Sunday, April 3, 2011

Opium in Afghanistan



In an interview about the Harper government trolling the Internet, Alex Jone made a comment about opium in Afghanistan. The commentator asked him to get back on topic but I think we should visit what he said because I think it is significant since it applies to politics and organized crime.

Alex Jones claimed Fox news admitted "Yeah our troops helped grow the opium in Afghanistan and they helped ship it out but if we don't grow it the Taliban will get it and then they'll make the money off it." Sure enough, Alex Jones was right and Fox news did admit it. Hey, isn't Oliver North a Fox news corespondent? Isn't that ironic.

Soldiers ignore and encourage the farmers. "If the US burned their crops, farmers would blame the US for their poverty and turn toward the Taliban."

"If we secure them getting a good harvest, now they're gonna get paid for all their hard work and then we can deal with trafficking afterwards." That is the new US policy. After farmers get paid try to capture drug traffickers. These troops have confiscated ten thousand pounds of opium before the profit reached the Taliban.

So that would clearly imply that they are only busting opium rings that profit the Taliban or the competition not opium rings that profit them. Can you believe that. Garry Webb was right all along.



This would support Julie Couillard's claim that Maxime Bernier told her that “the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with building democracy in that country but has to do with the global control of the opium trade. It’s a drug war.”

4 comments:

  1. Geez, Agent K, sometimes I worry about you. On BC's gang-wars you're a right-on commentator. Once you get a lot further afield, one seems to run into factual or logical difficulties. Remember when you ventured into Irish IRA stuff, and made claims about the SAS? Those claims were not true, unfortunately. You've got a whole weird thing, that the CIA are the sole runners of cocaine into LA in the eighties, that I will carefully leave alone. (You never mention George Jung and the Medellin Cartel's role in LA coke, I note.)

    Now you're back to nailing the USA, a fave whipping boy of yours, for having only a drug-war in Afghanistan. Your quote, "It's a drug war." That is just so silly Agent K.


    The USA entered Afghanistan because forces there were responsible for a serious attack on the USA. The job there is to kill off the terrorists and to prevent their sponsors, the Taliban, from returning to power to do it all over again. Whether one agrees with how the war's fought is another issue. The US has tried crop eradication and it does not work. As usual, you have made whacko statements, this time about the USA actually growing opium and transporting it, that, as usual, you cannot back up with sources and links. You have a very bad habit of doing that all the time, as you did with the non-existent SAS story.

    Look, its a big world out there, and your readers just may have read more then you have. They may call you on your weird way of throwing out curveballs without any backup.

    If you keep doing it on your politics blog, you're going to run into turned-off readers, who will go somewhere that can source their wild claims. It ain't no "drug war" in the Afghan., wake up Agent K!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes I remember the claim I made about the SAS. I was right. I said in West Belfast, to them the term SAS meant stripped and shot which is what they would do to them once they got a hold of one. You insisted I provided a link to a news clipping and I did. In fact I’m pretty sure I was in Ireland at the time that mob dragged an undercover British Army officer from his vehicle during that funeral, beat him to a pulp, stripped him to his underwear then shot him dead. Thus the term Stripped and Shot.

    My beef isn’t specifically with the American military, it’s with any military dishonesty. Could be Canada, could be England, could be China or Russia. I’m glad you mentioned the reason “we” invaded Afghanistan. We were told that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack even though the CIA “confession” video didn’t even look like Bin Laden.

    Now we hear in the news that they have caught the 9/11 “mastermind” and guess what? His name is not Osama bin Laden it’s Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. So that means the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was a lie just like it was in the invasion of Iraq.

    Not only was the reason for the invasion a lie, now we see US troops protecting and helping harvest opium in Afghanistan so the Taliban won’t get the profit from it. That is absolutely absurd. That has nothing to do with 9/11. It is another case of the military being involved in drug trafficking which in my mind clearly falls within the realm of organized crime.

    The war in Afghanistan is for two purposes: Control of the opium and control of the Central Asian gas pipeline. It’s not just a drug war. It’s a war for oil too. I don’t care if the truth turns readers off. Hiding those facts and ignoring them would be adding and abetting a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And our newest reason, helping JP Morgan take Afghans gold...1 trillion they say..quite a number since statistically we only hold (IF 'audits' are correct) roughly 320 billion worth of gold.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, talk about your blood diamonds. The Pentagon estimates $1 trillion worth of gold. That sounds so … suspicious. What is the Pentagon doing estimating the gold deposits in a country it’s invading?

    ReplyDelete