Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Go for it, this should be interesting.
|
I almost meant that as a question I already had an assumed answer to. I could have written it as a statement "I know there is no source I provide or find that you are going to give credibility to".
Instead I posted as a poorly worded open ended question with the hopes to simplify this; that you would post a source (not necessarily with the information, but the source itself- you would give credibility to. I understand that posting sources from journalists or similar can be meaningless. In your view are former CIA operatives turned whistleblower or former DEA informants that provide information in the form of something a person reads on the net credible? After all these sites could be anybody right? Or scanned materials from books I have in my library to make images?
Can I provide references from
https://www.cia.gov/
or
http://www.house.gov/
or
http://www.congress.org/
and directly site information: "Confirmed- US Government is guilty of Waging a War on Drugs and Supporting Distribution of Them at the Same Time"?
No I can't. There are records periodically going back to the 60s of investigations. Here's an example. However I'm sure you are not going to like who chaired it.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...13/north06.pdf
These days it can be difficult to decipher what is being filtered in the media. The information I provided the link for referring Gary Webb is a perfect example of what can happen if a journalist tries to expose possible illegal clandestine operations of the CIA. If you get a chance please read this
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html
This link is the very core of what Im talking about. By the way Gary Webb has been dead now for 2 years. His death ruled a suicide. He was found with 2 gun shot wounds to the head.
Providing sources like
Scott & Marshall, Cocaine Politics; John Dinges, Our Man in Panama (NY, New York: Random House, 1991); Murray Waas, "Cocaine and the White House Connection", Los Angeles Weekly, Sept. 30-Oct. 6 and Oct. 7-13, 1988; National Security Archive Documentation Packet: The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations (Washington, DC).
or
Robbins, Air America, p. 128 and chapter 9. Jonathan Kwitny, The Crimes of Patriots: A True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA (New York City, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987). William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995) p. 420, note 33
or
Blum, Killing Hope, p. 351; Tim Weiner, Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget (New York City, New York: Warner Books, 1990)
Of course those are authors, were they there? Just like all of us here, no. It's just a matter of determining if the facts they are presenting line up logically, like this present poppy increase issue is unfolding.
3 years ago I got into heated arguments in this forum about a subject I wont mention (and haven’t seen it pop up in the perspective it was every other day back then.) Some of the statements I made would probably end with a warning by the mods today. The thing I learned form those arguments is it boils down to interpretive selection of what one accepts as credible or fact based. Any link someone provided, I researched everyone involved with the site from the webmaster to who was funding it, so on and so on. The confirmation of my hunches was usually made by discovering facts were being presented by sources that had a vested interest in what was going to be accepted.
If and when direct accusations are made implicating government officials in illegal acts, doesn’t it really all become interpretive? If these officials are still in their positions after congressional investigations conclude; if they even happen in the first place- then it’s a matter of one interpreting the incriminating information as factual and the general public’s complacency will leave it to go unchecked. The other side is having complete faith that everything the government tells us is the truth. With this same philosophy in the event that the government doesn’t tell us the truth, or keeps questionable things secret; it’s for our own good. I don't mean questionable in terms of national security, I mean in exposing the kind of actions that need to be answered to the American public. I no longer trust that things are being done in our best interest.
There is no immediate crisis in my area. I make a decent living. I'm comfortable in my home, with all the modern amenities, and food in the refrigerator. I, like all Americans; have the opportunity to prosper in as much as I'm willing to work for and create. So why should I even be questioning what I’m told? The fact is no matter how much I try I can't ignore the belief I have that all the questionable acts that many of us debate the governments involvement in are being used for personal gain to a select few. I see it happening with both parties: various actions happening (that have been happening for very long time) by elected leaders (if you can even call what we have as elections) utilizing taxpayer money and the power of their position for PERSONAL gain. It's infuriating to me, and I see it only getting worse.
I look at things like: the Taliban wipes out the poppy production; taking out at least 60% of Earth's supply of Heroin. Now the US more or less may not be in full charge of the area, but in the very least has a very strong presence. Strong enough to take reasonable steps. Again I don’t care about the drugs. Hey; if the military is going to ignore the fields while they are standing and flying right over them- fine by me. Let's go ahead and disband the DEA and pull the billions we are pumping into the war on drugs.
My lasting conclusion, like so many other topics, by my interpretation of what I read and see on the news is: a small few in our government are personally benefiting monetarily from the war on drugs- from both sides.
The content I have in life is only so high. I'm not totally happy because my belief that government has spun completely out of the hands of the people. Bullshit elections, actions to numerous to mention being made by people using their positions to exploit the citizens they are supposed to be serving in always on my mind. This inherently has an effect. I think maybe I make intermittent stops to the political forum with the hope that even something I disagree on; someone will post some bit of information that I interpret as something that will help me discover that allot of what I believe is conspiracy.
Ustwo if your position that since we don’t have direct access to the closed door meetings, classified information, and supposedly elected leaders- we should assume the no reason to think they are lying was / is . . .reality; it wouldn’t be bad thing.