in as much income.


The British, lead allies in counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan, attempted to persuade some farmers to grow the expensive spice saffron, but it never caught on. Afghanistan is the largest supplier of heroin for street sales in Britain.


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040601-123212-4071r.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040601-123212-4071r.htm)







An interesting historical account also appears here, scroll down to Afghanistan and heroin:

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=9077 (http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=9077)

[corplinx]

Did we invade Afghanistan to burn the poppy fields and end Afghan heroin?

[SteveGrenard]

Did we invade Afghanistan to burn the poppy fields and end Afghan heroin?

As stated in the OP we invaded to shut down AlQueda and its Taliban supporters. Part of that mission easily includes the heroin crop, cash funding from which helps to support AlQeuda/terrorist operations.

[TobiasTheViking]

As stated in the OP we invaded to shut down AlQueda and its Taliban supporters. Part of that mission easily includes the heroin crop, cash funding from which, helps to support AlQeuda/terrorist operations.
That is funny, considering that the taliban almost totally eradicated the heroin crops there, a long time before bush invaded.

Though now, of course, there is a lot of heroin production again. :D

[SteveGrenard]

That is funny, considering that the taliban almost totally eradicated the heroin crops there, a long time before bush invaded.

Though now, of course, there is a lot of heroin production again. :D

They did not totally eradicate the crop by any means. They were upset at the glut and low prices being obtained around this period so they choked off supply in order to raise the prices.

They are fully in support of it as it provides their principal source of income. In fact the Taliban doesn't leave home without a couple of pounds of opium.

I guess it is better than an American Express card over there:

http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5043351


Oh, yes .. welcome to Operation Mountain Thrust or Afghan War II.

[SteveGrenard]

That is funny, considering that the taliban almost totally eradicated the heroin crops there, a long time before bush invaded......

"UN Report Casts Doubt On Taliban Anti-Opium Efforts... The United Nations on May 25, 2001 issued an expert panel report on enforcing sanctions against the Taliban in Afghanistan. According to a news briefing from the Office of the Secretary-General ( "Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General"), the five member Committee of Experts, chaired by Ambassador Haile Menkerios of Eritrea, "said it considered it essential to look into the illicit drugs trade by the Taliban, and while noting that the Taliban had banned opium production, it also pointed to a sizeable stock of opium and heroin. The report says, 'If Taliban officials were sincere in stopping the production of opium and heroin, then one would expect them to order the destruction of all stocks existing in areas under their control.'"

"The Times of India reported on May 27, 2001 ( "UN Report Slams Taliban For Drugs, Pakistan For Terrorism") that the Committee of Experts "recommended setting up a new UN sanctions monitoring office based in Vienna which would employ specialists in illegal arms trafficking, drugs, money laundering and counter-terrorism." The Times story notes that 'The five-member panel has questioned the sincerity of the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar in banning cultivation of poppy last July. It says the Taliban was stockpiling drugs and it has halted production only to keep opium and heroin prices from plummeting.'" --

http://www.bushwatch.com/drugs.htm

[TobiasTheViking]

Guess i was wrong. :D hm, i should really shut my mouth when i haven't double and/or tripple checked what i'm going to say.

[corplinx]

This also begs the question as to whether or not Iran’s war on Afghan narcotics a trade which Bush pledged to support, if only in secret, one of the reasons behind the Bush administration’s stance on Iran

If the Iran "thing" is related to narco-politics, when did it become so? The overthrow of the Shah, hostage crisis, Iranian intervention in the doom that came to Lebanon, Iranian sponsorship of terrorism?

How much of a consumer of opiates is Iran and would a touch crackdown on afghan opiates have any real effect?

This is all very thin.

[SteveGrenard]

If the Iran "thing" is related to narco-politics, when did it become so? The overthrow of the Shah, hostage crisis, Iranian intervention in the doom that came to Lebanon, Iranian sponsorship of terrorism?

How much of a consumer of opiates is Iran and would a touch crackdown on afghan opiates have any real effect?

This is all very thin.

Bush has not lifted a finger to combat the Afghan drug trade. He has not answered a single question at a press conference on the subject except to defer same to someone else. We have not used any of our forces or comitted any of our troops in Afghanistan to this but the British have and then have mysteriously stopped.

The British tried to interest farmers in even more valuable alternative crops such as saffron and then stopped when they realized that since saffron was legal the drug lords with whom they have alliances would be cut out of the picture as their services to smuggle saffron would not be required.

On the other hand Iran allegedly has lost thousands of its troops fighting the drug lords trying to smuggle opiates over its borders.

I don't think Iran has much of a heroin problem. Iran may be using the drug/war lords who operate with U.S. non-interference perhaps even proection at some points in the past as proxies.

This probably started when Bush made a deal with the drug smuggling northern alliance at the beginning of the Afghan invasion 4 years ago.

Long after the downfall of the shah, the hostage crisis and whatever state sponsored terrorism you allege but do not give references for. Do you have any? I have tried to provide references above for each allegation.

One on that level deserves a reliable source.

On the other hand you cannot blame Iran for wanting to keep Afghan heroin out of their country but if they can deal a blow to Bush's unholy alliance at the same time it is that much more attractive to them and who, on the world stage, could object?

[corplinx]

Long after the downfall of the shah, the hostage crisis and whatever state sponsored terrorism you allege but do not give references for. Do you have any? I have tried to provide references above for each allegation.

One on that level deserves a reliable source.



Ohhhhhhhh, your just a kook with an axe to grind. I'm sorry, I thought you were seriously asking.

Edited to add: If you seriously have no idea what happened in Lebanon and how Hezbollah came to be formed then you probably need to to dig deeper before commenting on Iranian-American relations.

[SteveGrenard]

Ohhhhhhhh, your just a kook with an axe to grind. I'm sorry, I thought you were seriously asking.

Edited to add: If you seriously have no idea what happened in Lebanon and how Hezbollah came to be formed then you probably need to to dig deeper before commenting on Iranian-American relations.

I am seriously asking if the President of Iran has spent the last four years and thousands of troop deaths going after goddamn Afghani drug smugglers because these drug smugglers operate with the complicity and agreement of the President of the U.S.? Or is it just because he likes to needle GWB? Well we know he likes to do this. Or does he really want to keep the drugs from transiting through his country? What Lebanon or Hezbollah have to do with this I have no idea but its you throwing out the actions of Iran from years ago that have nothing to do with the current government there or these questions. Please explain how Lebanon and Hezbollah are involved in the Afghan drug trade and Iran's interdiction of their smuggling. If you want to play the history card, why not go back to 1949 then?

I think the President of Iran will fold on his nuke program, continue to exercise his argument that since the Nazis, not the Palestinians, made millions of European jews homeless (by robbing and imprisoning them) then Germany and the rest of Europe should provide for them and he will continue killing Afghani drug smugglers because they operate with the unspoken but tacit agreement of the U.S.





Edited to add: The refs I found state Hezbollah is backed by Syria and Iran and most of the Moslem world even though in Lebaonon Syrian terrorist operations seem to hold far greater sway than any such attempts by the non-Arab state of Iran. Whatever. Clearly this has nothing to do with the issue I brought up but thanks for attempting to derail.

[Pardalis]

This also begs the question as to whether or not Iran’s war on Afghan narcotics a trade which Bush pledged to support, if only in secret, one of the reasons behind the Bush administration’s stance on Iran …. Along, of course, with the the nuclear ambitions of that country?

Now come on, after 2000 + posts, you should know better.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

[Pardalis]

Bush has not lifted a finger to combat the Afghan drug trade. He has not answered a single question at a press conference on the subject except to defer same to someone else. We have not used any of our forces or comitted any of our troops in Afghanistan to this but the British have and then have mysteriously stopped.

I think Bush has alot of other worries, and a war on drugs on top of the war on terror would be too costly.

I don't think Iran has much of a heroin problem. Iran may be using the drug/war lords who operate with U.S. non-interference perhaps even proection at some points in the past as proxies.

Not sure I understand what you meant, but Iran has a big heroin problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm

This probably started when Bush made a deal with the drug smuggling northern alliance at the beginning of the Afghan invasion 4 years ago.

Do you have a direct evidence to that?

On the other hand you cannot blame Iran for wanting to keep Afghan heroin out of their country but if they can deal a blow to Bush's unholy alliance at the same time it is that much more attractive to them and who, on the world stage, could object?

Of course. But are you saying Iran is using their efforts against heroin as some kind of leverage against the US?

[Pardalis]

I am seriously asking if the President of Iran has spent the last four years and thousands of troop deaths going after goddamn Afghani drug smugglers because these drug smugglers operate with the complicity and agreement of the President of the U.S.?

I understand the question, but do you have any evidence that supports your claim that Bush has such an agreement with the Afghan drug lords?

What Lebanon or Hezbollah have to do with this I have no idea but its you throwing out the actions of Iran from years ago that have nothing to do with the current government there or these questions.

There is some speculation that today's Iranian president was involved in the 1979 hostage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.27s_allege d_involvement


Please explain how Lebanon and Hezbollah are involved in the Afghan drug trade and Iran's interdiction of their smuggling.

Please provide proof that the Bush administration is tied to the Afghan drug lords.

I think the President of Iran will fold on his nuke program, continue to exercise his argument that since the Nazis, not the Palestinians, made millions of European jews homeless (by robbing and imprisoning them) then Germany and the rest of Europe should provide for them and he will continue killing Afghani drug smugglers because they operate with the unspoken but tacit agreement of the U.S.

Now who is playing the history card here? What does nazi Germany have anything to do with the heroin crisis in the world today? Besides, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "argument" is falling on deaf ears anyway. Again, please provide evidence of US "unspoken tacit agreement" with Afghan drug lords.

[Jocko]

Is Iran helping to quash Afghanistan’s drug production/trade an indirect albeit definitive act of war against George W. Bush and allies who allowed and continue to allow this trade to proceed virtually unaffected by the presence of troops and weapons capable of wiping it out? At the beginning of our invasion of Afghanistan heroin was nowhere on the list of things to do. It was to take down Al Queda and the Taliban that supported it. The drug smugglers of the Northern Alliance were given a free pass by Bush in return for their acquiescence …. hence our easy invasion and take over of the country.

...Blah, blah, blah...


Omelette.
Eggs.

Supply the verbs and you have your answer.

Oh, and lose the font. It's pretentious.

[SteveGrenard]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/27/MN229057.DTL

[Pardalis]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/27/MN229057.DTL

What's this supposed to prove?

[Jocko]

What's this supposed to prove?

It proves how difficult it is to find pristine, virgin saints to ally with in that (any!) party of the world. It also demonstrates another silly and arbitrary threshold for American action, one that I am glad the current leadership dismisses without comment.

[SteveGrenard]

It proves how difficult it is to find pristine, virgin saints to ally with in that (any!) party of the world. It also demonstrates another silly and arbitrary threshold for American action, one that I am glad the current leadership dismisses without comment.

At the risk of placing this back on the rails then, what is the feeling regarding Iran's action against its non-pristine allies? Is it an attack by proxy against the U.S.? e.g. attacking our allies is attacking us or is it
truly Iran's objective to prevent Afghani heroin from entering their country in light of the un-referenced statement above that Iran has a big drug problem?

[Pardalis]

truly Iran's objective to prevent Afghani heroin from entering their country in light of the un-referenced statement above that Iran has a big drug problem?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ld/3791889.stm

[Pardalis]

Is it an attack by proxy against the U.S.? e.g. attacking our allies is attacking us or is it truly Iran's objective to prevent Afghani heroin from entering their country in light of the un-referenced statement above that Iran has a big drug problem?

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Can you rephrase that please?

[Jocko]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Can you rephrase that please?

Yeah, what he/she said. Hard to tell with that ninja hood.

[SteveGrenard]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ld/3791889.stm

Still unreferenced. This is what I get back for this link:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/error/img/bbc_news_sport.gif
404 - Page Not Found

[Pardalis]

try this one

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2031624.stm

[Pardalis]

btw, Steve, you still haven't provided any evidence of the Bush administration's ties with Afghan drug lords.

[brodski]

btw, Steve, you still haven't provided any evidence of the Bush administration's ties with Afghan drug lords.
is this a credible enough source for you http://www.wkjo.com/ :p

[SteveGrenard]

btw, Steve, you still haven't provided any evidence of the Bush administration's ties with Afghan drug lords.




The New Yorker: Fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact) The turmoil in Afghanistan has become a political issue for the Bush ... “Everybody knows that the US military has the drug lords on the payroll. ...
www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact - 81k - Cached (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:N0YviP-VXUkJ:www.newyorker.com/fact/content/%3F040412fa_fact+bush+and+drug+lords+in+Afghanista n&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=related:www.newyorker.com/fact/content/%3F040412fa_fact)


The New York Times > International > Asia Pacific > Afghan Poppy ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/19/international/asia/19afghanistan.html?ex=1258606800&%2338;en=621adc9332929eb9&%2338;ei=5088&) Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the source of most of the opium and heroin on ... His administration has included known drug lords, and many of his ...
www.nytimes.com/.../19afghanistan.html?ex=1258606800& %2338;en=621adc9332929eb9&%2338;ei=5088& - Similar pages (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=related:www.nytimes.com/2004/11/19/international/asia/19afghanistan.html%3Fex%3D1258606800%26%252338%3Be n%3D621adc9332929eb9%26%252338%3Bei%3D5088%26)

If you didn't like the St Louis Post Despatch article in the SF Chrionicle, here is the NY Times and The New Yorker weighing in on the subject. We both know the ties are unofficial and even unspoken so you can stop asking me for the treaty.

The hypothesis and that is what it is based on numerous factors including the relative freedom with which the Northern Alliance, our allies, continue to smuggle drugs, the bumper crop of poppies this year and the hands-off attitude of American forces even to the chagrin of a former head of the DEA who lost his job and got kicked over to Homeland Security
and then dissapeared from public view.



Back to my question. Opinions on the question would be appreciated or how else am I going to finish my book on the subject?

[Pardalis]

The New Yorker: Fact The turmoil in Afghanistan has become a political issue for the Bush ... “Everybody knows that the US military has the drug lords on the payroll. ....

here is the complete paragraph from the first link:

Despite such statistics, the American military has, for the most part, looked the other way, essentially because of the belief that the warlords can deliver the Taliban and Al Qaeda. One senior N.G.O. official told me, “Everybody knows that the U.S. military has the drug lords on the payroll. We’ve put them back in power. It’s gone so terribly wrong.” (The Pentagon’s Joseph Collins told me, “Counter-narcotics in Afghanistan has been a failure.” Collins said that this year’s crop was estimated to be the second largest on record. He added, however, that the Afghan government is planning to “redouble” its efforts on narcotics control, and that the Pentagon is “now putting more money into it for the first time”—seventy-three million dollars.)

Emphasis mine

[Jocko]

If you didn't like the St Louis Post Despatch article in the SF Chrionicle, here is the NY Times and The New Yorker weighing in on the subject. We both know the ties are unofficial and even unspoken so you can stop asking me for the treaty.

The hypothesis and that is what it is based on numerous factors including the relative freedom with which the Northern Alliance, our allies, continue to smuggle drugs, the bumper crop of poppies this year and the hands-off attitude of American forces even to the chagrin of a former head of the DEA who lost his job and got kicked over to Homeland Security
and then dissapeared from public view.



Back to my question. Opinions on the question would be appreciated or how else am I going to finish my book on the subject?

No one's saying local drug lords aren't involved. Just like the cops pay snitches who escape prosecution because there's a larger reason in play. It's fairly obvious unless you're suggesting that increased poppy production was a deliberate, desired outcome of the invasion. Is that what you mean?

If not, I return to:
Omelettes.
Eggs.

[Pardalis]

The New York Times > International > Asia Pacific > Afghan Poppy ... Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the source of most of the opium and heroin on ... His administration has included known drug lords, and many of his ...


They are talking about the Karzai administration, not the Bush Administration.

Still no proof of US involvement with Afghan drug lords.

[Pardalis]

If you didn't like the St Louis Post Despatch article in the SF Chrionicle, here is the NY Times and The New Yorker weighing in on the subject. We both know the ties are unofficial and even unspoken so you can stop asking me for the treaty.

Speculation is not evidence. You can speculate all you want.

Back to my question. Opinions on the question would be appreciated or how else am I going to finish my book on the subject?

What is the subject of your book, exactly?

ETA: I hope the title of your book will be better than : "Is the Iran thing also about Narco-Politics?"

[SteveGrenard]

I marvel at the fact you don't consider the evidence proof ..... the alliance with the northern alliance, the bumper crop of heroin, the hands off the flowers directive given to our troops, the demotion of the head of the DEA who was an outspoken critic of the Afghan heroin operations from day one in October 2001. Hutchinson was booted from his post at the DEA after this:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/dea_001.htm

fortunately preserved by Yale University's lawweb. Hutchinson's presence at the DEA has since all but been expunged from the DEA's website insofar as I can research their site.

I don't doubt the military is NOW going to spend $73 million on anti-heroin operations in Afghanistan even though this is a day late and probably a dollar short.

The book is about the irony of a trade that not only enriches criminal organizations outside Afghanistan but funds terrorist groups includingAlQueda and the Taliban of which there is abundent evidence. This was the finding of a deposed head of the DEA. And the further irony that the only one having the balls to do anything about it on a military scale is no less than one half of the axis of evil, the Iranians.

The administration embarked on a "war" in Afghanistan which was and is ultimately seemingly self-defeating since by their non-action on the drug trade and their alliances with the smugglers (e.g. see Northern Alliance refs all over the net) they funded the operations that are killing our troops in Iraq, funded terrorist attacks on the London underground and the Spanish railroad, bombings at resorts in Indonesia and last week the revelation of an aborted plot to cyanide gas the New York City subway. In short we are funding our enemies. It is obvious GW did not have the foresight to see this result because I am sure if he did he would not have given the drug lords and poppy farmers a free pass. I guess his only excuse is "We made mistakes." This is another one.

[Pardalis]

I marvel at the fact you don't consider the evidence proof ..... the alliance with the northern alliance, the bumper crop of heroin, the hands off the flowers directive given to our troops, the demotion of the head of the DEA who was an outspoken critic of the Afghan heroin operations from day one in October 2001.

I don't see any direct proof of US involvment in heroin trafficking in all of what you said. I see conjecture, speculation and interpretation.


Hutchinson was booted from his post at the DEA after this:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/dea_001.htm

I believe he is talking about the Taliban, in that link. He never refers to the Northern Alliance as drug smugglers. Maybe you could point to me where it is said?

I don't doubt the military is NOW going to spend $73 million on anti-heroin operations in Afghanistan even though this is a day late and probably a dollar short.

So they are doing something about it.

The book is about the irony of a trade that not only enriches criminal organizations outside Afghanistan but funds terrorist groups includingAlQueda and the Taliban of which there is abundent evidence. This was the finding of a deposed head of the DEA. And the further irony that the only one having the balls to do anything about it on a military scale is no less than one half of the axis of evil, the Iranians.

This only shows that heroin trafficking is a world wide problem.

they funded the operations that are killing our troops in Iraq, funded terrorist attacks on the London underground and the Spanish railroad, bombings at resorts in Indonesia and last week the revelation of an aborted plot to cyanide gas the New York City subway.

Your claim:

Heroin traffic is a major world problem. Alot of it originates from Afghanistan. The US invaded Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban, who funded Al Qaeda. To eradicate them, The US had to strategically ally themselves with the Northern Alliance. Therefore, the US is funding Al Qaeda.

Am I getting this right?

Isn't this circular logic?

[Pardalis]

Besides, even if the US did help financially the Afghan Mujahideen in the '80's against the USSR, you can't blame the US today for funding Al Qaeda. They obviously cut ties to the Taliban after 9/11. The money trail ended there.

[SteveGrenard]

Am I getting this right?

Isn't this circular logic?

Yes you are. There are multiple sets of opposing bad guys just like in the rest of the crime world outside of Afghanistan and that region.

Yes it is circular logic when they are all suddenly spun around or in relation to a U.S. invasion spurred by 9/11.

Whoever said this had to fit any logical norm?

[CapelDodger]

They did not totally eradicate the crop by any means. They were upset at the glut and low prices being obtained around this period so they choked off supply in order to raise the prices.

This was only a short while back, it's hardly even history, and those of us who kept watching Afghanistan after it stopped being a Cold War issue were well aware of it at the time. Those whose attention only snapped back to Afghanistan after 9/11 are not so aware.

Germane to this dicussion is the way the Taliban seized power. They didn't do it by defeating local warlords, they did it by buying them. The warlords were left with just as much autonomy as they'd had, more Pakistani money and weapons, and no restrictions on the drug-trade. The Taliban regime couldn't have imposed a halt to production. It was imposed because the drug-lords had already decided that it would be - their warehouses were bulging. Given such a benign environment they'd over-produced.

[Pardalis]

These are the elements you are bringing forth:

The war on terrorism
the Afghan Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban
Al Qaeda’s drug money
Iran’s fight against heroin trafficking
the US and Iran’s tense relations


It seems to me that you are corrolating all these things to one cause, the US. It is true that these are inter-related, and that the US has something to do with all of them, but it isn’t necesserally implicitely the cause of evertything. That is what bothers me, why I think you are jumping to conclusions.

What you are claiming isn't without merit, but here is what I dislike about your assumptions:

Al Qaeda and drug money:

The Afghan Northern Alliance has taken over the country’s drug production and distribution after the Taliban’s departure. The US wants to keep the Taliban out of power and to establish some kind of stability to Afghanistan, and to do so, it has to turn a blind eye to the Northern Alliance’ drug dealings. Al Qaeda was funded by the Taliban, and continues to be funded by drug money. Therefore, the US has funded Al Qaeda’s attacks in Iraq, Spain and Indonesia.

You see how arbitrary the last statement is?


US and Iran relations intensifying:

Iran and the US are in dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is actively fighting the traffic of heroin at its borders, wich is coming mostly from Afghanistan. The US is alledgedly turning a blind eye to the Northern Alliance drug dealings. Therefore the US is responsible for Iran’s increasingly arrogant behaviour against the US.

I might be wrong, but this sounds to me like “Correlation implies causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)”

[SteveGrenard]

pardalis:US and Iran relations intensifying:

Iran and the US are in dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is actively fighting the traffic of heroin at its borders, wich is coming mostly from Afghanistan. The US is alledgedly turning a blind eye to the Northern Alliance drug dealings. Therefore the US is responsible for Iran’s increasingly arrogant behaviour against the US.

I might be wrong, but this sounds to me like “Correlation implies causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)”


Thank you for your analysis of this convoluted situation. I am familiar with the logical fallacy but like many a fallacy it is not a "law." Correlation should not necessarily imply causation but this does not mean that it always does not do so.

Thank you again for studying and commenting on this sequence of events.

[Pardalis]

I guess your right, but your original post seemed like you were pointing the finger at the US, regardless of any real proof of direct involvement in Afghan drug dealings. To me, it's too easy, the US is an easy target and some people will accuse them for every damn thing that's going on wrong in the world, like if the world didn't exist beyond the US influence.

[SteveGrenard]

Ignoring them and allowing the drug smugglers to operate with impunity is involvement which:

1. ...funds terrorism.

2. ...enriches criminal gangs.

[SteveGrenard]

Ignoring them and allowing the drug smugglers to operate with impunity is involvement which:

1. ...funds terrorism.

2. ...enriches criminal gangs.

Clearly too it correlates well with the following from a new thread on this topic:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies," Cheney told Americans just after 9/11. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the "dark side."

[Pardalis]

Clearly too it correlates well with the following from a new thread on this topic:

Clearly you haven't read the link you posted. Afghan drug lords are never once mentioned. It's a debate concerning what cheney meant by "the dark side".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/darkside.html

Clearly, you are giving it your own interpretation and corrolating it to what you are have brought to this thread.

I still see no evidence of direct corrolation/causation between the US-Northern Alliance "alliance" and Al Qaeda's operations, or Iran's arrogant behaviour.

[SteveGrenard]

Clearly you haven't read the link you posted. Afghan drug lords are never once mentioned. It's a debate concerning what cheney meant by "the dark side".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/darkside.html

Clearly, you are giving it your own interpretation and corrolating it to what you are have brought to this thread.

I still see no evidence of direct corrolation/causation between the US-Northern Alliance "alliance" and Al Qaeda's operations, or Iran's arrogant behaviour.

Absolutely. Sorry you don't see the evidence but yes, I am correlating Cheney's recent reference to working on the dark side with working with criminal elements such as drug lords and drug smuggling organizations.
There may be others.

We did this in SE Asia during Viet Nam but as history reveals it wasn't a successful strategy.