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.

Relapse likes to go on rants about illegal drug use being the source if violent deaths everywhere. My guess is that he was referring to that with his remark.

If the fact mentioned above is verified, wouldn't that position be logically sound?

Ahh but this would make this case like, the holy grail of crimes.

Terrorism? Check!

Drug money? Check!

Gun battle with cops? Check!

Islamic Extremism? check!

Major Manhunt? Check!

Delayed Red Sox and Bruins games...

You've gone too far!

I'm sure he'll get the needle now

 d-usa wrote:
Relapse likes to go on rants about illegal drug use being the source if violent deaths everywhere. My guess is that he was referring to that with his remark.

Indeed. He frequently has asserted that illegal drug sales fund terrorism. I think it's reasonable for him to feel vindicated, should this pan out.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ahh but this would make this case like, the holy grail of crimes.

Terrorism? Check!

Drug money? Check!

Gun battle with cops? Check!

Islamic Extremism? check!

Major Manhunt? Check!

And they were white guys to boot! You would think everybody would be happy here.

Well, I'm sure terrorists have used drugs as a source of income.

I doubt its their bread and butter, but as a whole they probably have as many sources as you can imagine.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Relapse likes to go on rants about illegal drug use being the source if violent deaths everywhere. My guess is that he was referring to that with his remark.

Indeed. He frequently has asserted that illegal drug sales fund terrorism. I think it's reasonable for him to feel vindicated, should this pan out.

Well, as vindicated as every anti-gun person is everytime somebody gets shot by a gun.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Relapse likes to go on rants about illegal drug use being the source if violent deaths everywhere. My guess is that he was referring to that with his remark.

Indeed. He frequently has asserted that illegal drug sales fund terrorism. I think it's reasonable for him to feel vindicated, should this pan out.

See... that arguement is kinda weak, because "drugs" are fungible in the same way as oil is fungible.

We "buy" oil mostly from Canada and Mexico (well, recently we're net exporter), but folks make a jump that because we use so much oil, we're "funding" countries that opposes US because THEY sell oil.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


Well, as vindicated as every anti-gun person is everytime somebody gets shot by a gun.

heh... yep.

Well tell a stoner that all weed is the same and he'll probably have a stern conversation with you.

AQ and the Taliban do actually make a big chunk of their money with drug sales, but it's not MJ. It's opium and heroin.

Yeah, a lot of Opium gets grown in the Afghanistan. IIRC that's actually the native habitat of the Opium Poppy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well tell a stoner that all weed is the same and he'll probably have a stern conversation with you.

That's true... they'll talk your ears off about that! o.O

I meant more on the business side of the drug trade.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, a lot of Opium gets grown in the Afghanistan. IIRC that's actually the native habitat of the Opium Poppy.

And a lot of it gets processed into heroin in the Pankisi Gorge.

 Monster Rain wrote:
If the fact mentioned above is verified, wouldn't that position be logically sound?

No, for a number of reasons.

Most obviously, you cannot generalise from the particular.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, I'm sure terrorists have used drugs as a source of income.

I doubt its their bread and butter, but as a whole they probably have as many sources as you can imagine.

In Northern Ireland its a major source of their income, along with fuel laundering, cheap cigarettes, counterfeit DVDs & CDs, protection rackets etc.

The IRA have been drug dealers for about 30 years, they perform many of their acts of violence over 'business' and turf wars rather than just sectarian terrorism.

Remove the problem.

Legalise drugs, and terrorism would disappear.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Remove the problem.

Legalise drugs, and terrorism would disappear.

Ha! As if!
More problems would arise I think. violence would escalate all over the place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
If the fact mentioned above is verified, wouldn't that position be logically sound?

No, for a number of reasons.

Most obviously, you cannot generalise from the particular.

You can generalize based off a series of facts that support your conclusion, though.

No, that's wrong too.

You have to look at all the possible causes of terrorism, not just one, and you have to compare those factors with their effects in non-violent, non-crime social interaction as well.

Without that, you are simply picking evidence that supports your pre-ordained conclusion. Which can be used to prove just about anything.

If I thought that terrorism was caused by people wearing shoes, and pointed out that 100% of terrorists were wearing shoes, would that be a sensible reason to bane shoes?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, that's wrong too.

You have to look at all the possible causes of terrorism, not just one, and you have to compare those factors with their effects in non-violent, non-crime social interaction as well.

Without that, you are simply picking evidence that supports your pre-ordained conclusion. Which can be used to prove just about anything.

If I thought that terrorism was caused by people wearing shoes, and pointed out that 100% of terrorists were wearing shoes, would that be a sensible reason to bane shoes?

We aren't talking about all of the causes of terrorism, though.

We're talking about one specific method by which funds are generated to support it. The bit about shoes is silly, but I think you know that.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The IRA have been drug dealers for about 30 years, they perform many of their acts of violence over 'business' and turf wars rather than just sectarian terrorism.

It was mainly Loyalists getting money from drugs, well them and the INLA. That's why the IRA formed Republican Action Against Drugs (RAAD) and Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD), they were upset with Catholics buying drugs when the proceeds would go to fund the Loyalists.

Yup, Northern Ireland is a place full of acronyms

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Legalise drugs, and terrorism would disappear.

Might be a wee bit more complex than that. Especially when dealing with terrorism that has its roots in disputes over land, or where religion is a driving factor

Complancey rears its ugly head. If the bombs were activated by cell or remote control car controller then thats going to be a hit on LEO's. Why were the ECM's not emplaced before the race. We're talking the starting and finishing line. I'm guessing its the same spot right? Not fimiliar with the Boston Marathon Route. Still though a mass gathering like that to watch the runners finish is clue ONE to have them emplace

Looks like it wasn't a loop

 Jihadin wrote:
Complancey rears its ugly head. If the bombs were activated by cell or remote control car controller then thats going to be a hit on LEO's. Why were the ECM's not emplaced before the race. We're talking the starting and finishing line. I'm guessing its the same spot right?

No, it starts and ends at different places.

Mapus Biggimus

Going out on the limb. I bet ECM's were at start being it would be more pack with runners and supporters. Also the most covered by LEO's. If that idioit they have mention they planned it at the finish then the older brother was actually thinking.

They don't shut down the spectrum unless they have a specific threat, and in this case they didn't. Too many people want to be able to call their buddies and post pics of their loved ones starting/finishing right from the location and so on.

IMO I would have the ECM in place and running. They can post pics later when their home or out of range of of the ECM. A mass gathering like that is a freaking target. We're getting complacent. Three dead and almost 200 wounded is not a price to pay to be reminded of complancy. I'm biased in this being that its ingrained in me to avoid complancy from deployments.