Too Big to Fail... Too Big to Jail

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Some people are above the law. IMO, this is the type of society which breeds corruption and totalitarianism.

Is there a Conspiracy to protect the elite?

Perhaps you feel I am 'alarmist' or simply a 'troll' and you disagree or think this is the 'correct' decision?

Here is an example of what concerns me:


http://online.wsj.com/article/APf21df9fc2afa42bcbca97016d9b18665.html

When the Justice Department announced its record $1.9 billion settlement against British bank HSBC last week, prosecutors called it a powerful blow to a dysfunctional institution accused of laundering money for Iran, Libya and Mexico's murderous drug cartels. But to some former federal prosecutors, it was only the latest case of the government stopping short of bringing criminal money laundering charges against a big bank or its executives, at least in part on the rationale that such prosecutions could be devastating enough to cause such banks to fail.
They say it sounds a lot like the "too big to fail" meme that kept big but sickly banks alive on the support of taxpayer-funded bailouts. In these cases, they call it, "Too big to jail."
Content from External Source
 
That concerns me too. I would like to know why no charges have been brought. I don't think an illuminati-style conspiracy is high on the list though. More likely the bankers did things that are arguably legal under current law, and it's difficult to prosecute them. Perhaps also the watchdog lacks teeth, and simply does not have the resources to fully investigate such complex wrongdoings.
 
That concerns me too. I would like to know why no charges have been brought. I don't think an illuminati-style conspiracy is high on the list though. More likely the bankers did things that are arguably legal under current law, and it's difficult to prosecute them. Perhaps also the watchdog lacks teeth, and simply does not have the resources to fully investigate such complex wrongdoings.

Yep, it makes no sense to me as criminal proceedings against the actual people involved should not bring down the bank itself.

This is something else in a similar vein that I am very concerned about.

It appears the 'police' are allowing massive drug shipments from Mexico into the U.S and then simply confiscating the proceeds as they are ferried back.... The 'culprits' are then apparently told to get lost so they can carry on 'the trade'. I expect sufficient profits are allowed back to keep 'the trade' viable.

This seems to be a perverse funding method for the police, even to the extent that police officers may lose their jobs if they do not grab enough money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3O6Ui7TPYRI
 
Hmm, I'm not sure I'd say that's in a similar vein. Seems like a cause for concern.

I'm concerned about a whole bunch of things to do with the corrupting influence of money. But that's not really what this site is about.
 
Hmm, I'm not sure I'd say that's in a similar vein. Seems like a cause for concern.

I'm concerned about a whole bunch of things to do with the corrupting influence of money. But that's not really what this site is about.

Ok, I have a conspiracy theory that laws are being broken to protect the elite and enforcement agencies and that there is a conspiracy to promote civil unrest as a means to abuse and incarcerate innocent people and that there is a myriad of evidence to back it up.

Who knows... you could be next!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbpnjoRnFaw
 
How are the random, anecdotal events in your video different than any other abuse of power that has happened throughout the course of human history?
 
Yeah, this simple seems to indicate that police brutality exists in the world. Not that there's a conspiracy.
 
How are the random, anecdotal events in your video different than any other abuse of power that has happened throughout the course of human history?

Are they random?

I suggest they are not. There is a huge impetus to crack down and eradicate reporting of these 'very common' instances.

This guy is (just one of many), being prosecuted and faces 75 years in prison for recording/filming the police on his phone.

This seems very orchestrated to me. It seems like the imposition of a totalitarian state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmndxtajee4
 
Are they random?

I suggest they are not. There is a huge impetus to crack down and eradicate reporting of these 'very common' instances.

You can certainly suggest that...but that doesn't make it so.

Can you show any evidence that the police in India harassing a 5-yr old girl and the policeman in Ohio tasering the pregnant woman are somehow related or premeditated?

Both incidences were reported by the MSM and in both cases the officers involved were either fired or suspended.
 
Are they random?

I suggest they are not. There is a huge impetus to crack down and eradicate reporting of these 'very common' instances.

This guy is (just one of many), being prosecuted and faces 75 years in prison for recording/filming the police on his phone.

This seems very orchestrated to me. It seems like the imposition of a totalitarian state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmndxtajee4

Look around you, do you see the imposition of a totalitarian state where you live?

These videos are isolated instances. There are millions and millions of police interactions per day. There are billions per year. Some of them are going to be messed up. If all you look at are videos of the messed up incidents, then you are going to get a false impression of the overall picture.

I live in Venice, California. I see a lot of police interaction because there's a lot of tourists mingling with a transient community on the beach. The police have always been very polite and reasonable, and I've never seen an abuse of police powers. But nobody takes video of the police just doing their jobs, even though that's the vast majority of what actually happens. They just take video when there's possible excessive force:



This led to weeks of protests, because it's so unusual.

Police are humans, some of them mess up. Everyone has a camera in their pocket now. Police not wanting to be filmed is not going to be sustainable.
 
Police are humans, some of them mess up. Everyone has a camera in their pocket now. Police not wanting to be filmed is not going to be sustainable.

Yes police are human and sometimes they mess up... Yes, they normally only get put on you tube when they do...

But the issue here is top down harassment and the attempted imposition of of a ban on filming police brutality when it occurs, even in your own house, garden, car.

This is much much bigger than a few errant cops. This is censorship and tampering with evidence. The fact they have utilised some old law to make it 'legal' makes it no less a conspiracy.

Also the earlier video of police seizing drug money and virtually ignoring drugs entering the country is another conspiracy.

It is too big, (government agencies) to jail. Also it is drug money laundering.
 
Yes police are human and sometimes they mess up... Yes, they normally only get put on you tube when they do...

But the issue here is top down harassment and the attempted imposition of of a ban on filming police brutality when it occurs, even in your own house, garden, car.

This is much much bigger than a few errant cops. This is censorship and tampering with evidence. The fact they have utilised some old law to make it 'legal' makes it no less a conspiracy.

Also the earlier video of police seizing drug money and virtually ignoring drugs entering the country is another conspiracy.

It is too big, (government agencies) to jail. Also it is drug money laundering.

The police/money/drugs thing isn't a grand high-level conspiracy. It's just corruption, and misplaced priorities. Nobody is ordering them to go after money rather than drugs, it's just the money is more profitable.

You've got to look at the big picture. Again, look around you. Dont just look at the cherry-picked youtube videos.

Recording police is here to stay:
http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police
 
Yes police are human and sometimes they mess up... Yes, they normally only get put on you tube when they do...

But the issue here is top down harassment and the attempted imposition of of a ban on filming police brutality when it occurs, even in your own house, garden, car.

I fail to see any thing that you have said or shown that provides evidence to a "top down harassment and the attempted imposition of of a ban on filming police brutality"

Can you be specific?

As Mick said, filming cops is not going away...in actuality it is becoming much more common than ever before- with almost everyone having a video camera in their pocket. If anything that would be a possible deterrent to outright abuse.

http://www.policebrutality.info/
 
The police/money/drugs thing isn't a grand high-level conspiracy. It's just corruption, and misplaced priorities. Nobody is ordering them to go after money rather than drugs, it's just the money is more profitable.

You've got to look at the big picture. Again, look around you. Dont just look at the cherry-picked youtube videos.

Recording police is here to stay:
http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police

Good link Mick... bit of a minefield though.

I know generally police do a good job, I'm certainly not anti police. It seems there is a constant war going on... an info war... where people are often intimidated and if people do not fight back civil liberties, already under threat, will progressively be lost and a dystopic society follows.

It is important to bring these trends as much to peoples attention as possible.

I see this as a failed conspiracy because it was fought against and won, for the time being. If they can get away with it they will.
 
.

I see this as a failed conspiracy because it was fought against and won, for the time being. If they can get away with it they will.

Thats one way to look at it.

Is it possible that it wasn't a conspiracy at all and you were just wrong in your speculation? :D
 
Yeah, I don't see it as a failed conspiracy. There has just been a steady increase in the number of cameras, this led to some push-back from individual police, probably both from police who were actually corrupt, and police who just did not like it because they were worried about liability, or were just dicks. But it's not going to last. It was just a reaction in the transition from minimal filming to constant filming.

I don't see anything to suggest a high level conspiracy to prevent filming. Who would be at the top of this conspiracy?
 
To be fair, it's not as if it is a big secret. But we have to be careful with the words that we are using here: Not all cops abuse their power, some are just doing their duty. And if they do something that is considered controversial... we cannot forget, as Mick said, that we are all human and we all make mistakes. Maybe the man was being a jerk to the police officer and he got pissed in the heat of the moment.
 
To be fair, it's not as if it is a big secret. But we have to be careful with the words that we are using here: Not all cops abuse their power, some are just doing their duty. And if they do something that is considered controversial... we cannot forget, as Mick said, that we are all human and we all make mistakes. Maybe the man was being a jerk to the police officer and he got pissed in the heat of the moment.

I would not disagree with that... perfectly valid argument IMO... but how far does 'consideration' extend... that's one for the lawyers.

What I am worried about is the 'high office' sanctioning of these arrests and court cases and the intimidatory use of power.

It is a different thing altogether when 'someone' over reacts 'slightly' to when then is 'severe' and unchecked or systemic over reaction.

Like this video here... last one promise:)... but it is of a guy who 'fell'? off a bridge, broke his neck and back and was then tazered 17 times for being a threat to the police? So no need to watch unless you want.

The key here, as in the other cases, is that no police are charged.

Well if that is the kind of society that people want or accept...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SnI_xM5ujo4

So what is a conspiracy anyway?
 
The key here, as in the other cases, is that no police are charged.


But in several of the other cases you have presented here the police in question were either suspended or fired...and the cases reported by the MSM (as is your last vid).

Both which contradict your assertions.

It just seems like a classic case of ignoring evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Here is another case where the officer IS on trial for his abuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=CTipr2YvOJU&NR=1

The recipient of the abuse is suing for $35,000,000

Conspiracy?
 
Well if that is the kind of society that people want or accept...

Clearly it's not though. There's a lot of public push-back against police abuses of power. Here's a Turkish perspective.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3234/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
Police misconduct is as pervasive in the US as it is in England, Canada,
Netherlands, Germany, Austria, France, Russia, and South Africa (Champion, 2001).
Despite efforts to combat it, police misconduct is incessant and there is no systematic
approach to solve the problem. Allegations of police misconduct, brutality, and
harassment have popped up all over the US. The problem is not only nationwide, but it
has become an inherent part of the police institution (Champion, 2001; US Commission
on Civil Rights, 2000; Human Rights Watch, 1998). Moreover, poor recruitment
practices, poor training, and poor management continue to prevent abusive officers from
being sued or disciplined. The misconduct of a number of officers is spoiling entire
police departments and ruining an otherwise healthy relationship between the police and
the public. Recent reports of police misconduct in the US have brought about greater
police accountability and civilian involvement with police administrative and disciplining
decisions. These newly involved citizens are calling for more intervention, more
investigation of police misconduct and tighter disciplinary measures. They want reform
in police agencies (Russell, 1997; Human Rights Watch, 1998).


The history of American policing is a unique cycle of problem and reform. Once
society discovers a problem with the way the police operate, the reform soon follows.
Americans, according to Skolnick and Fyfe, have a revolutionary spirit that aims to limit
the government. American people are opposed to the establishment of a formal police
organization as a result of their distrust of formal authority (as cited in Cohen, 1996).
However, a free society exists only when laws are enforced and social order is
maintained. These aims can only be achieved when a democratic police institution exists
(Mutlu, 2000). To even imagine a society without police is ridiculous. Therefore, police
conduct must be kept within the limits of the law and the interests of society.

Content from External Source
 
But in several of the other cases you have presented here the police in question were either suspended or fired...and the cases reported by the MSM (as is your last vid).

Both which contradict your assertions.

It just seems like a classic case of ignoring evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Here is another case where the officer IS on trial for his abuse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=CTipr2YvOJU&NR=1

The recipient of the abuse is suing for $35,000,000

Conspiracy?

The last video I posted concerned a young man who 'fell' off a bridge and broke his neck and back. No one knows how he 'fell' off the bridge. However when the police attended him on the road, they found him 'incoherent and abusive' so they decided to tazer him 17 times 'to keep him from harming himself or them'.

How would you like it if it was you or yours who received that treatment when they had just been involved in a life threatening accident and were critically injured? And that is not a rhetorical question.

He was incoherent.... wow thats unsurprising then.

Lets tazer some coherence into him 17 times.

But no, its not even an issue that he was tazered 17 times whilst laying on the road with a broken back and neck... the officers did nothing wrong as he was abusive.

No conspiracy here then... its legal and correct procedure

And the policy of 'let the drugs go through and capture the money, and anyone elses money we can get, on the way back.

No conspiracy here... its legal

Oh and another benefit is we still get to arrest and imprison the users and set them to work in our wonderful gigantic penal system where they don't get paid because they have to work for their keep.

And another benefit, quite a few of those druggies will O.D on the drugs we let through so that helps toward getting rid of them.

Its a win win situation... no conspiracy here
 
So you are just saying that there need to be better regulations, procedures, and training put in place to prevent incidents like this from happening? (I'd probably agree with that).

Or are you suggesting there's a conspiracy? To do what?
 
So you are just saying that there need to be better regulations, procedures, and training put in place to prevent incidents like this from happening? (I'd probably agree with that).

Or are you suggesting there's a conspiracy? To do what?

I am saying there is a conspiracy to allow or legalise/normalise what would usually be described as unacceptable actions.

If I went up to a delirious accident victim and tazered them 17 times, I would expect to be described as some kind of out of control mentally ill or criminal person but the fact that in this case it is police officers, it draws the official response that there is nothing wrong with the actions and there are no issues around it.

That makes it a conspiracy in my understanding of the meaning... i.e. a number of officials have conspired to mitigate the unacceptable and abusive behaviour of their colleagues.

And I ask again, if you or yours were the victim here... how would you feel about it?

Similarly, there appears to be a funding policy for the police which virtually ignores drug trafficking into the U.S whilst seizing a percentage of the alleged proceeds exiting the U.S.

I fail to see how you can agree with this official policy or how the officials involved can even attempt to defend it.

Again, yes I see it as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and a blatant means for U.S government agencies to profit by proxy from the drugs trade.

If you and others are not greatly concerned or even condone such practices then I would suggest the U.S is so far down the road that there is little hope for the society.
 
Elizabeth Warren asks how many billions of drug laundering money does it take to shut down a bank in the U.S... and meets with evasion/silence.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Elizabeth Warren pokes and prods (correctly we would add) at the surreality that exists between the Department of Justice, The Treasury, and the financial system. David Cohen, Tom Curry, and Jerome Powell dodged bullets and blame, "does that mean essentially we have a prosecution-free zone for large banks in America?" But Warren wasn't going to be fobbed off with useless banter as she pointed out, "if you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail... for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night - I think that's fundamentally wrong." Indeed Ms. Warren.
Content from External Source
And related, it seems the Cyprus 'one off tax on savings', (cash grab), is:

aimed squarely at the huge offshore funds held in Cyprus by Russians, much of it said to be from money laundering though how an offshore banking centre is suppposed to adjudicate on the source of offshore funds presented to them by depositors is unclear.

The EU would evidently rather not have this money deposited inside the bloc and has made its draconian ruling to frighten this money away as well as to help refinance the beleaguered Cypriot banking sector. Ironically the impact of this $50 to $58 billion leaving the system will of course be devastating and almost certainly result in another crisis for the banking system.

Content from External Source
Hypocrisy? or something else?

http://politicalmetals.com/2013/03/18/the-cyprus-effect-on-gold/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578292541738312974.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/cyprus-tax-1941-fed-letter-2013-3
 
There was a case a while ago, cnbc i believe? had a page up about 40 trillion dollars being missing/laundered within the system and a firm wishing to take this to the court; the page was up for less than a day, around the same time it was taken down a news director of cnbc's childrens were found murdered, apparently the faithful nanny of 5 years who was great with the children, decided to kill them, and then kill herself. on further research, the story seemed like a hoax, the company who said would sue was either far to small for such a undertaking or non-existent, it had a website and that was about it. It was the timing of the two events which seemed suspect to me.

whenever i listen to the keiser report he refers to things like JP morgan and chase during the Irish bail out talks literally threatening Ireland with "money bombs" if they did not comply with austerity measures. This sort of posturing has been noted often by the big financial players.
 
The police/money/drugs thing isn't a grand high-level conspiracy.
The self-perpetuating nature of the 'war on drugs', which many have pointed out as being asinine and hugely counter-productive as well as a terrible drain on resources, but is none the less continued to the great and startling benefit of criminal organizations abroad (The criminalization of cannabis for example is a colossal cash-cow for Mexican drug cartels, making them tens of billions of dollars annually and helping to ensure the cartels have as much weight, if not more than the government trying to police them) is a pretty distinct example to me of a relatively 'grand' conspiracy. Those involved might not get together on Sundays for BBQ and Satanic Mass, but its a pretty clear example of a 'bunk' policy being perpetuated far past its near instantaneous expiration date by those who want money, drugs, and authority to flow in particular directions.

The current administration in America, rather than representing more liberal ideals as many were swindled into believing it would, is beginning to make the Bush 'police state' everyone was complaining about half-a-decade or so ago seem like a hippie commune. Rather than lifting policies allowing infringements on rights and freedoms, those policies are being cemented and new, even more draconian suggestions are being worked into law.
Interesting figures:
Chance a prisoner seeking a commutation of sentence under President Clinton received one: 1 in 90
Under George W. Bush: 1 in 780
Under Barack Obama: 1 in 6,631
Content from External Source
More likely the bankers did things that are arguably legal under current law, and it's difficult to prosecute them.
The reasoning behind failing to prosecute HSBC specifically had, as I understand it, nothing to do with questions over the legality of the acts. Its well established crimes were committed of a serious nature. Given the extent of the activity however, adequately prosecuting these crimes would have apparently led to the likely collapse or forced closure of the bank in America. Concluding that would lead to far too many jobs lost in the states, and that to single out individuals in the bank to face charges for widespread criminal activity would be unfair, a 'slap on the wrist' fee was the only option left. Now is that an example of the fickle but reasonable workings of justice, or an infuriating demonstration of the immunity of financial criminals?
 
The self-perpetuating nature of the 'war on drugs', which many have pointed out as being asinine and hugely counter-productive as well as a terrible drain on resources, but is none the less continued to the great and startling benefit of criminal organizations abroad (The criminalization of cannabis for example is a colossal cash-cow for Mexican drug cartels, making them tens of billions of dollars annually and helping to ensure the cartels have as much weight, if not more than the government trying to police them) is a pretty distinct example to me of a relatively 'grand' conspiracy. Those involved might not get together on Sundays for BBQ and Satanic Mass, but its a pretty clear example of a 'bunk' policy being perpetuated far past its near instantaneous expiration date by those who want money, drugs, and authority to flow in particular directions.

But I think there's a key distinction here between that and what most people think of as a conspiracy as suggested by most conspiracy theorists. "Grand" conspiracy really does suggest people conspiring together. But really there's a number of factors of people working in their own self interests that propagate the WOD. One of the biggest is simply the inertia of politicians who don't want to be seen as "soft on crime". Then there's the prison lobby (both owners and unions). Then there's law enforcement who want to have jobs. The cartels obviously like some aspects of the war on drugs (high prices), but not others (having their compounds raided).

What's seen as a "grand conspiracy" is simply the emergent result of this. I think that for anyone opposed to the War On Drugs (like myself) then characterizing it as a "grand conspiracy" is not helping. We need to look at "them" as the disparate collection of individuals they really are: spineless idiot politicians, party-line media outlets, cynical prison executives, concerned LEOs, jingoistic reluctance to look at what works in other countries, and address those problems individually and directly.
 
What's seen as a "grand conspiracy" is simply the emergent result of this. I think that for anyone opposed to the War On Drugs (like myself) then characterizing it as a "grand conspiracy" is not helping. We need to look at "them" as the disparate collection of individuals they really are: spineless idiot politicians, party-line media outlets, cynical prison executives, concerned LEOs, jingoistic reluctance to look at what works in other countries, and address those problems individually and directly.
Agreed to a point, but you and I both know many attempts, some truly passionate, to address these individual problems have been made for decades. Time and again they seem to suffer resounding defeats, in spite of all common sense. When the very system through which change is enacted seems to be rigged in the favor of senseless and destructive policy, one should start to wonder if that rigging isn't intentional. Is there a reason, beyond stupid politicians and greedy security services, that we might want to continue feeding drug cartels in Mexico massive amounts of money? One might say 'no way Jose!', but consider that so long as Mexico remains an unstable environment, which exceedingly powerful Drug Cartels ensures, illegal immigration, that supposed 'problem' which fuels American business with cheap, exploitable labor, will continue to be high. That the American military has for years now been actively defending and supporting Opium production in Afghanistan, crops from which a large percentage of the worlds illegal Heroin is produced, is pretty damn indicative of a problem beyond mismanagement and poor policy. Both are definitely going on, but I honestly believe there's a higher level of greed at play, subtly orchestrating what seems like just a cluster-fuck.
 
Interesting figures:
Chance a prisoner seeking a commutation of sentence under President Clinton received one: 1 in 90
Under George W. Bush: 1 in 780
Under Barack Obama: 1 in 6,631
Content from External Source

Also bullshit figures, based on comparing Obama's first 2 and a quarter years against the entire terms of Clinton and Bush.

If you just take the first three years, he's pardoned or commuted MORE Bush, and not significantly different to Clinton

http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm


[edit]Oops, those were not the latest figures, see:
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/statistics.htm

Still BS though, not significantly different to either on commutions.

Edit: longer post on this:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/32661
 
Last edited:
That the American military has for years now been actively defending and supporting Opium production in Afghanistan, crops from which a large percentage of the worlds illegal Heroin is produced, is pretty damn indicative of a problem beyond mismanagement and poor policy. Both are definitely going on, but I honestly believe there's a higher level of greed at play, subtly orchestrating what seems like just a cluster-fuck.

That in itself is a blatant smoking gun. I watched some propaganda BS on this where the British Army were supposed to be 'successfully stopping' Afghan farmers from growing opium. It was a ten second clip where 3 Afghans were idly knocking the heads off the opium with some sticks under the 'watchful gaze' of about 5 soldiers.

It's open, everyone knows who is doing it and where... the farmers are just making a living but as soon as it starts being processed and transported... that's where the money starts rolling in.

There is absolutely no way it can be said, 'they can't stop it'... the Taliban did it virtually overnight... no wonder they were not popular with the west.
 
Also bullshit figures, based on comparing Obama's first 2 and a quarter years against the entire terms of Clinton and Bush.
Errrr, where are you getting that?
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/statistics.htm
To date,the Obama administration has issued a total of 22 pardons and 1 commutation in five years, out of a total of 8337 petitions received for either/or.
The Bush administration, by its fifth year, had issued a total of 60 pardons/commutations, out of 5174 received petitions.
The Clinton administration by its fifth year had issued a total of 56 pardons/commutations, out of 3315 received petitions.
 
And if the Western forces there, did it the way the Taliban did, folks, like you would be SCREAMIMG in horror (and most likely, I would be joining you in that).

BTW, the Taliban 'stopped' it, so that THEY could take over the distribution network---MONEY for them
 
Errrr, where are you getting that?
http://www.justice.gov/pardon/statistics.htm
To date,the Obama administration has issued a total of 22 pardons and 1 commutation in five years, out of a total of 8337 petitions received for either/or.
The Bush administration, by its fifth year, had issued a total of 60 pardons/commutations, out of 5174 received petitions.
The Clinton administration by its fifth year had issued a total of 56 pardons/commutations, out of 3315 received petitions.

I'm getting it from the commutation figures, which is what they used in your quote.

If you take your figures of commutation and pardons above its:

Obama: 1 in 362
Bush: 1 in 86
Clinton: 1 in 59

Vastly different to your original quote, the differences being a tenth the size.

And it's also not quite as simple as those figures suggest. Many years there are zero pardons, some years there are lots. There's more going on here besides just one guy being tougher than the other. Why do people get commutations and pardons? Purely on their merits?
 
And if the Western forces there, did it the way the Taliban did, folks, like you would be SCREAMIMG in horror (and most likely, I would be joining you in that).

Are you serious and if so could you elucidate?

BTW, the Taliban 'stopped' it, so that THEY could take over the distribution network---MONEY for them

Perhaps I am missing something... if there is NOTHING to distribute, how does one 'take over the distribution of NOTHING', let alone MAKE MONEY... Please let me know, I may try it myself if you can show me how to make money distributing nothing.
 
Between 1996 and 1999 Mullah Omar reversed his opinions on the drug trade, apparently as it only harmed kafirs. The Taliban controlled 96% of Afghanistan's poppy fields and made opium its largest source of taxation.[210] Taxes on opium exports became one of the mainstays of Taliban income and their war economy.[210] According to Rashid, "drug money funded the weapons, ammunition and fuel for the war."[210] In the New York Times, the Finance Minister of the United Front, Wahidullah Sabawoon, declared the Taliban had no annual budget but that they "appeared to spend US$ 300 million a year, nearly all of it on war." He added that the Taliban had come to increasingly rely on three sources of money: "poppy, the Pakistanis and bin Laden."[210]
Content from External Source
By 2000 Afghanistan accounted for an estimated 75% of the world's supply and in 2000 grew an estimated 3276 tonnes of opium from poppy cultivation on 82,171 hectares.[211] At this juncture Omar passed a decree banning the cultivation of opium, and production dropped to an estimated 74 metric tonnes from poppy cultivation on 1,685 hectares.[212] Many observers say the ban - which came in a bid for international recognition at the United Nations - was only issued in order to raise opium prices and increase profit from the sale of large existing stockpiles.[210] The year 1999 had yielded a record crop and had been followed by a lower but still large 2000 harvest.[210] The trafficking of accumulated stocks by the Taliban continued in 2000 and 2001.[210] In 2002, the UN mentioned the "existence of significant stocks of opiated accumulated during previous years of bumper harvests."[210] In September 2001 - before the 11 September attacks against the United States – the Taliban allegedly authorized Afghan peasants to sow opium again.[210]
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
 
By 2000 Afghanistan accounted for an estimated 75% of the world's supply and in 2000 grew an estimated 3276 tonnes of opium from poppy cultivation on 82,171 hectares.[211] At this juncture Omar passed a decree banning the cultivation of opium, and production dropped to an estimated 74 metric tonnes from poppy cultivation on 1,685 hectares.
Quite a massive drop in production in a single year. The following year we went to war with them. Care to cite the figures on how the opium industry has bounced back in Afghanistan, with the direct aid of the American military? As I understand it opium production in Afghanistan is back to record-setting highs. Speculate about their reasoning being illegitimate or them having an intention to start the trade up again (both of which are entirely unconfirmed suppositions from outside sources) all you want, but the Taliban DID put a near-end to opium production in Afghanistan, reducing it by an estimated 91% in a very short period of time. After the 'War on Terror', opium production is booming, and Afghanistan is once more one of the primary sources of the Globe's supply of Heroin.
 
They STOPPED it with tactics that were horrible and cruel, do you REALLY want us to do that?

Do you understand WHY farmers raise poppys? They raise them because other crops do not bring them as much income.
 
Do you understand why impoverished Americans stand a greater chance of entering the drug trade? Because it pays better than minimum wage/welfare. Is either activity to be encouraged? Why severely punish one and actively protect and promote the other? Especially considering the relationship is entirely symbiotic?(As in opium farming supports the drug trade, which supports opium farming.)

They STOPPED it with tactics that were horrible and cruel, do you REALLY want us to do that?
And we started it up again with what...? Stern words and kind deeds? Tens of thousands of casualties, military and Civilian. Was that the only purpose? Surely not. There were several major financial motivators. Oh, and that Osama guy. Bringing him and his accomplices to justice for the crimes committed on 9/11 was definitely the big reason we were there.
 
They STOPPED it with tactics that were horrible and cruel, do you REALLY want us to do that?

Says who?

Do you understand WHY farmers raise poppys? They raise them because other crops do not bring them as much income.

Which applies to every farmer in the world... what is your point.

My point is we have had a 'War On Drugs' for decades where Drugs become increasingly available and abundant.

Tthe users/addicts get fleeced, sick and incarcerated and the Mafioso Banksters, politicians, police, CIA and the treasuries profit in the trillions from peoples suffering. And when they get caught red handed they are 'told off'.

We have a decade long 'War On Terror' which facilitates maximum drug output RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES OF THE U.S MILITARY WAR MACHINE COMPLETE WITH DRONES AND INTELLIGENCE = WITH THEIR AID AND BLESSING, which has spawned massive hatred and more Jihadists than you can shake a stick at.

And your only answer is 'it's the Taliban, they are evil, they killed people'. :confused: No one is suggesting that the Taliban are good but you appear unwilling to accept the responsibility of 'the west'... (you know who I mean), and make every lame excuse possible.

This is from Ahmed Rashid the author of a book which Wiki draws it's citation as to how
The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians,[25][26][27]
Content from External Source
He is alleged to be something of an expert in the politics of the region.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...ures-of-the-west-in-afghanistan-a-874034.html

SPIEGEL: The United States is trying to establish a more peaceful environment prior to the withdrawal of their troops and to initiate talks with the Taliban -- also with limited success.

Rashid: Evidently, the US also isn't capable of mediation. This lesson can be drawn from the failure of the talks with the Taliban in Qatar. Here too it would be better to involve the private sector, such as with respectable organizations that are preferably trusted by both sides. States should limit themselves to facilitating mediation. For example, the International Red Cross has the best contact to the Taliban. The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan has for the past fifteen years managed three hundred schools in an area of Afghanistan that is under Taliban control. The Swedes have to deal with the Taliban on an almost daily basis so the schools can be kept open for boys and girls. This remarkable local initiative could be transformed into a nationwide initiative for dialogue and mediation.

SPIEGEL: What you are proposing is a paradigm shift.
Rashid: Exactly, the West would be well advised to change its approach towards failing states. At present, no major power can find the correct ways and means --and the numbers of failing states are increasing, almost as if there were a race going on. This year we watched the collapse of Mali, a consequence of the Libyan civil war. The south of Libya and Mali, and Niger too, are well on the way to becoming a no-man's land. After 9/11, George W. Bush and Tony Blair made the promise that they would not tolerate failed states because they could become a haven for terrorists. And today? The number increases. Last year it was Yemen, this year it is the southern Sahara.

Content from External Source
And here he talks about:
Rashid offers unparalleled firsthand information. He explains how the growth of Taliban power has already created severe instability in Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and five Central Asian republics. He describes the Taliban’s role as a major player in a new “Great Game”—a competition among Western countries and companies to build oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia to Western and Asian markets. The author also discusses the controversial changes in American attitudes toward the Taliban—from early support to recent bombings of Osama Bin Laden’s hideaway and other Taliban-protected terrorist bases—and how they have influenced the stability of the region.
Content from External Source
The fact is, the U.S couldn't care less about the Talibans atrocities until such times as they cut opium production and opposed the oil pipeline.
 
I find it to be a problem that you equate what the Taliban did with what the Nato forces did.

No we are not perfect and some of our troops have been VERY wrong---it is unfortunate, but mental illness and cruelty shows up there as well on the streets of Aurora and Newtown.

I am stopping my typing now, before I violate the politeness policy
 
Back
Top