Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard says Mexico would not tolerate any move that violates the country's sovereignty.
US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States wants to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups for their role in trafficking narcotics and people, prompting a speedy request for talks by Mexico.
"They will be designated ... I have been working on that for the last 90 days. You know, designation is not that easy, you have to go through a process, and we are well into that process," Trump said in an interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that aired on Tuesday.
Soon afterwards, Mexico's Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying it would quickly seek a high-level meeting with US State Department officials to address the legal designation, as well as the flow of arms and money from the US to organised crime in Mexico.
"The foreign minister will establish contact with his counterpart, Michael R. Pompeo, in order to discuss this very important issue for the bilateral agenda," the ministry said.
Once a particular group is designated as a terrorist organisation, it is illegal under US law for people in the United States to knowingly offer support.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 29 2019, @01:50PM (41 children)
Words have meanings, asshole. I appreciate not liking violent gangs but get the authority from Congress like you're supposed to instead of trying to end run the law with bullshit classification tricks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @02:11PM (37 children)
I came here to say much the same thing - although perhaps not quite so eloquently.
The definition of terrorist has a world wide agreement - it does not apply to criminals from Mexico or anywhere else for that matter. Many countries have obligations regarding how terrorists are engaged and (hopefully) defeated which will not be recognised by this US definition of 'somebody who commits a crime that the US Govt wants to punish'.
Remember the story of the boy who cried 'wolf'? Is this the war on terrorism that the US wanted the whole world to support? Dilute the meaning of the word and you will also dilute the amount of support that others will be prepared to offer the US in support against all forms of terrorism. What will Trump be proposing next - airstrikes (as in Afghanistan)? Military intervention? Moving a fleet to sit off the Mexican coast?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday November 29 2019, @02:43PM (11 children)
Absolutely not. Everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else in Syria. There is no agreement. Even inside the US, the politicians can't agree on who is or isn't a terrorist, turning the whole thing into a partisan battle of talking points.
That would not be justifiable or productive, but then it never is. Whether the military-industrial-complex or the spooks or the corporate media decide to promote that idea this time, as they have at other times, remains to be seen.
(Score: 4, Touché) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @02:57PM (10 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday November 29 2019, @04:34PM (9 children)
The definition used by most people is interesting: Without a specific exclusion of national militaries, what the national militaries do and what terrorists do are often indistinguishable. For example, the US can and does routinely attack civilian infrastructure in an effort to create political change.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by shortscreen on Friday November 29 2019, @04:39PM (1 child)
The US also designated Iranian military (among others) as terrorists.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday December 02 2019, @09:11PM
I'm also fairly certain that the Iranians label the US military as terrorists half the time too.
*sips coffee*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @07:06PM (6 children)
I think there's a major difference. It looks like some guy just went full Aloha Snackbar on the London Bridge. What was his big picture goal? There probably was none. Instead, he likely felt he was going to get his 72 virgins and 80,000 servants by dying in Jihad against the infidels. He even had a fake suicide vest on, probably to try to ensure he wouldn't be taken alive.
By contrast a military attack on London would involve a clear purpose and come from an identifiable source that could be counter-attacked in a similar fashion. Were either side to beat the other's forces into submission, there would likely be a formal agreement of surrender, a termination of hostilities, and a renormalization of relations over time. This conflict may involve substantial, and intentional, civilian casualties but there would be purpose, source, and the ability to win or lose. By contrast again it's not like terror attacks would ever end in London regardless of what they did. Hell even if the entire country converted to Islam they'd still continue because of Sunni:Shia conflicts.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 29 2019, @09:17PM (4 children)
You've pointed out differences, but it's a gradient along several different dimensions. And whether it's legitimate to call someone a terrorist in the older sense of the word depends on their motives, which are unobservables. The classic sense is "we are intentionally using the threat of violence to intentionally coerce some group of others to do as we wish". So a lone actor exerting violence in a way to get himself killed cannot be a terrorist. He could only be one if acting in concert with a larger group that benefited from his actions. That he might believe he was a terrorist would actually be irrelevant.
That definition is nearly useless because it's full of unobservables, but it's what classic terrorism is. Moshe Dayan was a terrorist in that sense, and admitted it (I haven't read source material, so possibly he bragged about it).
There is nothing in that definition that excludes police and military from being terrorists. In fact, it's usually easier to determine that military and police are being terrorists, because they often admit it...or rather admit qualifying under that definition, though they'll generally refuse to accept that the word applies to them. But "protection racket" is a version of terrorist under that definition. Whether the actions are under the cloak of government is irrelevant.
But, of course, that's not the way the laws are written. I see nothing invalid in calling the Mexican drug cartels terrorists, but I haven't been paying attention. Perhaps they don't use the threat of force to achieve desired ends. (Now guess which way I'd bet.)
Popular usage, however, seems to be "people I don't like who are associated with violence in the news reports, and aren't governmental employees". And I find using it that way an abuse of the language, that I acknowledge I don't have the power to stop. Also it makes the term rather useless.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 29 2019, @11:10PM (3 children)
Maybe Trump knows something the rest of us don't and is trying to send somebody a message.
Cartels are global criminal enterprises as they are standing armies, and what people don't think of is that it's possible Trump is referring to cartel activities inside the states rather than Mexico. The underworld of Orthodox Judaism and China are working together to fatten the cartels' pockets and attempt to destabilize America through the trafficking of Chinese fentanyl and carfentanyl in addition to the destabilizing American culture and sowing division behind the curtain. It's also no coincidence that both modern Jews and China seek to enrich themselves by destabilizing America though third-world immigration as is happening in Europe (China is less-involved here, but make no mistake, they are quite pleased to see the effects of third-world filth on American culture and politics). China and Israel both are known for playing the long-game when it comes to their strategic interests.
And with AMLO handing back El Chapo's son after capture, he has basically admitted to the world that the cartels are the Mexican government. With all the dollars flowing into the cartel, it would make sense that they already have bought off or blackmailed American politicians into doing their bidding. Remember, HSBC, with Comey in charge at the time, was busted brazenly laundering cartel money. And with Israel receiving all NSA data unredacted, it's very possible that they could blackmail politicians through cartel contacts and paramilitary intelligence organizations such as Black Cube.
With all the cartel sleepers, gophers, and halcones residing in the United States it is very likely that the fifth-column may be activated within the U.S. and with violent results. Remember, these guys are way worse than ISIS and they're openly running around our Southern Border towns like they own the place. The Jewish fifth-column has probably anticipated the downfall of America and is working with China to subvert America, their objective is to suck America dry and then move onto a new host, perhaps in Asia or Africa.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 29 2019, @11:12PM
Whoops, forgot one other thing: El Chapo's wife showing up to court wearing a Star of David Necklace. [nypost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:26AM
"Maybe Trump knows something the rest of us don't and is trying to send somebody a message."
Or maybe--just perhaps--Trump is a dumbass who likes to shoot from the lip.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 30 2019, @06:43PM
Just about all of what you've mentioned has more to do with conspiracy than with terrorism. This doesn't mean I think they aren't terrorists, it means I think you're using a lousy definition. (It's a guess, because you haven't supplied one.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 02 2019, @11:33PM
If the man who attacked random people on London bridge had no political agenda, then he isn't a terrorist, he's a madman, because a political agenda is part of most definitions of terrorism.
If he acted on his own, without any support, then there was an identifiable source, and that source was counter-attacked by being shot and killed. If he acted with help, then the police will presumably attempt to identify that help over the course of their investigation (since no group has claimed responsibility), and that can prompt further police or military actions.
As for terror attacks ending, no, I don't expect it, because there's always somebody angry at somebody. But it's also not like government actions can't make a huge difference in the frequency of attempted terrorist attacks, how often those attempts succeed, and how much damage they do. This is all something the Brits know very well, because the UK was routinely targeted for IRA terrorist attacks throughout the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, while nowadays IRA attacks are extremely rare.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday November 29 2019, @02:43PM (9 children)
So the 9/11 hijackers weren't terrorists because they committed crimes? You can be a terrorist and a criminal at the same time. Killing Mormons to send a political message is terrorism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @03:01PM
You picked one phrase out of context - congratulations.
I actually went on to say "somebody who commits a crime that the US Govt wants to punish" does not make them a terrorist. Committing a crime does not make you or I a terrorist. Terrorism is a crime itself, so all terrorists are criminals, but that doesn't make the converse true. Trump wants you to believe that it does.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday November 29 2019, @05:40PM (7 children)
Serious question here... what if people kill Mormons just because they don't like Mormons? Are they terrorists?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 29 2019, @06:28PM (5 children)
No, that would be hate crimes, not terrorism.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 29 2019, @10:56PM (1 child)
What if the intent is to scare Mormons to move away?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:16AM
That depends on if it's just Mormons or if it is anyone except for them. Why they want that comes in to play as well.
If it is specifically Mormons (as opposed to just happening to be Mormons), then still a hate crime.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday November 30 2019, @12:11AM (2 children)
Isn't any crime where someone assaults a person (physically or mentally) a hate crime?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:13AM (1 child)
Not really. Many such crimes are motivated by wanting something you have and enabled by a complete disregard for anyone but themselves, no hate involved.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:30PM
"hate crime" is stupid bullshit and anyone who accepts this "thought crime adder" is a retarded slave and an enemy of freedom.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 29 2019, @09:22PM
Ask a lawyer. The laws are intentional obscure.
OTOH, my view is if they kill Mormons to convince other Mormons to stay away then they are terrorists. But note that motivation is important in that definition, so if it was just because they hated Mormons, and perhaps even wanted more Mormons to visit so they could kill them too, then they weren't terrorists.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday November 29 2019, @02:50PM (1 child)
Mexican drug cartels are not terrorists. They always collaborated with CIA obediently, helped money flow. Where else could they get the best (and heavy) weapons? Technically, they are like Contras. Permanently undermining the Mexican government is their main strategic role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair [wikipedia.org]
On the other side, it is the US who is increasingly perceived as a terrorist state. Diluting or shifting the meaning of terrorism to different definition of the word is instrumental distraction necessary for continuation of other operations.
Actually, I expect paradoxical solution to the problem: US will send military advisors to those terrorists just to make sure the Mexican government could not get the upper hand.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 29 2019, @09:26PM
Sorry, but supporting the CIA does not mean that you are not a terrorist. Except possibly in a legal sense.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:53PM (1 child)
Moving a fleet to sit off the Mexican coast?
Yes you obviously not following military news or else you would know this is happening.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @06:35PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @05:43PM (9 children)
While I agree things like drugs/human smuggling, intercartel warfare, and the usual criminal activity shouldn't be considered terrorism, there's plenty out there that would be considered terrorism such as attacks [wikipedia.org] on public spaces, mass extortion [npr.org], executing dozens of journalists [wikipedia.org] and several massacres [wikipedia.org], etc. This goes well beyond normal criminal activity into the very areas that terrorism is supposed to cover - paramilitary attacks on civilian targets.
There are a couple of problems here. First, who is doing what? Just because someone threw grenades into a crowd or murdered almost 200 people doesn't mean everyone is a terrorist. Second, what's the consequences of that declaration? I agree that this may well be an attempt for the US to enter some sort of military conflict in Mexico.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @05:57PM
Actually I think the intent might be to ship all of MS13 and their lookalikes to Gitmo.
But I agree, criminal organisations in Mexico have a long, long history in trying their luck at the political level through violence. Just ask Pancho, he'll back me up on this one.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 29 2019, @11:11PM (7 children)
The US did use military against drug lords in Bolivia and such and that was the main reason business moved to Mexico anyway. Doing the same in Mexico, right or wrong, seems a logical thing to me. In fact it is probably unavoidable.
There is other dimension to this that most people don't realize. I drove through this part of the country and some Mexicans actually want California back. To my question how exactly they plan to defeat the US army, they reply that the US solders on the ground are mostly Mexicans and would support the cause.
Yes, I do realize how a long shot that is. What I am trying to say that drug dealers armies have way more that simply profit working for them. There is hate and revenge at work as well - the breeding ground for terrorism.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:59PM (6 children)
I don't agree that's a "dimension". There's deluded and crazy people in any large population. In the US, for example, we have people who want to make Mexico a state or two. They obviously haven't been considering reality before they threw that out.
That's not a long shot, that's a non sequitur. The desire to take California back is not a factor in cartel dynamics.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:50PM (5 children)
Just two observations.
Virtually nobody saw Soviet Union collapse.
For a mexican revolutionary who wants California back, joining a drug cartel would be a natural first step. Using drugs for political gains has a very long and rather successfull record.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 30 2019, @05:00PM (4 children)
I don't buy that, but let's suppose you're right. Why would the cartel want someone like that? Their loyalty would be more suspect than usual. Who knows what they'd do, if the cartel doesn't move fast enough in the right ideological direction.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 01 2019, @05:08AM (3 children)
My understanding of the process - and I am not obviously an expert - is this. Cartel is there to make money. However this kind of business is always an attractive place to shady powers such as spies, revolutionaries and so on because it is, well, in shadows, and very powerful money and firepower wise.
However the goals of the parties are different. Original owners who went there for money want a retirement eventually. They want clean moneys and easy comfortable lives. They go away. Spies are also temporary and go away.
Revolutionaries are different. They are not for money, but for a political goal, so they stay until the goal is achived. After awhile we naturally have less money and spy folks, but more terrorists, and at some point terrorists take over.
We don't know, but they might be at a tipping point. They do use terrorist methods that are hard to blame on people who want their children to leave in peace and procreate.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 01 2019, @05:25AM (2 children)
This is my understanding of the process.
And thus, a huge reason for the cartel to keep them out - those crazy ideologies get in the way of the process. And what political goal are these revolutionaries achieving by sticking around in such a mercenary industry?
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 01 2019, @08:16PM (1 child)
It is hard for illegal entities such as cartels to find solders willing to do such a dirty tasks. Yes, there are many mentally sick people who can do and even enjoy the process, but sane and rational baby killers are hard to come by. They are, on the other side, galore among fighters with political agendas. Besides, such fighters don't have to advertise their real goals to the bosses.
Little by little they grew through the ranks and multiply finally taking over.
Their goals? A rich and powerful organization. Let me remind that Stalin started as an "expropriator". He robbed money shipments for the party. But communists had to build the infrastructure from scratch which is more difficult than overtaking an existing one.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 02 2019, @02:20AM
Really? Doesn't seem like they're having that much trouble.
They do have to advertise to someone or they won't have any allies in the attempted ideological takeover.
The USSR didn't spring from Lenin's brow. There was existing infrastructure in an existing country. Nor did the Russian Bolsheviks act as a crime cartel.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 02 2019, @06:33PM
Works for any word of significant impact, yep. Like at the rate the nutjobs fling around "nazi" lately, it'll have no more meaning than "promise" does from a marketing department by next Thursday.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday November 30 2019, @06:37AM (2 children)
Actually, he's correct. A lot of this Mexican cartel drug money winds up financing Middle Eastern terrorist outfits.
Search for: mexican drug money isis terrorism
and enjoy the plethora of links and documentation.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @11:53PM
Lots of oil money winds up financing Middle Eastern terrorist outfits, does that make the oil companies terrorists too? A lot of banks hold money that winds up financing Middle Eastern terrorist outfits, does that make the banks terrorists too? What about when Grandma pays the ransomware people to get her quilt photos back? The U.S. government foreign humanitarian aid? Their military aid to "moderate rebels"? The defense companies? Foreign governments? McCormick or Tones spices?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 02 2019, @06:36PM
Unless there's direct transfers going on for the purposes of advancing terrorism, it's just a line of bullshit you're being sold.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday November 29 2019, @02:07PM (2 children)
Can we please designate companies that send American jobs to foreign countries as terrorists? Trumpy promised he would do something like that, but where is it?
Next time around, the office of President Of the United States will be outsourced to India.
(Score: 5, Touché) by lentilla on Friday November 29 2019, @02:28PM
Hasn't it already been outsourced to Russia?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Friday November 29 2019, @11:14PM
Why terrorism? They should be designated as traitors, as they are, and executed on the spot without any legal procedure.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday November 29 2019, @02:32PM (16 children)
By a plain reading of the term, drug cartels are terrorists. They don't leave mutilated corpses lying around just for decoration, you know?
Since they felt the need to state the obvious here, are they suggesting that this is going to be bad for business? The cynical narrative that the failed war on drugs is only a money-making scheme for prisons and police might be more accurate than we know? (say it ain't so!)
It would be funny if the DC swamp, which has been in love with politically motivated sanctions so far, suddenly has a change of heart when drug cartels are the target.
Or is it just another "Trump did it so it must be wrong" situation?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @03:23PM (9 children)
One definition of terrorism [dictionary.com] is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes, another [cambridge.org] is "violent action for political purposes", and there are plenty more but they all mention "in the pursuit of political aims." What are the political aims of the drug cartels that you are talking about? They have criminal aims, including intimidation, which fully explains the attack on Mormons and the leaving of mutilated corpses. But I can find no references to any political aims being claimed by the cartels. They are purely criminal endeavours. They do not wish to institute a new form of government but they certainly want to control the existing government. That, however, is a criminal intent not a political one.
All the reporting on the Mormon killings that I have seen suggests that the reason for the killings was the result of a turf war and protection of drug smuggling routes into the US. The Mormons had also, according to some reporting [theguardian.com], refused to pay when asked for a bribe. This resulted in someone deciding that they were an obstacle.
I'm not an American - I don't care who you elect but, if they made the same decision as Trump is now suggesting, they would still be as stupid.
And finally, if replacing the current government in the USA is a crime - why are there 2 political parties? Does that make the party not currently in power terrorists too?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by shortscreen on Friday November 29 2019, @04:37PM (7 children)
Control over governing is everyone's political aim. Your dividing line is so fuzzy it's invisible.
Are they gunning down their opponents to frighten the opposition? *insert joke about mass shootings here*
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday November 29 2019, @06:26PM (6 children)
People do not have to die for it to be terrorism - it is the use of fear to further political aims.
If the USA wants to use a different definition of terrorism then you are free to do so, but don't ask for foreign help next time you perceive what you think to be terrorism. Because for everyone else it might just be that the USA is unable to counter criminal cartels or is objecting to what another group of individuals are doing.
The USA, with allies, invaded Iraq which resulted in many deaths. They also wanted to change the government - remember Sadam? Yet was that 'terrorism' in your eyes? No, of course not. Terrorism has a more precise meaning and was not applicable under internationally accepted definitions, although several of your traditional enemies accused you of that very crime. They also failed to persuade the international community.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:03AM (5 children)
You started out arguing for a narrow definition of terrorism, and now you have suddenly opened it up to include politicians, media, and vast other segments of society. Try to make up your mind, please.
I don't know who you think I am, but I am not asking for foreign help. Instead I will give you some advice. If my government does ask you for help, make sure that they don't have a hidden agenda. And if their request has anything to do with "terrorism" or military interventions, assume that everything they tell you is a lie unless proven otherwise.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:04AM (4 children)
I haven't changed my stance at all. You should learn to read what I have written:
I have consistently argued that the drug cartels are criminal and not political. You are clutching at straws.
But declaring foreign nationals as a terrorist organisation (not your own citizens - that is an entirely domestic affair) places obligations upon those who have agreements on how they will act in concert to combat terrorism. The proposal by Trump to have the drug cartels declared as terrorist in their objectives places additional obligations upon countries other than the USA and Mexico. This is the prime reason why Mexico is objecting to this move.
The USA wants to act as judge, jury and executioner against nationals of a foreign country outside the USA, and quite possibly using military assets. We have already seen that mistakes can happen with such a program. Or have you forgotten the wedding parties and innocent homes that have been hit by missile strikes in both Iraq and Mexico?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:24AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @01:43PM (2 children)
Cartels like MS13 don't have political aims to control Mexico through fear? Last I heard, they don't maintain their control by tickling civilian Mexicans into submission.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday November 30 2019, @03:18PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 01 2019, @12:03AM
The ultimate goal of the cartels is to make a shit-load of money through a vast criminal enterprise. Everything else is a means to that end, including enacting political change, if they need to do it at all.
The ultimate goal of actual terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, the IRA, the PKK, etc. is to enact political change. Everything else is a means to that end, including making a shit-load of money through a vast criminal enterprise, if they need to do it at all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @06:08PM
Such as establishing and maintaining control of regions of Mexico? A number of these criminal aims are also political aims.
I have to agree with shortscreen. That's a solidly political intent.
Finally, I find the division of terrorism based on motive rather than action to be doing it wrong [xkcd.com]. It doesn't matter to the innocents who died or were injured, the societies disrupted, etc what the ultimate motive was - the harm still happened. Most acts of terrorism are criminal acts. Further dividing those acts into criminal intent and political intent (especially, ignoring when the categories overlap) for the mere purpose of legal classification is profoundly unproductive. It doesn't lend any accuracy to preceding terrorism/crime, nor help us solve the outbreak of such activity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:43PM
A plain reading of what term? A dictionary.com term, or the legal definition as it applies to US and international law? In this context of this story, the former is irrelevant (and I have no idea what the latter definition is).
I think this will just make the issue that you brought up much worse. Does this mean that any drugs that come into the US from a cartel can taint the supply chain all the way to the end? Does this mean that the guy selling pot in high school can have draconian Federal laws thrown at him because he is "offering support", or is there enough latitude in the "knowingly" part?
Well, when you have the batting average he has, it is not an unreasonable position to start from.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday November 29 2019, @05:28PM (4 children)
uh dude
What is a drone assassination without law or oversight?
Or shock and awe bombings?
Any use of the word terrorist by the united states is a joke before it leaves your mouth.
your position is so shallow and flimsy I can't believe your real lol
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday November 29 2019, @09:41PM (1 child)
The problem is it's an unreasonable term which is attempting to apply sharp boundaries over a multidimensional gradient.
I have no problem with considering the Mexican drug cartels to be terrorists. as there have been enough plausible reports, but I also consider most military actions and threats of military action to be terrorism. And, to head in the other way, a chain letter which threatens you with bad luck is also terrorism. It's a gradient, and a nearly smooth one. It's worse than the "drinking age" or "voting age", because there, at least, you are only measuring along one dimension (i.e., age, I'm not talking about the logic supporting those values).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:22AM
sorry I may have misread the tone of your original comment
At this point even talking about the definition of terrorism is outside the overton window and likely to bring suspicion as a terrorist.
I reject the word entirely, no one believes they are a terrorist. It is profoundly anti-intellectual, it rejects definition and understanding, it is inherently a broad brush tool of authoritarians to attack their opponents and lead endless war for profit.
It is like al qaeda, it is like saying the bandits or the bogeyman. It already essentially means 'them' in the us vs them equation, people have no choice but to accept it being pounded into their brains over and over. It is actual brainwashing.
I agree seeing something with a gradient as an absolute is also anti-intellectual, but I have no idea how televised media would ever figure out a way to turn this one word back into the several dozen it has replaced or which need to be invented, that is how having mass media channels easily allows small numbers of people to take control of language itself.
cnn and fox especially are actively destroying the english language, and should be kicked out of every country as a force more degenerative than aids. Think, you watch twenty years of these people talking for 24 hours a day, they have to date solved no problems, everything has only gotten worse, more confusing, more chaotic, then epstein escaping. The one thing these channels will never help us consider is that we have the means to remove their licensing for attacking the public mind and languate itself, which we should have done 20 years ago when they were totally unable to provide a coherent explanation for 9/11.
A spy agency should be able to do a lot of things, but letting them take over journalism is the end of a nation. None of us have any rights and all of us can be disappeared if a reliable record cannot be maintained, they are not just taking over the public mind and language, but history itself. Everything but letting espstein get away with it at this point is criminalized. Parents who reported him to the police were driven off the road by unmarked cars.
Is not epstein terrorizing the 13 year old girls of the world with the most creepy asocial shit you have ever heard(have to ask them but I think the answer will be yes)? Is not sending thugs to threaten people for availing themselves of the law terrorizing people? Yet the people who fight against him including myself are the ones experiencing the immune response of the system that allegedly is at war with terror.
Riddle me that. Doublethink always means totalitarianism is near. Totalitarianism near means not long before people are being rounded up. Oh wait, they are being rounded up. Nevermind, the weather this decade(century?) is just tyrannical, but with a lot of blinking lights.
https://archive.is/rvZTo [archive.is]
tps://archive.is/SDcbq
https://archive.is/ZinJT [archive.is]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday November 30 2019, @02:52AM (1 child)
If it's a joke then there is no reason to object to Trump's designation. It's meaningless. I'm not the one making a stink.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:38AM
Nobody is making a stink. We are having a discussion. I am merely pointing out that Trump's proposal has international ramifications, no legal justification and will do harm the USA's standing elsewhere.
However, if you consider it right and proper that the USA is at liberty to judge foreign nationals inside their own country (and outside of the USA) and then take action to punish them without any legal procedure applicable to those foreign nationals then perhaps it is already too late. If a group of people inside the USA have decided that such an action is a right and proper way to behave then the USA is already moving at speed down a very slippery slope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @03:25PM (3 children)
Looking forward to Predator drones flying sorties over Mexico and drone-striking mountain farming peasants. Just think of the poor drone pilots on Las Vegas etc, the commute to work will be so much shorter then to have to monitor drones on the other side of the world.
(Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Friday November 29 2019, @03:44PM (2 children)
I feel like this is the main aim of calling them terrorists. Now we can send in special ops and drones. So much for your sovereignty Mexico! Although the government is probably corrupt to its core anyway.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday November 29 2019, @03:59PM (1 child)
Considering that the 'war on drugs' have been going on since 1971(?) starting to call the various druglords and their goons Terrorists, or some kind of unlawful combatants, are probably just a minor hop skip and a jump in legal terms away.
That said would any of us really shed a tear if some predator drone sent a hellfire missile or two into some druglords mansion or if some special ops teams decided to wipe out or abduct the upper echelons of various drug syndicates?
Question might be how much of an effort or fight might Mexico really put up if push comes to shove? Also I doubt said organizations would just take it, so there might be spill over effects into the USA, that said that is probably already a daily occurrence so there might not be much of a difference -- if they ramp it up they would just play into the arms of the president as they become more and more terrorist like if they were not that before.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40480405 [bbc.com]
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/27/mexico-responds-trump-plan-designate-drug-cartels-terror-groups/4318114002/ [usatoday.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday November 29 2019, @08:18PM
We're talking about America. They're likely to drone a wedding party just in case a drug dealer was there or bomb Mexico City on the odd chance of killing a drug lord. Then they'll wonder why the Mexicans hate them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @04:05PM (2 children)
"it is illegal under US law for people in the United States to knowingly offer support."
What they do is already illegal so I guess this is going to make it even more illegal than it already is? Wow, I bet you the drug cartels are shaking in their boots right now.
But, seriously, who here thinks that the Mexican foreign Minister and the rest of their government is really trying that hard to fix the problems with the drug cartels. I mean pretty much all of their politicians are bought and paid for by the drug cartels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @09:58PM (1 child)
The end game is that they can now try anyone caught with marijuana as a terrorist supporter since drug buying provides funding to the cartels. Within 3-4 years, 76% of democrats will be behind bars.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday November 29 2019, @11:22PM
This is actually a very interesting observation.
I just read that currently in California 3/4 of weed sold is still black market that does not pay taxes. Rounding illegal marijuana business under terrorism laws idea sounds plausible to me. It has a long history of success in different parts of the world.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday November 29 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
As I've said here (and elsewhere) repeatedly, the policies pursued in the U.S. (and many other places) WRT mind-altering substances were, and continue to be, formulated through the following process:
1. Examine the issue by gathering information;
2. Identify a variety of solutions that could impact the issue(s);
3. Identify the costs, benefits and impact of each solution;
4. Choose the solution that will cause the most harm, do the least good and impact the most people.
Designating these cartels as "terrorist" organizations just continues the moronic decisions we've been making about this for more than a century.
Should the U.S. legalize, regulate and monitor mind-altering substances, we would destroy much of the black market for them and reduce the financial power of these cartels significantly.
Will that just make them all go away? Of course not. They will then turn to the stand-bys they've used for decades, kidnapping for ransom, bank robbery, extortion, etc.
Given that the cartels don't have the level of control or reach in the US that they have in Mexico, most of that would be limited to Mexico. That may seem like we're just dumping the problem off to a Mexican government with lots of issues, but the issues were and are Mexican issues -- exacerbated by the US' "war on drugs." but Mexican issues with economic policy, inequality, the rule of law and governmental control.
Taking away the primary source of funds (sales of mind-altering substances in the US) from the cartels, would aid the Mexicans in reclaiming sovereignty in their nation over the medium and long term.
Mexico should legalize these substances too, as doing so would get rid of the incentives to use extrajudicial means to maintain one's business. It would certainly be preferable that those making and selling mind-altering substances worked out their competitive disagreements through the courts rather than out on the street with American-made guns.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:33PM (1 child)
Yep, thats what they do in every single case. Eg, a college education used to be cheap and very valuable. You could work summers to pay for it then be guaranteed a good job. Then the government got involved... now college is ridiculously expensive leading to a generation of people in debt for the rest of their lives working low income jobs after getting worthless degrees.
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Sunday December 01 2019, @05:22PM
College education was government funded and that funding has decreased on multiple fronts without people paying attention (don't forget decrease in public research funding.) That pushes costs onto students.
Loans for post-secondary education are promoted and profits on those loans are pushing the whole system in the wrong direction. Not only adds % in fees but lobbying power to further break the system by the banks.
Greater economic failures; the money really is going to the top 1% and wages have not been keeping up. REAL costs rise with inflation and technology can't hide all of that - people don't notice as crap food, cheap clothing, tech (made in china, etc) but local workers paid OK (still decreasing) wages still costs more over time. So now you can't work in the summer to pay for the school year because the jobs don't pay. After that, the jobs still don't pay enough plus all the added costs.
But forget all this, go blame the victims who are different than you os you can continue to be divided and distracted from the major sources of problems.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Friday November 29 2019, @05:34PM
'The republican party also thinks it should be able to use the U.S. Military to freely murder people in mexico, same as in Afganistan, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Africa, and epstein is not dead."
https://archive.is/5II5U [archive.is] Change the active directory line to 'its so ez to drone mexicans thanks to trump' or something like that.
https://archive.is/VCtvi [archive.is] add and start war with mexico
bonuses
https://archive.is/rvZTo [archive.is]
https://archive.ph/cVZBQ [archive.ph]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday November 29 2019, @07:15PM
If money is speech, financial crimes are acts of terrorism as laws are being violated for the sake of acquiring political power.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @06:37AM (1 child)
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mexico-attack-dead-ambush/2019/11/05/id/940165// [newsmax.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @06:53AM
https://documentaryheaven.com/the-mexican-mormon-war// [documentaryheaven.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @09:02AM
9/11 leads to war in the middle east and the Patriot act. Bill Binney and Edward Snowden blow the whistle on 4th amendment violations. So, to me, all this means is, now instead of being a target for surveillance for being suspected of having middle-eastern affiliations, you will now be a target for being suspected of having certain Mexican affiliations.
America should be scared of Mexico. If the Climate starts going to shit and they start running out of water and resources, it's go north or go south, and the digs to the north probably seem a fair bit nicer. I do believe the Rockies supply them with a lot of water.
The CIA sells drugs for fucks sake. This isn't about drugs. If they wanted the drug problem to go away; they'd let Bayer start making heroin again, make Naloxone over the counter, and set up safe injection sites all over the place. That would stop opiate deaths. Nobody would choose Fentanyl over Heroin. Heroin is a profoundly better high, longer lasting, and easier to dose with. The black-market introduced it as a way to cut costs and fill in the gaps for lack in supply. It's their laws, their rules, their ignorance, and their fear that has lead to so many death; and it's fear and ignorance that are the most go-to tools for those in power, because that's how they get to stay in power. I mean really. Do you have ANY...FUCKING...CLUE... how ASTRONOMICALLY CHEAPER it would be to manufacture and provide diamorphine, OTC naloxone, safe needles, and designated injection sites with a nurse on staff? We are talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of savings in health-care costs, prison sentences, court procedings, and most importantly LIVES. Instead, what do we get? After 10 years of rising deaths they finally make naloxone LEGAL (previously it was CRIMINAL to possess this life saving drug outside of a hospital setting), we get a few small drug law changes, and we get saber rattling and threats towards Mexico (which equates to military industrial complex profits for more technology/guns/equipment/ammo/ etc.. etc.. Words can't do justice to this...
All this new, 'classification', will do, is give the NSA the ability to do to the Mexicans what they've been doing to the Muslims and U.S. citizens in general. Words don't mean anything in this country anymore because people have lost the ability to think critically and instead opt-out of that for group-think and mob-think. Terror is something some one experiences or inflicts. There is no such THING as a 'terrorist', because there is no belief or ideology to be suffixed with an -ist [dictionary.com]. You could maybe more accurately say a, 'terrorist', is an individual or group not recognized by any state who is driven to commit acts of violence based on motivations stemming from ideological views. Now, that definition pretty much excludes any country, because, you have to be stateless or of a state that is unrecognized. So, terrorist is a stupid word used by clever people. It's a word like the, 'cloud'. It's a word that is used to obfuscate meaning and appeal to emotion. It's like those acronyms you hear coming out of the Alcoholics Anonymous groups. Sounds clever to the person who made it up and sounds clever to everyone else, cause it takes a very complicated or obfuscated issue and makes it easy to digest in one word; but, it's just like fast food. Clever, quick, and convenient; but, not healthy.
This will just broaden the scope and loosen the legal leash on the military. On one hand it antagonizes Mexico and ultimately is probably meant to strong arm Mexico into decisions we would like them to make or terms we would like them to agree to. On the other hand, it, again, broadens the scope of who can have military or otherwise, action taken against them, with the lowest level being surveillance, of which, I'm sure we have an ungodly and unbelievable ability to wield. And behind all of that, it's just another way for the prez to boost his ego. Every play he makes is straight out of the reality TV show handbook, and everyone is EATING it up, whether they are against him or for him, because no matter which side you choose, it helps him. Bad press is still press.
And unfortunately for people like me... I write posts like this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @05:32PM (1 child)
The real story is that the Mormons were drilling unlicensed wells and stealing the community's water and so the community decided to do something about it.
Trump has been advised to never waste a crisis and so he wants to use this to do a soft invasion of Mexico with special forces, not realizing that the cartels were formed by MEXICAN special forces personnel.
The cartels have their own radio networks; their own chains of repeaters strung along ridgelines and mountain tops; probably fiber optic, too, by now. Their own communications networks.
It would not surprise me to learn that they have infiltrated American special forces decades ago.
We'll know for sure when a bunch of American operators get chewed up and spat out all over the desert and we read about it in the newspapers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @08:48PM
"The real story is that the Mormons were drilling unlicensed wells and stealing the community's water and so the community decided to do something about it."
fuck licenses for water wells! try and stop me drilling a water well and see how ruthless i can be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 01 2019, @04:06AM
I hope this goes through. Then drug users can be arrested, and Gitmo'd or Supermax'd for supporting terrorists.