Thread: The War On Drugs VS. The War On Terror

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?"

Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to combat to any skeptic - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through.

As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce.

Not that this is evidence, but here's my two cents.

If a government is willing to involve itself in the matters of buying and selling drugs that are capable of destroying human lives, then puts on a public relations charade claming it is a messiah of sorts against such behavior, who is to say they are above doing the same for matters involving terrorizing citizens of countries to provoke them to act in a certain way out of emotional response?

Behold the power of mass media and financial influence. When you talk about this issue to others, how does it make you feel when they vehemently deny that what you say is plausible?

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

If a government is willing to involve itself in the matters of buying and selling drugs that are capable of destroying human lives, then puts on a public relations charade claming it is a messiah of sorts against such behavior, who is to say they are above doing the same for matters involving terrorizing citizens of countries to provoke them to act in a certain way out of emotional response?

Exactly what he said.

An atmosphere of fear is the best way to induce the support of less-than-savory ideas that--when looked at more closely--seem like "a paramount waste of time", or worse. A person can do a lot of horribly evil things, if they feel they have right on their side.

I'm reminded of a Voltaire quote: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?"

Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to give credibility to any skeptics - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through.

As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce.

I'm not sure what you mean ;_;


Like, maybe its because I don't live in America, but what do you mean by 'war on drugs'? ;_;

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm not sure what you mean ;_;


Like, maybe its because I don't live in America, but what do you mean by 'war on drugs'? ;_;

Google; "war on drugs"


The problem I see with our country is that anyone who isn't part of the main stream media has been branded as a crack pot or conspiracy theorist, and the main stream media only broadcasts what they want you to know. In this way, anyone who reports what is actually going on isn't credible anymore. It doesn't matter how much evidence one compiles against this stuff, to most of the country; if its not on fox or cnn, it isn't true.

Its all about the concept of adjacency. Because of the way that we learn and retain information, if you say one word with another word enough times, it won't matter if they really have anything to do with each other, they will still be cemented as related in our minds and that goes for all of the other things that are associated with both of the concepts that are being grouped together. The phrase 'War on Drugs' alone makes people believe that drugs are an enemy because, what else do you go to war with but the enemy?

The war on terror takes that concept to a whole new level since it is such a vague concept. Suddenly anyone's name can be grouped with the word terrorist and now they are an enemy of the country just because you've said it.

What really drives me crazy is that there are some people who are able to see through the war on drugs for what it is, but because "terror" represents a more realistic danger they buy into it even though its the same shit in a different package.

I say catch 2 birds with one Stone: Legalise most drugs except the most harmfull, addictive ones like Heroin, Cocaine, Meth and Speed.

No more immoral, expensive impractical druglaws + harmreduction and at the same time a large drugmarket taken from the hands of terrorists and put into the hands of governments.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In all honesty, I'm left asking myself "What's the difference?"

Anyone who knows anything about the so-called 'War on Drugs' knows that it's a sham. They know that it's a problem perpetuated by the Government, in an attempt to leave us chasing ghosts - to leave us seeing the government 'solving' a problem that it, itself, helps cause. After all these years, there is plenty of documentation to combat to any skeptic - so much so that it would be hard for any skeptic to convincingly state his position without a possibly damning amount of counter-intelligence for him to fight through.

As of now, there is plenty of the same sort of "conspiracy theorist" information out there to argue that the 'War on Terror' is the same sort of sham. I'd like to know if any of you see any of the similarities, or if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to the authenticity of the 'War on Terror' that can't be logically categorized as a U.S.-proposed farce.

I am a rare person who supports the war on terror but thinks the war on drugs is about the dumbest and most tragic crock in the history of our country. What is so extra-specially idiotic about the war on drugs is that it goes after people but cannot go after their positions. If you arrest a cocaine kingpin today, you have only arrested the cocaine kingpin. His position lives on. He will be replaced right away. Nothing changed. If you arrest his entire cartel, it makes no difference. Another cartel takes their place. If you arrest every drug dealer in the United States today, they are all replaced tomorrow. That is because not a damn thing has changed the market demand that is creating the positions. No matter how many people are arrested, somebody is going to get the public the drugs it demands. The war on drugs reduces the number of dealers, but what it does not do is reduce the amount of drugs being sold. Unfortunately, the public does not understand that and gets sucked into saying, "Look there, Melba Flow, they arrested some cocaine dealers today. That's less cocaine that will be on the streets." No it's not!!!!

The war on terror is different. If you arrest an Al Qaeda member today, his position as a terrorist is not replaced. His rank might be replaced, but there is still one less person in the world to help do damage to our country. It is not like there is a constant amount of terror and then it's just a matter of who fills the positions. The amount of drugs available to the public is based on market demand, and whether there are 5 dealers of 5 million dealers, the public is going to get its demanded amount of drugs. The amount of terror, on the other hand, is determined by the number of people participating in it. Thus, when a terrorist is killed or captured, the world really is a little bit safer. That is not the case with drugs. Busting an entire cartel and seizing 60 of their 18 wheelers full of cocaine will not change the amount of cocaine that will be consumed in the country, though busting an entire terrorist organization makes the world much, much safer.

Also, the war on terror is not just about killing and capturing terrorists. It is also about changing the socio-economic climate of the Middle East so that far fewer people grow up in backward ass poverty conditions that cause the ignorance and desperation which make it so easy for them to be manipulated into joining a terrorist organization. The war on drugs isn't aimed at changing the cultural factors at the root of drug addiction. It is just aimed at saying, "Never mind the results. The point is that we are doing something about drugs."

So, the war on drugs is a moronic joke, but the war on terror actually accomplishes things.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The war on terror is different. If you arrest an Al Qaeda member today, his position as a terrorist is not replaced. His rank might be replaced, but there is still one less person in the world to help do damage to our country. It is not like there is a constant amount of terror and then it's just a matter of who fills the positions. The amount of drugs available to the public is based on market demand, and whether there are 5 dealers of 5 million dealers, the public is going to get its demanded amount of drugs. The amount of terror, on the other hand, is determined by the number of people participating in it. Thus, when a terrorist is killed or captured, the world really is a little bit safer. That is not the case with drugs. Busting an entire cartel and seizing 60 of their 18 wheelers full of cocaine will not change the amount of cocaine that will be consumed in the country, though busting an entire terrorist organization makes the world much, much safer.

Don't you think the war on terror creates terrorists? Imagine yourself living in a country being attacked by the U.S.. I would wager that for every civilian death caused by the United States, there are at least 3 new terrorists who wouldn't have otherwise joined the cause. Why is it, do you think, that we don't seem to be making much progress on the terrorist front? I'm sure you are aware that 30,000 new troops are on their way to Afghanistan. What is the need for so many more if the world has been getting safer and safer all this time?

Take a look around the world and you might find there really is a near limitless supply of people who hate this country and its policies, and are just one personal tragedy away from doing something that would get them labeled as a terrorist.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Don't you think the war on terror creates terrorists? Imagine yourself living in a country being attacked by the U.S.. I would wager that for every civilian death caused by the United States, there are at least 3 new terrorists who wouldn't have otherwise joined the cause. Why is it, do you think, that we don't seem to be making much progress on the terrorist front? I'm sure you are aware that 30,000 new troops are on their way to Afghanistan. What is the need for so many more if the world has been getting safer and safer all this time?

Take a look around the world and you might find there really is a near limitless supply of people who hate this country and its policies, and are just one personal tragedy away from doing something that would get them labeled as a terrorist.

The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea.

The major goal is to change the cultural landscape of the Middle East over decades so that primitive superstition does not have the same mesmerizing effect it has now. I hate the government of Iran, but because I grew up in a civilized culture and have worldly understanding on some kind of significant level, I cannot be reeled in by a superstitious hate cult that wants me to blow myself up in an Iranian cafeteria full of civilians. With cultural advancement comes a significant degree of rationality, but cultural advancement takes time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea.

All of our differences aside, U.M., I have one question. If the people of the Middle East (particularly in the wartorn parts where the U.S. is involved) actually rose up to avenge the deaths of their fellow civilians, are you FOR or AGAINST the genocide of those people on the grounds that you think they're being irrational?

No hostility in this question, and I'm not trying to insinuate anything particularly nasty. We can be civil again, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The plan is long term, not short term. There are definitely potential terrorists who have become active terrorists in response to our liberation and preservation efforts, but I think killing them too is part of the idea.

The major goal is to change the cultural landscape of the Middle East over decades so that primitive superstition does not have the same mesmerizing effect it has now. I hate the government of Iran, but because I grew up in a civilized culture and have worldly understanding on some kind of significant level, I cannot be reeled in by a superstitious hate cult that wants me to blow myself up in an Iranian cafeteria full of civilians. With cultural advancement comes a significant degree of rationality, but cultural advancement takes time.

Why would you ever want to blow yourself up in an Iranian cafeteria when we have air to surface missiles that can be shot down that cafeteria's chimney? We have had several hands in creating the cultural landscape that now fosters hatred for our country and you may be surprised to find out how little it actually has to do with religion. Poverty is the root of the problems in the middle east, not religion or "terror". All we are doing is bombing them further into poverty and then making them more dependant on oil which is a dying resource.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

All of our differences aside, U.M., I have one question. If the people of the Middle East (particularly in the wartorn parts where the U.S. is involved) actually rose up to avenge the deaths of their fellow civilians, are you FOR or AGAINST the genocide of those people on the grounds that you think they're being irrational?

It depends on what you mean by "rose up". I am for the death of every single individual who tries to kill American soldiers in the name of revenge or the like. However, I do not support aiming bombs at the residences and shopping areas of their family members. Their family members, especially their offspring generations from now, did not perform the controversial acts of liberating their countries, and liberation is something I favor any way.

Since this ties into our discussion about Israel, I will say this...

I favor revenge against guilty individuals, but not people who are merely associated with them because of race, religion, or nationality.
No person is guilty based on where he or she is born and raised, especially if the person is too young to know much about geography.
The U.S. military is not "guilty" of liberating 50 million people and going through nightmares and horrific controversy to preserve the new democratic governments. They are heroic for it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why would you ever want to blow yourself up in an Iranian cafeteria when we have air to surface missiles that can be shot down that cafeteria's chimney?

No, I don't, and I wouldn't want to use missiles on an Iranian cafeteria any way. What would it accomplish?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

We have had several hands in creating the cultural landscape that now fosters hatred for our country and you may be surprised to find out how little it actually has to do with religion. Poverty is the root of the problems in the middle east, not religion or "terror". All we are doing is bombing them further into poverty and then making them more dependant on oil which is a dying resource.

It looks like we agree on something. The poverty and the backwardness that comes with it are what allow fundamentalist Islamic teachings to persuade people into becoming terrorists. That is a huge part of the reason we are trying to get democracy and capitalism to pull the heart of the Middle East out of the dark ages. Even without resources, capitalism will allow them to have business prosperity with resources they can buy and sell. Capitalism works. It worked for Germany and Japan. We redesigned their governments, and now they are the 2nd and 3rd wealthiest countries in the world. There is great hope for Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that good news?