Saw a news story today that said that the Taliban’s main source of funds was from the poppy fields. Now, I think it is fair to say that the US “war on drugs” causes prices to rise for illegal drugs, making huge profits for the suppliers. I also think it is fair to say that some amount of the opium supplied by the Taliban made it to the US. It occurred to me then that if a large profit was made by illegal sales to the US, that would have helped to finance the terrorist training camps,flight schools, etc. So, has our policy on drugs contributed to the events that occurred on 9/11?
Well, let’s see - bin Laden got his money from inheritance from him father. His father got his money from construction in Saudi Arabia. A good deal of that construction was done for American oil companies building facilities in Saudi. So, did the American oil companies contribute to the events that occurred on 9/11? Should we ban construction so as to prevent future attacks by future heirs of construction billionaires?
I’m as much against the war on drugs as the next guy, probably more so. But, c’mon. In the law, we have concepts of causation. The drug war was not the “proximate” cause of 9/11 - it was not foreseeable that the drug war would contribute or cause attacks on American soil.
Osama bin Laden is worth more than $250 million from his inheritance and investments. I don’t think drug money played a large role in the funding of al-Qaeda. I’d also like to point out that while the Taliban are involved in drug trafficking, it is not the Taliban who are funding terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, in fact, it’s likely the other way around.
I understand and appreciate your points, although I didn’t say “cause”, rather help to fund. I have heard that Bin Ladens wealth has been greatly exaggerated as well so I don’t think this money coming in wasn’t welcome. How substantial was it? I don’t know but considering the usual profit margin that is associated from drugs, probably pretty good. I would think that money coming from either the Talibans drug trade or Bin Laden was probably all used for a common cause, notably training terrorists.
My point is not that we should outlaw all sources of income such as construction, where the money might be used to finance terrorism, but that those who are so gung-ho on the “war on drugs” need to realize that there are two sides to this policy and perhaps, some of the negatives are not so obvious.
There is a huge profit to be made from keeping drugs illegal. Sometimes that profit might help Columbian drug lords, sometimes it might help to train terrorists that attack this country.
OK, now I understand, and this is an excellent point. The US - both individual citizens as consumers of cocaine, etc., and the US government, as the party helping to drive up prices and profits through the war on drugs, has done more damage to Columbia than we would have had we simply invaded the country. And in the instance of Columbia, musicguy, it is plenty clear-cut - the paramilitaries and the guerillas both impose a “tax” on coca growing and trafficking in the areas they control, which is the substantal source of all three (AUC, ELN, and FMLN (?)) groups’ income.
Well, according to this report, last July the Taliban outlawed the growing of poppy all together, crippling probably theonly lucrative export of Afghanistan. The Taliban used the cash crops to finance thier war on opposition forces, but once fimly entrenced in the Afghansitan, Mullah Mohammed Omar outlawed the drug crops as being un-Islamic. And as we all know, once the Taliban declared something un-Islamic, it was in the peoples best interest to heed the law. After an inspection by the UN, there were no poppy fields found anywhere. So while the opium fields may have built up the bankroll of the Taliban a bit, it was the Taliban themselves who stopped production, not the U.S. war on drugs.
It has been widely written that the Taliban made poppy farming illegal because they had a large stockpile and wanted that stock pile to be as valuable as possible. By limiting other sources, they were able to sell off their stored opium at a much higher price.
If that happened than you can be sure that “drug” prohibition is responsible for many more than the 4000+ victims of 9-11.
Day in and day out. Murders, maimings, robberies, burglaries, and all sorts of mayhem are fueled by the artificial price of “drugs”.
But…you asked for it. So it is gubment policy to catch a small fraction of the offenders and let the vast amount of drugs flos through the USA. Remember,nothing…and I mean NOTHING, will “fuck you up” like alcohol.