Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Mexican drug cartels are considered terrorist organizations in some cases.

Not even one is a designated FTO according to the State Department.

Why in the world would they be?

They fall under the category of "narcoterrorism".

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Mexican drug cartels are considered terrorist organizations in some cases.

Not even one is a designated FTO according to the State Department.

Why in the world would they be?

They fall under the category of "narcoterrorism".

I'm sure ATF and the FBI would love to be able to call drug cartel terrorist organizations. Especially ATF which has to somehow justify its continued existence.

Wait... ATF gave guns to drug cartels... ATF supports terrorists!

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Mexican drug cartels are considered terrorist organizations in some cases.

Not even one is a designated FTO according to the State Department.

Why in the world would they be?

They fall under the category of "narcoterrorism".

I'm sure ATF and the FBI would love to be able to call drug cartel terrorist organizations. Especially ATF which has to somehow justify its continued existence.

Wait... ATF gave guns to drug cartels... ATF supports terrorists!

Whoa there.

The ATF didn't "give" guns to anyone. They encouraged gun dealers to sell to individuals who were purchasing things that normally would "raise a red flag". It was an attempt to get at the people trafficking guns from here in the US to Mexico.

It sounds like the same thing, but context really matters here.

Anyways, I think anyone who would say that Los Zetas are not a terrorist organization is sorely mistaken. The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

Kanluwen wrote:Anyways, I think anyone who would say that Los Zetas are not a terrorist organization is sorely mistaken. The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

The problem is that there is no definition for terrorism. It's a buzz word that inspires fear and "we don't like them." So it serves the purposes of almost any government body competing for budgetary considerations to label their tasks as being anti or counter terrorist.

Drug cartels are not terrorists as defined by the DoD or the State department, becaase both limit terrorism to groups attempting to force political change through violent attacks on non-combatants (which I feel is also the most sensible way to define terrorism). However lay people in general tend to apply terrorism so broadly that the word doesn't really mean anything, which is why I wouldn't call drug cartels terrorist organizations. Once you've stretched the word that broadly it really means nothing.

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Mexican drug cartels are considered terrorist organizations in some cases.

Not even one is a designated FTO according to the State Department.

Why in the world would they be?

They fall under the category of "narcoterrorism".

I'm sure ATF and the FBI would love to be able to call drug cartel terrorist organizations. Especially ATF which has to somehow justify its continued existence.

Wait... ATF gave guns to drug cartels... ATF supports terrorists!

Whoa there.

The ATF didn't "give" guns to anyone. They encouraged gun dealers to sell to individuals who were purchasing things that normally would "raise a red flag". It was an attempt to get at the people trafficking guns from here in the US to Mexico.

It sounds like the same thing, but context really matters here.

Anyways, I think anyone who would say that Los Zetas are not a terrorist organization is sorely mistaken. The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

Yeah, like let's say I'm the owner of a store, let's pretend it's called Lone Wolf, and the ATF installed a camera and encouraged me to sell guns to people I would normally refuse service to. Then no one watches the camera and NO ONE FOLLOWS THE GUNS, then that's not gun walking, that's handing guns to known criminals and terrorists. Context does matter, if this wasn't the ATF it would be called gun trafficking. Since you'll defend anyone anywhere with a badge I guess it's only worth pointing out to everyone else.

Honestly you're all Terrorists to me. And i know you wanna rape me when i go out at night and get my mail from my dimly lit street in a wooded area.

fire4effekt wrote:Honestly you're all Terrorists to me. And i know you wanna rape me when i go out at night and get my mail from my dimly lit street in a wooded area.

It's not that dimly lit. Err, not that I would know of course, or that I can see it here from my perch. Just an educated guess. I swear.

Ahtman wrote:

fire4effekt wrote:Honestly you're all Terrorists to me. And i know you wanna rape me when i go out at night and get my mail from my dimly lit street in a wooded area.

It's not that dimly lit. Err, not that I would know of course, or that I can see it here from my perch. Just an educated guess. I swear.

EEEEK!
I knew it!

AustonT wrote:
Yeah, like let's say I'm the owner of a store, let's pretend it's called Lone Wolf, and the ATF installed a camera and encouraged me to sell guns to people I would normally refuse service to. Then no one watches the camera and NO ONE FOLLOWS THE GUNS, then that's not gun walking, that's handing guns to known criminals and terrorists. Context does matter, if this wasn't the ATF it would be called gun trafficking. Since you'll defend anyone anywhere with a badge I guess it's only worth pointing out to everyone else.

And since you'd damn anyone with a badge, I guess it's worth pointing out that the guns did not go in the direction they expected. It's almost like investigations don't work like they do on TV!

That in no way, shape, or form would be called gun trafficking. Unless you want to call us supplying the Mujahadeen during the 1980s with Stingers as "arms trafficking", that is.

If your point is that the ATF bungled the investigation, you'd be absolutely correct. If your point is that the ATF used gun dealers as part of their operation, you're correct. They should have done a far, far better job than they did but since I don't have access to every single file on what they were doing(and I'm fairly certain you don't either) or monitoring or how people slipped past them--I'm simply calling it a bungled operation.

Back to your regularly scheduled "Feth the Authoritah!" rant from AustonT.

LordofHats wrote:The problem is that there is no definition for terrorism. It's a buzz word that inspires fear and "we don't like them." So it serves the purposes of almost any government body competing for budgetary considerations to label their tasks as being anti or counter terrorist.

Drug cartels are not terrorists as defined by the DoD or the State department, becaase both limit terrorism to groups attempting to force political change through violent attacks on non-combatants (which I feel is also the most sensible way to define terrorism). However lay people in general tend to apply terrorism so broadly that the word doesn't really mean anything, which is why I wouldn't call drug cartels terrorist organizations. Once you've stretched the word that broadly it really means nothing.

Several of the drug cartels ARE terrorists, just not necessarily what are classed as "foreign terrorist organizations"--which is what the DoD and/or State Department watch primarily.
FARC, ELN, and the Shining Path are all good examples of narcoterror groups which also dabble in the same pond that we see the FTOs under.

Kanluwen wrote:
Why in the world would they be?

They fall under the category of "narcoterrorism".

"Narocterrorism" isn't a formal category of organizations used by any US government organization. The closest you'll get is an informal reference to organizations that fund their operations through the drug trade, like FARC, but no drug cartel whose express purpose is the generation of profit, without any larger political goal, is listed as a terrorist organization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Anyways, I think anyone who would say that Los Zetas are not a terrorist organization is sorely mistaken. The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

Then why does the FTO list include FARC, the ELN, and the Shining Path?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:However lay people in general tend to apply terrorism so broadly that the word doesn't really mean anything, which is why I wouldn't call drug cartels terrorist organizations. Once you've stretched the word that broadly it really means nothing.

Exactly, at that point "terrorism" would be inclusive of gang violence in Chicago, New York, or really anywhere. Hell, you could argue that anyone who engages in the act of murder is a terrorist.

Because FARC, ELN, and Shining Path aren't "cartels" like Los Zetas?

It's the same reason why Al Qaeda was not considered a drug cartel. They fund themselves through narcotics trafficking and sales, but they do not target governments simply to ensure that they can continue their narcotics trade.

See the difference?

Kanluwen wrote:Because FARC, ELN, and Shining Path aren't "cartels" like Los Zetas?

It's the same reason why Al Qaeda was not considered a drug cartel. They fund themselves through narcotics trafficking and sales, but they do not target governments simply to ensure that they can continue their narcotics trade.

See the difference?

You're missing the point, you said:

Kanluwen wrote:
The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

Neither FARC, the ELN, nor the Shining Path are associated with Al-Qaeda, and yet they made the list. The State Department's FTO list isn't predicated on how closely associated a group is with Al-Qaeda, if that were the case more than half of the listed organizations would not be (ETA, for a really good example). Instead, its based on a particular type of organization that engages in a particular type of activity (essentially, an NGO that attacks civilians for the purpose of political change).

The extension of this distinction is that groups such as Los Zetas do not engage in terrorism, because they aren't terrorist organizations, but rather an extreme form of gang violence.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Because FARC, ELN, and Shining Path aren't "cartels" like Los Zetas?

It's the same reason why Al Qaeda was not considered a drug cartel. They fund themselves through narcotics trafficking and sales, but they do not target governments simply to ensure that they can continue their narcotics trade.

See the difference?

You're missing the point, you said:

Kanluwen wrote:
The US State Department's list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" focuses primarily upon groups like Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, while the other groups are considered "criminal organizations" which regularly undertake narcoterrorist activities.

Neither FARC, the ELN, nor the Shining Path are associated with Al-Qaeda, and yet they made the list. The State Department's FTO list isn't predicated on how closely associated a group is with Al-Qaeda, if that were the case more than half of the listed organizations would not be (ETA, for a really good example). Instead, its based on a particular type of organization that engages in a particular type of activity (essentially, an NGO that attacks civilians for the purpose of political change).

I know you like arguing, but "primarily" does not mean "entirely". Not sure why you continue to believe in absolutes when I purposely use words which do not imply absolutes just to avoid such a thing.

The extension of this distinction is that groups such as Los Zetas do not engage in terrorism, because they aren't terrorist organizations, but rather an extreme form of gang violence.

So what you're saying is that their wanton violence against the populace of Mexico isn't terrorism, but just crimes?
That narcoterrorism is in fact just a fancypants word for crime?

"Narco terrorism" is an accepted terminology when discussing the six "accepted" types of terrorism. Political, ecological, agricultural, narco, biological, and cyber terrorism are those six types.

Kanluwen wrote:I know you like arguing, but "primarily" does not mean "entirely". Not sure why you continue to believe in absolutes when I purposely use words which do not imply absolutes just to avoid such a thing.

He's not talking about absolutes, hence the term "primarily."

So what you're saying is that their wanton violence against the populace of Mexico isn't terrorism, but just crimes?

Yes. If we accept that the term "terrorism" defines a non-state group that uses violent attacks to coerce political change in a state (some definitions use "political unit" instead of state), then drug cartels arn't terrorists. They're not trying to get the state to change its laws or policies towards drug trafficking (it's actually not in their interests at all for their products to become legalized).

That narcoterrorism is in fact just a fancypants word for crime?

No. Its a buzzword created by police forces so they can make their job seem more dire in public view and gain a better budget. The term narcoterrorism actually literally comes from this origin when law enforcement agencies wanted to broaden terrorism to include trafficers who actively resist police forces with violence. However, drug cartels aren't really trying to intimidate a political change. They just want to hinder law enforcement.

"Narco terrorism" is an accepted terminology when discussing the six "accepted" types of terrorism. Political, ecological, agricultural, narco, biological, and cyber terrorism are those six types.

For someone talking about not wanting absolutes, you sure are talking in absolutes. There are no "accepted" types of terrorism. "Terrorism" itself has no accepted definition. This really boils down to a debate of how broadly we want to apply the term.

P.S. Al Qaeda actually doesn't get much money from drugs. The Taliban did though. Al Qaeda is primarily funded by Saudi special interest groups. EDIT: Well, was. Al Qaeda has suffered a severe collapse in the wake of the death of Bin Laden and the failure of Zawahiri to assert control.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I know you like arguing, but "primarily" does not mean "entirely". Not sure why you continue to believe in absolutes when I purposely use words which do not imply absolutes just to avoid such a thing.

He's not talking about absolutes, hence the term "primarily."

I'm not sure why you're quoting my statement here. I'm the one who said "primarily" and made a mention of the fact that the DoD and State Department primarily focus upon the "big names" for terrorism.

So what you're saying is that their wanton violence against the populace of Mexico isn't terrorism, but just crimes?

Yes. If we accept that the term "terrorism" defines a non-state group that uses violent attacks to coerce political change in a state (some definitions use "political unit" instead of state), then drug cartels arn't terrorists. They're not trying to get the state to change its laws or policies towards drug trafficking (it's actually not in their interests at all for their products to become legalized).

You do know what narco terrorism is defined as, right?

It's terrorist activity undertaken to attempt to divert attention from illegal drug and narcotic operations. It's usually(there's one of those words again!) applied to groups that use the drug trade to fund terrorism.
Hence why FARC, ELN, and Shining Path are considered foreign terrorist organizations and narco terror groups.

That narcoterrorism is in fact just a fancypants word for crime?

No. Its a buzzword created by police forces so they can make their job seem more dire in public view and gain a better budget. The term narcoterrorism actually literally comes from this origin when law enforcement agencies wanted to broaden terrorism to include trafficers who actively resist police forces with violence. However, drug cartels aren't really trying to intimidate a political change. They just want to hinder law enforcement.

Actually, the origin is from the president of Peru in 1983. It was used to describe the "terrorist-type activity against his nation's anti-narcotics police". That's neither here nor there though, since it wasn't originated from law enforcement agencies but rather the president of a nation which was engaged in anti-narcotics activities. The original definition though has evolved a bit.

"Political change" is not the only requirement for terrorism to be involved. It's just the most common. Alex Schmid reviewed and analyzed 109 terrorism definitions and "political" was only present in 65% of them while "violence" and "fear" had a higher frequency rate at 83.5%.

"Narco terrorism" is an accepted terminology when discussing the six "accepted" types of terrorism. Political, ecological, agricultural, narco, biological, and cyber terrorism are those six types.

For someone talking about not wanting absolutes, you sure are talking in absolutes. There are no "accepted" types of terrorism. "Terrorism" itself has no accepted definition. This really boils down to a debate of how broadly we want to apply the term.

Those are the "working definitions" of the six types of terrorism.

Under that, "narco terrorism" is that performed to further the aims of drug traffickers. That's financial gain, avoiding detection and apprehension, or establishing control over territories. These activities are often directed towards judges, prosecutors, politicians, and law enforcement officials in the form of assassinations, extortions, hijackings, bombings, and kidnappings.

P.S. Al Qaeda actually doesn't get much money from drugs.

I'm quite aware of that. They get the majority of their money through donations.

The Taliban did though. Al Qaeda is primarily funded by Saudi special interest groups. EDIT: Well, was. Al Qaeda has suffered a severe collapse in the wake of the death of Bin Laden and the failure of Zawahiri to assert control.

I'm aware that the Taliban did.

Someone dropped a spade the other day and the noise surprised me so I filed a complaint under garden-terrorism. I should not be afraid to garden, but Phyllis won't stop being clumsy and ruins the atmosphere for everyone.

Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not sure why you're quoting my statement here. I'm the one who said "primarily" and made a mention of the fact that the DoD and State Department primarily focus upon the "big names" for terrorism.

Ah my mistake then.

It's terrorist activity undertaken to attempt to divert attention from illegal drug and narcotic operations. It's usually(there's one of those words again!) applied to groups that use the drug trade to fund terrorism.

Under the definition of terrorism I subscribe to that's not terrorism. Terrorism is not a tactic or type of operation it is action taken with a motive. And no, that's not what narcoterrorism means. Narcoterrorism specifically refers to narcotic traffickers who use "terrorist-like" tactics to hinder law enforcement, which is not the same thing as terrorism.

Actually, the origin is from the president of Peru in 1983. It was used to describe the "terrorist-type activity against his nation's anti-narcotics police". That's neither here nor there though, since it wasn't originated from law enforcement agencies but rather the president of a nation which was engaged in anti-narcotics activities. The original definition though has evolved a bit.

A president as the head of an executive branch is a police authority.

"Political change" is not the only requirement for terrorism to be involved. It's just the most common. Alex Schmid reviewed and analyzed 109 terrorism definitions and "political" was only present in 65% of them while "violence" and "fear" had a higher frequency rate at 83.5%.

That's the problem though. Violence and fear are super ambiguous. If a man is going around killing black men in New York, he's inspiring fear through violence but it doesn't make him a terrorist. The defining traits of terrorism are not violence and fear but what violence and fear are supposed to produce. I've seen few legitimately considered definitions of terrorism that don't have the motive as inciting some kind of change in the behavior of a group, usually a state entity.

Those are the "working definitions" of the six types of terrorism.

For there to be types of terrorism you first have to define terrorism. As already stated, there is no widely accepted definition so what you have is just a makeshift list of things that could be terrorist under one definition.

Under that, "narco terrorism" is that performed to further the aims of drug traffickers. That's financial gain, avoiding detection and apprehension, or establishing control over territories.

Under State Department and DoD definitions that doesn't qualify as terrorist. I agree as that makes the term terrorist far to broad. Like I said, this is really all about how broadly we want to define "terrorist" and we won't reach an agreement (though it is one of the more interesting discussions to be had).

Kanluwen wrote:
I know you like arguing, but "primarily" does not mean "entirely". Not sure why you continue to believe in absolutes when I purposely use words which do not imply absolutes just to avoid such a thing.

You're deflecting. My point is that the FTO list isn't primarily about whether or not a group is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, I might even argue that isn't its point at all.

Kanluwen wrote:
So what you're saying is that their wanton violence against the populace of Mexico isn't terrorism, but just crimes?

Yes.

Kanluwen wrote:
That narcoterrorism is in fact just a fancypants word for crime?

No, but that you're misusing the term "narocterrosim"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
It's terrorist activity undertaken to attempt to divert attention from illegal drug and narcotic operations. It's usually(there's one of those words again!) applied to groups that use the drug trade to fund terrorism.
Hence why FARC, ELN, and Shining Path are considered foreign terrorist organizations and narco terror groups.

FARC, the ELN, and the Shining Path are narcoterrorist groups because because they are terrorist groups first, and groups that derive their funding from the narcotics trade second.

Honestly, your sentence structure here betrays the problem with your argument. You are describing terrorism, and narcoterrorism as fundamentally distinct things, which points to the idea that your understanding of narcoterrorism isn't about terrorism at all, but merely a bias towards the objective of law enforcement (surprise, surprise).