Nah, the UK and US troops get the spoons out and smack my bitch up while those nice Taliban spread the good word and try to destroy what evil poppies they can. Bless those Talib.
Nothing wrong with the good folk at KFC.Dam good people doing dammed hard work and it is 'riveting stuff' it's riveted to my toilet bowl every Monday morning.
One of the most unintentionally funny songs ever ( sorry , cant get the vid to post , so heres the link ) http://youtu.be/4dNzi9LnxvA
your problem is you get fixated with a little bit of the info given seriuosly are you autistic? here is the full post, inc the bits you keep missing 1-The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have concluded that the amount of drug money flowing to the Taliban in Afghanistan is far lower than widely estimated, according to a Senate report. 2. Al Qaeda's dependence on drug money is even less, according to the report by the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which found that "there is no evidence that any significant amount of the drug proceeds go to Al Qaeda." 3. In one of its most disconcerting conclusions, the Senate report says the United States contributed to the resurgent drug trade after the Sept. 11 attacks by backing warlords who derived income from the flow of illegal drugs. The CIA and U.S. Special Forces put such warlords on their payroll during the drive to overthrow the Taliban regime in late 2001. 4. These warlords later traded on their stature as U.S. allies to take senior positions in the new Afghan government, laying the groundwork for the corrupt nexus between drugs and authority that pervades the power structure today," the report says. 5. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government has been stained by allegations of corruption and connections to drug trafficking. Still, Karzai is widely expected to be reelected.
as for giving you 'evidence' i have given you the very people you quoted before and after the report you cited what more is there that you need?
more evidence from the UN Afghanistan has a long and troubled history with the opium poppy, beginning in 1979 during the Soviet invasion. This cash crop is used in manufacturing heroin, as well as narcotic pain relievers such as, morphine, oxycodone, and hydrocodone. What began as a means of financing a resistance to the Soviets, grew into a widespread practice of making easy money. This continued until July of 2000, when Taliban leader Mohammed Omar declared the cultivation of opium un-Islamic, and banned production. After the ban, Afghanistan's total production dropped 91% from 82,172 hectares in 2000, to only 7,606 hectares in 2001. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, after the US invasion in 2001, Afghanistan now accounts for 93% of world's total opium production. Production spiked from 7,606 hectares in 2001, to 193,000 hectares in 2007. Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan, an area roughly about the size of West Virginia, now produces 50% of the world's opium alone. The Taliban's ban on farming the opium poppy before the US invasion was so effective, that Helmand province recorded no opium cultivation in the 2001. The previous year it had been the highest producing province, and currently is again. When these statistics are combined with news of the Afghan government's involvement and US aid to opium growers, the implications are shocking. In an article for The New York Times, Former U.S. State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Thomas Schweich reported that Hamid Karzai's government was complicit in protecting opium cultivation in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president, has been accused by many of being deeply involved in the opium trade. James Risen of The New York Times wrote an article entitled "Reports Link Karzai's Brother To Afghanistan Heroin Trade", which sheds light on this relationship between Ahmed Karzai and the manufacture of opium and its derivatives. Another report by Dexter Flikins, Mark Mazzetti, and James Risen reveals even more. This article titled "Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A." reveals ties between Ahmed Karzai and the CIA. There is now information that the CIA has a suspected drug lord on their payroll. These last two developments coupled with the following piece of information, makes this situation all the more troubling. In an interview with Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera about opium growers, Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Christmas of the 3/6 Marines, told Mr. Rivera that "we provide them security, we're providing them resources, and we're providing them with alternatives". He does say they are giving them alternatives, but later goes on to admit that there is no incentive for the growers to change crops because the profits from the opium are so high. Afghanistan, with it's violent history will probably remain in turmoil for quite a few more years, and opium doesn't appear to be going anywhere either. It just seems a bit odd that after US forces entered Afghanistan, the opium trade has spiked out of control
the truth commission make interesting points too - In September 1999, Mullah Omar for both political and economic reasons, issued a religious decree (fatwa) calling for the end of opium production. Accordingly, opium production decreased from 3300 tons to only 185 tons, 180 of which came from the region controlled by the Northern Alliance (Badakshan province). The areas under Taliban control were able to completely eradicate all opium production -Since the late 1990s, the US policy has linked its counternarcotics policy with counterterrorism policy in Afghanistan. However, there is modest proof of a direct involvement by Al Qaida in the international drug trafficking network. The 9-11 Commission found little evidence to confirm this accusation - While the Western media has regularly repeated the theory that illicit opium production is the main source of financial support for the Taliban, the Taliban are not currently involved in drug trafficking. After the fall of the Taliban, the various Mujahideen actors re-established themselves and quickly filled in the power vacuum - Many of Karzai’s political allies are in fact warlords directly involved in the narcotics production and trafficking. Moreover, since the Bonn agreement in December 2001, drug trafficking has had no relationship with the Taliban and Al Qaeda; the profits of the drug trade, it seems, are associated more so with the people and groups in power. - Existing policy overwhelmingly linking illicit narcotic trade with terrorism, believes without much foundation that the elimination of the drug production will lead to the defeat of the Taliban insurgency.
and finally your evidence from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), has been torn to shred, by the people who wrote it - the report acknowledges the role of non-Taliban actors, the “drug lords and even some farmers”, but nevertheless downplays their role and characterizes the cultivation of poppies and production of opium as being predominantly controlled by the Taliban. But this is not an accurate representation of the facts on the ground, as the findings of the UNODC report itself makes clear. -While people suggest the Taliban have “systematically encouraged”, citing the UNODC study, those words in fact do not appear in the report. Nor does it make any similar claim -Contrary to suggestions, the UNODC report gives no indication that the reason cultivation was cut back had anything whatsoever to do with any kind of direction or control over the crop by the Taliban. -Thomas Pietschmann, a research officer with the UNODC Statistics and Surveys Section who is credited in the 2008 report, told the Journal that an estimated $50-70 million is made by warlords from the farmers. An additional $200-400 million is made from the traffickers. But, he explained, “We do not have any good idea of how this income is divided up between warlords and Taliban.” -Mr. Pietschmann also confirmed to the Journal that, “We also have not seen strong indications of direct exporting of opiates by the Taliban.” -In commentary attached to the UNODC report, Mr. Costa asks, “Who collects this money? Local strong men. In other words, by year end, war-lords, drug-lords and insurgents will have extracted almost half a billion dollars of tax revenue from drug farming, production and trafficking.” Notably, Mr. Costa does not answer his question with “the Taliban”. When Mr. Costa told reporters, “They have called a moratorium of sorts as a way of keeping the stocks stable and supporting the price”, the “They” was reported as meaning “the Taliban”. But the UNODC Executive Director intended his use of the pronoun to include other groups . In fact, the word “Taliban” does not appear in the report outside of Mr. Costa’s comments. - It should be noted that this conclusion, too, may be inaccurate, as there are simply too many unknowns. But what is clear is that the Taliban do not control it. -Mr. Pietschmann, in his comments to the Journal, presented the notion of the Taliban as merely a possibility. - Indeed, Mr. Costa’s own commentary in the UNODC report contains numerous caveats, such as “If the Taliban are holding major drug stockpiles…” (emphasis added), suggesting this is only a possibility, not a certainty. -By overemphasizing the role of the Taliban, the report serves to obfuscate the apparent role of local leaders and, more importantly, government and law enforcement officials in the drug trade. -The role of the Taliban in the opium trade is often greatly exaggerated by the U.S. corporate media.
No, you are the one with the problem which is being unable to read what I have mentioned so many times on here. I made a statement that the Taliban are involved in the drug trade in Afghanistan. Yes or No? I'm not interested in the other points which you insist in posting because they aren't salient to what I stated. The remaining point above (which YOU have used to back up your argument ) however, does categorically back-up what I stated. Yes or No? Whether the CIA got their estimates wrong is irrelevant. The fact that they have concluded that the Taliban are involved in the drug trade in Afghanistan is relevant as it backs up what I stated. Yes or No? If you answer "No" to any of these, then it quite clearly shows that you are indeed, a clueless mong
And for the third time in this article, you have well and truly shot yourself in the foot once again with evidence which you have quoted Although it is "often greatly exaggerated" according to YOUR statement which you have posted above to support your argument, it actually supports my statement that the Taliban ARE involved in the drugs trade The scale on which they are involved is irrelevant, the fact that they acknowledge that they ARE involved totally qualifies my statement Give up numbnuts, you're just not very good at this
P.S I see you conveniently ignored this comment posted by Dev which FURTHER backs up my statement that the Taliban are involved in drug dealing ? Funny old thing that
Jesus this still going. Lads you are arguing with 2 conspiracy theorists, no matter how much evidence or rationale you provide they will always ignore it and choose to accept a different reasoning. Are we really to believe that 6.94 billion people in the world have been duped by their governments, other governments the "evil" American government, but a bunch of guys on the internet have "researched" and found out the truth.
Careful, Medro, you'll be branded one of the "sheeple" if you carry on like that. How we laughed. Did you ever read Vodoo Histories: the role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history (David Aaronovitch)? If not, I think you might like it. If nothing else, it shows the startlingly samey nature of the conspiratorial mindset, the baffling and groundless sense of supremacy, the frustrations they feel as they try to "enlighten" the less intellectually able - without ever once showing the merest hint of their own intellectual primacy, fair to say - the glass-eyed certainty that ruins any form of debate (and should be anathema to all enquiring minds). Tires me out. The book does say that these things need challenged, however, lest the ideas that run behind them become unthinkingly accepted - which the author believes to be dangerous, a threat to a coherent society. Personally, I'll leave that to other people, having learnt to my cost that to argue with such a mindset is to invite a shocked, ultimately numbing sense of disbelief. Never engage: my new motto. (Shame, as I've spent far too many hours, days and weeks ploughing through conspiracy books and websites.)
Medro having a go at conspiracy theorists This is the same dobber who posted a thread claiming Celtic fans with an image on the sun were the youth wing of the IRA.
Aha. But that is actually true, however. And I know it’s true, Stereo, because I’m about to use the word “fact” as a form of aggressive punctuation – just like all the top intellectuals do. FACT.
Na, I didn't. I showed pictures of Celtic fans on Saturday using a card display to recreate the "Sunburst" flag that was used by the youth wing of the IRA. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/75440-Another-Celtic-game-another-IRA-commemoration
Quite right. There is no sensible way back in any argument once someone has used the “FACT” bomb, Stereo. It’s just a question of getting in there first, really, because FACTS are impossible to counter, as you'll know, and prove any and every point conclusively. I’m just sorry to have so emphatically crushed you this way and can only hope this doesn’t rule out the possibility of cuddles and tender man-explorations at a later date.
