Some help... Mexican Drug Cartels and the Crime-Terror Nexus...

[Slinger17516]

Originally Posted by SOTB

Or these are the types of people who would jump on the oft-utilized tactic of dramatizing an issue.

No.

These are the types of people who turn a blind eye to the real problems along the border or fail to recognize that there are problems at all. The types who don't understand why these "poor people" need to get deported...after all they are just trying to provide for their families...right?

If it takes dramatizing an issue to make people understand or create a safer homeland than so be it...kind of like how we invaded Iraq wasn't it...all those WMD's...that was dramatized wasn't it?

Do you agree with any of these correlations?

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Slinger17516

Do you agree with any of these correlations?

I believe that the problem of securing our borders -- plural -- is a serious one. I also think that because of the rhetoric and often ill-informed information that is put out, that people tune off the issue of securing the borders. I don't believe it is the only reason people tune off the issue -- but I think it is a strong one.

So using scare tactics to attempt to galvanize people to act -- sure, the success of this tactic has roots going a long ways back. At the same time, once people wake up and realize they've been had, it can make for some problems as well.

You utilize the dramatization of the WMDs in Iraq as an example. I believe that the initial positions taken by the administration of that time weren't dramatizing or embellishing the issue at all -- although I do think that later, the decision was made (poorly, IMO) to go beyond what what originally stated as our criteria for our decision-making -- and that has hurt us on being able to do other things. In other words, the invasion of Iraq for failing to live up to UN resolutions and the then commonly-accepted understanding that his regime either was in possession of WMDs/was previously in possession/or was looking to be -- this understanding being what was openly stated by a whole bunch of nations (not just the US) -- this was more than sufficient to invade Iraq. Adding on other stuff that was later easily demo'd to be silly, hurt our cause. And more importantly, I think it cost us on the homefront, with US citizens beginning to believe all the evil things the US was being accused of.

So dramatizing an issue to get what one wants? It works. Will it bite one in the ass later? It often does. Will continuously doing so make one look like an idiot? Yeah....

[Slinger17516]

Originally Posted by SOTB

I believe that the problem of securing our borders -- plural -- is a serious one.

So using scare tactics to attempt to galvanize people to act -- sure, the success of this tactic has roots going a long ways back. At the same time, once people wake up and realize they've been had, it can make for some problems as well.

So dramatizing an issue to get what one wants? It works. Will it bite one in the ass later? It often does. Will continuously doing so make one look like an idiot? Yeah....

I'm on the same page with you here but I think we have different views on how to make people understand reality. You are roughly 20 years older than me and have far more experience in life than myself. From what I have been through and learned is that the majority of people don't realize what a "threat" or "danger" really is until it's to late or you sell them on it.

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Slinger17516

I'm on the same page with you here but I think we have different views on how to make people understand reality....

You're correct. I find sensationalizing things to get what I want to be disgusting. If I cannot argue the thing on my knowledge of the facts, then resorting to flat-out lying seems to be not much different than the entertainers that many people (including some on this board) listen to for "news."

What is the difference between sensationalizing the security situation in Mexico and telling a chick that if she doesn't give it up that you'll die of some illness? The ones that will buy either stupidity aren't that numerous, and the ones that won't buy into these idiocies will eat your lunch later when you try and take a serious approach.

I suppose the "to each their own" thing is the final answer, though....

[Slinger17516]

Originally Posted by SOTB

What is the difference between sensationalizing the security situation in Mexico and telling a chick that if she doesn't give it up that you'll die of some illness?

I suppose the "to each their own" thing is the final answer, though....

What you consider to be sensationalizing is what I think is better informing/educating the public...as was done prior to declaring war on Iraq. (With this I think I am at the point that I say "tom-ato" and you call it "to-mato")

To those in the "know" going to war on the basis of the WMD threat could look a little sensationalized or be viewed as imbelishing the truth; perhaps even hiding long term goals? However, the people not in the "know" were better informed about Iraq which posed much less of a threat to us than our weaknesses along our borders. (Whether or not the public needs to or deserved to know all that info about Iraq is a completely different subject) I think Mexico poses a far greater risk to our country than Iraq was made up to.

I know you don't want to hear it but back to the IED thing...I see the use of the IED TTP's that have rolled into the drug war along our border to be an issue that should really warrant concern. Perhaps not for the actual employment of IED's but more along the lines of how these cartels are evolving...

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Slinger17516

....I think I am at the point that I say "tom-ato" and you call it "to-mato"

Mmmmm, I would look at it as "honesty" and "lying."

Originally Posted by Slinger17516

I think Mexico poses a far greater risk to our country than Iraq was made up to.

The threat that does exist from Mexico is real and quite serious. I believe it to be one of the most important threats to our country today. I don't believe that you and I are discussing the same thing, though.

Originally Posted by Slinger17516

I know you don't want to hear it but back to the IED thing....Perhaps not for the actual employment of IED's but more along the lines of how these cartels are evolving...

Dude, I consider the IED threat in Mexico every single day. I suspect that I am personally (and professionally) more worried about that -- and a slew of other TTPs -- than anyone else in this thread. My earlier comments were that you don't understand the "evolution" of the use of IEDs in Mexico, and it would probably be correct that you don't have a lot of knowledge of how the cartels are evolving, either. That doesn't mean I would subscribe to your being flogged in the town square for your thinking -- just because I have a small amount of knowledge on the ongoings of certain things in Mexico doesn't mean I'm not completely clueless on pretty much every other thing in my universe. So don't take my comments as demeaning -- I'm certainly no one to demean anyone. But in short -- you're wrong about much of your info, and if you then utilize that wrong info to try and scare people into doing X thing -- dude, it won't take long until even when you state something spot on -- no one will listen....

[Subtlemoves]

While it may seem to come from left field... you would do well to read Mao Tse Tung's Red Book on Guerilla Warfare. When I was operating down there it was their playbook. Insurgencies as a rule have fundamental tenants that weave through any of them, be they al Qa'ida, or Baeder Meinhoff and anything in between. Just a thought. BTW... in spite of the hype, Che Guevara is NOT a good example. Bolivia pasted his ass in relatively short order, and he is not respected by many of the top tier insurgents in the Latin American AOR.

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Subtlemoves

While it may seem to come from left field... you would do well to read Mao Tse Tung's Red Book on Guerilla Warfare. When I was operating down there it was their playbook. Insurgencies as a rule have fundamental tenants that weave through any of them, be they al Qa'ida, or Baeder Meinhoff and anything in between. Just a thought. BTW... in spite of the hype, Che Guevara is NOT a good example. Bolivia pasted his ass in relatively short order, and he is not respected by many of the top tier insurgents in the Latin American AOR.

I emboldened the portions of your post that interested me most. Would you mind providing more info on where "down there" was, in addition to explaining where you believe the word(s) "insurgents/insurgencies" applies in your post (I'm referring to geographically)?

[Guy]

I'm pretty sure the words, insurgent or insurgency was not used during Che's time...

As far as Bolivia handing Che Guevara his ass; you may wanna research:

Félix Rodríguez & Major 'Pappy' Shelton.

Stay safe.

[Subtlemoves]

So let's go with "revolutionary" instead. Better? As far as "down there" I refer to South, not Central, America. Regarding Bolivia and Che, check out Oct. 7th - 9th, 1966. They have a statue/monument dedicated to the Bolivian SF group that captured and then subsequently killed him.

I'm not following your request regarding clarification on insurgency/insurgencies...

[Subtlemoves]

I mean Oct. 7-9, 1967. I fat-fingered the keys.

[Guy]

If it wasn't for U.S. doing the training and pushing the optempo who knows where Che may be....

Major Ralph "Pappy" Shelton, who has died aged 80, was the American officer who trained the Bolivian troops that captured Che Guevara in 1967. Together with 16 Spanish-speaking US officers, Shelton set up a training camp in eastern Bolivia in April 1967 to teach a battalion of 400 Bolivian conscripts the techniques of counter-guerrilla warfare. When their training ended in mid-September, they were transferred to the guerrilla zone, and two weeks later, on 8 October, surrounded Guevara's guerrilla band. Guevara himself was wounded and captured, and executed on 9 October. Shelton slipped out of the country on the following day and returned to his headquarters in the Panama Canal Zone.

Stay safe.

[Subtlemoves]

Amen, and I will. Out here.

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Subtlemoves

So let's go with "revolutionary" instead. Better?

I don't know, is it? This thread pertains to Mexico. You're the one throwing out terms which have nothing to do with the situation. But as you state later in your post, perhaps you are referring to some other location. Which again has no bearing on cartel motivations.

Originally Posted by Subtlemoves

I'm not following your request regarding clarification on insurgency/insurgencies...

Refer to my comment above....

[dxb_skr]

Hezbollah In Mexico -- fusion of Narco & Terror.

There's been a number of articles this year on the subject. Romney came out on the subject as well in November. Allegedly a Hezbolllah operative was arrested in Mexico last year trying to network with the cartels.

"We have, right now, Hezbollah, which is working throughout Latin America, in Venezuela, in Mexico, throughout Latin America, which poses a very significant and imminent threat to the United States of America." -- Mitt Romney

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...bollah-cartels

Romney on HB:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ica-poses-imm/

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Originally Posted by Subtlemoves

dedicated to the Bolivian SF group that captured and then subsequently killed him.

You might have increased credibility if you had more basic facts correct. Not sayin'....just sayin'.

[The Fat Guy]

Originally Posted by dxb_skr

Hezbollah In Mexico -- fusion of Narco & Terror.

There's been a number of articles this year on the subject. Romney came out on the subject as well in November. Allegedly a Hezbolllah operative was arrested in Mexico last year trying to network with the cartels.

"We have, right now, Hezbollah, which is working throughout Latin America, in Venezuela, in Mexico, throughout Latin America, which poses a very significant and imminent threat to the United States of America." -- Mitt Romney

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...bollah-cartels

Romney on HB:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ica-poses-imm/

My analysis shows that Hezbollah is there for the money they make through the drug trade and could give two shits about "sneaking" into America, Why sneak in when they can come in with a student visa?

While I believe there is some cross fertilization of TTP between transnational islamic fundamentalists and the DTO's, its not significant enough to state that Hezbollah is infiltrating the US via LATAM/MX. When you think of it, what better way can the TNIF's rub our nose in our own putrid life style which they proclaim to hate so much than to make money for their cause against the West by selling drugs to feed our addiction?

[dxb_skr]

@The Fat Guy. Certainly agree. H/B is about money in Lat-Am (not just Mexico) rather than an attack on the US -- the 'alleged' skill exchange between H/B and the cartels makes the cartels even more dangerous (attacking bloggers / beheadings / vbied).

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by dxb_skr

the 'alleged' skill exchange between H/B and the cartels makes the cartels even more dangerous (attacking bloggers / beheadings / vbied).

Bahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaa -- deep breath, snort, giggle -- bahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah ahaa

Sorry....

[The Fat Guy]

Originally Posted by SOTB

Bahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaa -- deep breath, snort, giggle -- bahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah ahaa

Sorry....

What he meant to say was that these DTO's were pretty much all over the killing other people part LONG before any TNIF's showed up, but he must have choked on something while typing.