What Measures Can We Take Against Those Who Fund Terrorism but Do Not Directly Engage in It?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
October 10, 2008
Opium Burning in Afghanistan

Today, NATO Defense Ministers agreed to allow their troops in Afghanistan to target drug traffickers who financially support Taliban fighters. The UN estimates that the Taliban earns about $100 million per year from the drug trade.

What other measures can we take against those who fund terrorism but do not directly engage in it?

Comments

Comments

Syrian P.
|
Syria
October 11, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

LOL and LOL, is the poster really serious or like to pull a fast one. Find those drug traffickers and kill them all, give all the mopney they horded and stached around the worlds banks to fund freedom and Democracy movements globally, get your dream copme true in a month. These menace of criminals are all over the world, they even have own airline and pilots, you will not find them in Kabul and they dont speak Pashtun, for some strange reason, they all speak fluent English with a Langley, Virginia accent, few of this Mafia trafficker bosses speak Hebrew as well. Leave the poor peasant Afghani farmers of the crop alone, they bearly get to have food on the table at day end.

Len
|
Ohio, USA
October 11, 2008

Len in Ohio writes:

I cannot believe you are unaware of Christopher Hitchens' suggestion: buy the opium directly from the farmers. Pay more for it than our enemies do, and you guarantee that the farmers will sell it to the US Government rather than terrorists.

It takes a funding source away from al Qaeda and the Taliban, and is also a good way to obtain the base ingredients for many legitimate medications on the cheap.

Honestly, what's not to like?

Kirk
|
Kentucky, USA
October 11, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

The most effective measure against the illegal trade is to alter the factors that motivate those who engage in it. With the poppy farms in Afghanistan, for example, you have two issues to consider. The first being practical and the second ideological. Practically speaking, understanding, and altering, a person's actions means examining the two basic components behind motivation: profit (or loss-aversion) and risk. A farmer, prompted by a gun toting extremists, sees much more profit and less risk by growing poppy than any other option. Only until either of those factors (or ideally, both) are altered substantially will a person exchange their current goal for something else. Considering that there is about a 40% un-employment rate (profit -- or lack of) in Afghanistan and that the government controls maybe 30% (risk) of the area, the steps are obvious.

Drug trafficking is a police concern, not the military. So why are NATO "troops" engaging in this instead of the Afghani police force? If it's that the police force is too weak and corrupt then it sounds like more effort needs to be put there instead of sending military troops running around in a desert that contains a hostile population while they try to find farms to blow up and criminals to catch who specialize in not being caught. A net of power which consists of government control, honest policing by the rule of law, and a strong intelligence capability is what is needed, not a bunch of soldiers with machine guns that roam around accidentally shooting civilians and blundering into ambushes. Considering that a person needs an armed escort under the cover of darkness to travel from one city to another, it sounds like the powers that be have once again placed the cart in front of the horse.

The military is an awesome tool. Track an enemy by satellite, verify with forward observers, surprise them with a drone missile, swoop in with rocket armed helicopters shooting heavy caliber machine guns, and then drop in the special forces squad for clean up. That certainly sounds exciting, doesn't it? But you know what, even a jack-hammer is of little use with something that requires a wrench. The right tool for the right job. Military strikes are shaped like cones of force, they do the job and put fear into anyone who thinks they may be targeted by it. But they are expensive, one shot deals which requires specialized forces trained and equipped. a police force is shaped like a web. Which is easier to evade? A military strike may kill or arrest a number of people, and convince a few to drop out of the game, but those who are not so easily swayed will just dissolve their base of opperations and set up shop somewhere as yet undiscovered. A web is hard to evade, cheaper to maintain and more aggreeable to the inhabitants.

The Taliban are not the problem. They are the manifestation of the problem. They are the persistent symptom of the underlying disease. The real problem is that there are no jobs, no food, no human services, no protection, no honest politicians or police, a foreign occupier, and no hope. Address those issues and no one would have a single reason to pick up a gun.

In the case of Afghanistan, one solution would be to de-criminalize poppy fields. Putting an item on the black market increases its value ten fold, it's supply and demand. Legalize it, and the floor drops out from under it. Morphine and the derivatives have legitimate uses in the medical industry, why not have the government buy the poppy, process it, and sell it on the global market to hospitals and doctors? In one stroke you've legitimized the many farmers, cut the profit base from the enemy, produced jobs in the processing plants, opened an avenue of export, and cornered a medical niche on the global market.

The best measure we can take against those that fund terrorists is to develop a responsible domestic and foreign policy. If we are more prudent about where and how we spend our money, have a coherent and sustainable strategy of development, an honest placement of our interests, and return the focus of our government to it's original cause, to serve the needs of the American people, then we won't have problems with terrorists to begin with. But if spend another 5 years copying the mistakes of the USSR, with a bloated, slowly responsive, and incompetent administration who is a slave to the military-industrial complex which bleeds the American coffers dry while enriching the whole host of parasitic contractors with the sweat off the tax payer's brows all for the need to protect our rampant consumerism and lust for expansion, via Pax Americana, then I guess we'd better prepare for more terrorists.

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
October 12, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

1. Quote:Drug trafficking is a police concern, not the military. So why are NATO "troops" engaging in this instead of the Afghani police force? END Unfortunately, Narcotics are a political situation and not simply a right or wrong actualization. It is a Worldly situation and therefore NATO seems appropriate. These decisions are made in a different world court. As far as the Afghanis, they cannot even equip a decent Army to fight Al Qaeda, where would the find the funds, much less objective personal to carryout policing such a large area.

2. Legitimize it. They will not do that because of the same reason marijuana is not legal in the US. The profits go to a pre decided group or groups as a control element. Why should it be different there? The money involved in all offshoots of the industry where opium is concerned will fight against legitimization. The Evil side should control the evil side; but, that is not the situation today. This is the real problem: we all shook hands with the devil from Viet Nam to today the same people and govt officials are involved. Even Churches in some instances... remember those open brief case checks they stopped from the UN?

3. The only realistic option is to educate and bring in profitable industry and stability to replace it and provide a viable choice to the people. There is no other solution, none at all. We have problems controlling it here, with one of the strongest Police forces in the world -- and there will be an increase of crime with the economy as it has turned -- with Narcotics leading the way and many turning a blind eye for survival even here in the US.

Unless you have oil, gold or some other gainful illicit activity, narcotics are still the second best money maker worldwide.

Only a strong economy and social as well as democratic support systems that offer viable choices can overcome this problem anywhere.

Kirk
|
Kentucky, USA
October 14, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

(13 hours later) Exhaustive diatribes against the folly of our current administration aside, there is another option that has occurred.

As much as I loath to suggest placing people or institutions under further governmental scrutiny, here is dicey concept. Since most funds have to be routed through banking systems, develop a crack team of cyber intel agents that hack into banks suspected of channeling ill gotten funds and track the flow of the money. You could do it the aggressive way by electronically "breaking and entering" the mainframe and scanning all the records, the passive way by intercepting satellite and wire transmissions, or the interactive way by infiltrating the staff with covert agents. Not to shut down those banks (not at first anyway) since that would tip off those involved of new practices, but to quietly build a profile of each bank's clients and transactions. Follow that trail until you can connect a line all the way from the original donor to the final recipient. Not only would you get an estimate of the bank roll of various factions, but you would also get the locations of operatives. You also know from one end, who the donors are and why they are doing what they're doing (which gives you the leverage to affect their motivations or eliminate them), and the opposite end, who they are and what they're buying with that money. When a person withdraws funds from one bank, get agents on the ground to shadow those perpetrators and see where it goes next. If they don't take it to another bank, then they'll probably take it back with them to their cell or point of operations, leading you to other operatives or criminal suppliers.

Granted, that's kind of a sci-fi black-ops idea that no government would openly support, but hey, you asked.

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
October 12, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

11 October 08

"The money people who support terrorism are just plain cowards. There are not prepared to face the enemy but are more than willing to have others fight their battles. They dont want to get there hands dirty while others are taking higher risks to destroy human life."

First measure should be to investigate all world banks to ensure no illegal activities are being conducted to support terrorism. All accounts should be checked and re-checked. A thousand dollar transfer should bring up a flag. More checks and balances of who are the clients, where the funds are being sent to, where did the funds come from? How are they able to receive the funds to continue the terrorist activity?

Technology has played a role in all this as well. I'm surprised that nobody has thought of limiting the bandwidth of communications in the Middle East. Shut down the communication stations, put tighter controls on what type of communications is used and then the Taliban wouldn't have a means to relay intelligence.

What happened to the idea of marked bills?

The balance of law should come into play -- Banks and financial institutions should be held accountable if they support terrorism and not slapped on the wrist when they get caught. Any bank that does business with terrorist should be closed down and investigated properly. All the parties concern should be charged and prosecuted by law.

The other concern should be the weapons dealers. They know first hand who is buying the weapons. Put the weapon dealers out of business and hence the terrorism should come to a halt. If there is no money to buy weapons, and if there is not weapons available to be sold, there would be no Taliban money or with weapons today!

The drugs themselves in Afghanistan should be destroyed and the farmers should be planting normal crops.

How many accounts does Osama Bin Laden truly have today? In what banks has he been dealing with in his years of terrroism? Could he be using a false name? How many of his followers are using his accounts right under the noses of the banks. The point should be that all banks should check and conduct a proper background check on their clients. The US Government might want to consider raising the bounty for Osama Bin Laden because he is worth more than 50 million dollars. The Bin Laden family is worth in the billions. I think Osama Bin Laden is weak because he himself is not a man enough to show himself to the world. He hides in a cave or a bunker and lives in the shadows of fear! He probably has bi-polar disorder condition and lives in a state of confusion. He is probably constantly afraid everyday of his life, moving from one place to another, scared and tired. One day he will be captured and brought to Justice!!!

My opinion about drugs is simple. Drugs are a dead end in life. People who sell illegal drugs should be ashamed of themselves. They pedal a drug which could be harmful to another human being and never take account what could happen to that person. They think its merely a business. When in fact they could be ending that persons life by them overdosing. People around the world have lost lives, families, loved ones, businesses, jobs, friends. To prove my point just look at the graveyards.

End drugs...End Terrorism....End the source of the Taliban... Then we have Peace in that part of the world!

God Bless and let's hope for a brighter future ahead!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 12, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Folks at State and beyond will think I'm nuts for suggesting the following, but it occurs to me that civilization has its indiginous population of thieves and smugglers...as part of societies make up for many thousands of years.

Yeah terrorists have exited too in the past, but never before now have had the chance to even think about using a WMD in a terrorist act.

And just like the rest of us with children, one nuke could ruin an organized crime family's whole day.

Which has got to upon realization make them leary of dealing with extremist in any capacity if it is bad for buisiness in general.

Every nation has its black market economies, and family run crime and if one is going to safeguard borders and protect the citizens against terrorism, you need to be negotiating with the thieves and smugglers of the world.

Current strategy has not yet adequately addressed the nexus between organized crime and terrorist affiliation and here's the inflection point between winning outright or suffering through a "long war".

So I believe having a little chat between the governments in the global coalition in the war on terror, and the various organized crime leadership in individual nations is in order to provide their "risk management" perspective to these org's.

And when nations put the choice to these criminal elements that they too qualify as terrorist org's should they not divest themselves of any association with terror, they will understand how bad for buisiness terrorism really is.

For the one thing organized crime fears is an organized military stomping them out of existance.

At the same time nations go to the source of the smuggling, they also must go directly to the source (the local grower) and litterally offer him a better price for his product than he's getting now. And do this for three consecutive growing seasons in Afghanistan to have the following effects:

A) Take the refined product off the streets of our cities.
B) Deny Taleban, al-quaida, and others the means to purchase weapons and munitions.

The local farmer has three seasons to convert his fields to legal crops and is in a sense being subsidized by the Afghan gov. during this period in order that the individual can make the transition without undue hardship and eliminate a source of potential resentment among the population.

You are probably never going to get them to give up growing cannabis and poppy altogether because it's almost tradition going back to the times when these were the only source of pain medication avalable to their ancestors.

But you can convince them its not economicly in their interests to grow it commercially today.

And if the Afghan gov were to get the international donations to "corner the market" for three years consecutively by becoming the only "legal" purchaser from Afghan growers (who risk losing their land if found selling to others), then you have built in compliance by law.

And then there's the possibility that some legitimate commecial pharmacutical application may develop...say medical marijuana for cancer patients as one example of how the Afghan government may be able to offset the burden of cost for the program.

So to address SNP's point on those who's livelihoods are at risk, there's a way to do this so it is fair.

And it is fair to say that nations having soverign control may view the percentage of population addicted to hard drugs made avalable by organized crime as a national security threat to the health of the population, and consider it to be a form of coercion on a population if not terrorism, and a threat to the government's soverign control of its borders and population's well being.

One may invoke the "responsibility to protect" if narcotrafficing is seen as a "crime against humanity" and given the indemic proportions of the problem of drug addiction globally, may be considered as incitement to commit genocide.

13,000 Americans died from overdose or drug related violence in 2006. Slightly below the average annually. Add up the figures in all countries globally every year and it qualifies as a true ongoing crime against humanity.

Anna
|
District Of Columbia, USA
October 12, 2008

Anna in Washington, DC writes:

Funding terrorism IS engaging in terrorism. I don't think we should differentiate between those who fund it and those who actually commit the acts of terror. I applaud NATO for going after the drug trade in Afghanistan; it is a pragmatic solution to the problem. Drug trade is a cancer on a community and will infect it worse and worse if left unchecked. This drug trade is costing lives in Afghanistan, Europe and elsewhere, and it is making NATO's mission more difficult. Looking at the issue more broadly, it might be difficult to justify such a response to drug trade elsewhere. It would be dependent upon the facts on the ground.

Chul-hong
|
South Korea
October 14, 2008

Chul-hong in South Korea writes:

I take 3-list that might fund terrorists, for example: the Maffia of Italy, the Yakuza of Japan and growers or traders of Opium in Golden Triangle composed of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.

Maybe, they are financial sources of terrorists [beyond a national border], so [one] certain nation can't suppress them effectively.

Therefore, it needs to establish a new worldwide organization like the Interpol.

Supported by the United Nations (U.N.), the new organization should have the rights to investigate terrorists and deploy coalitional military actions against them beyond a national border.

However, U.S. should not play a great role in that organization, in that U.S. might take big burdens on the monetary or military part.

Because, terrorism is not only the problem of U.S. but also the problem of mankind in the globe.

To put it simply, it is important that nations should have the same voice about anti-terrorism and should organize an institution designed to root out and arrest terrorists.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 14, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Chul-hong, in South Korea -- I agree with what you said.

Though I'm not sure to what extent Yakuza or the Ital. mob is knowingly doing business that supports terrorism, or with terrorists, but the big question for these org's is are they willing to risk being associated with terrorism?

Very bad buisiness move, and unwise choice of business parners if that is the case.

Now if on the other hand they recongnized the threat to their own cross border trade that terrorism represents, then they may have incentive to limit terrorist activity by limiting their access to smuggling routs and contacts within these org's.

It's all nation's task to employ the leverage neccessary to convince organized crime to work on the side of civilization (which they depend on for existance), or be relegated to the status of terrorists themselves and be dealt with as such as a threat to civilization, hunted down and rooted out.

Let me just end with a theory, because the governments in the coalition against terrorism are limited by the rule of law in methodology in taking the fight to the enemy.

Whereas if organized crime saw the same threat to humanity that governments do, there wouldn't be folks like Aminidijad threatening to wipe nations off the map because that would represent a direct threat to organized crime families in the region and folks would be calling him "Amadinnerjacket" instead for all the contracts that would be put out on his life the next day.

End of that little problem as folks would rapidly get the idea that it is not personally healthy to threaten your neighbors with WMD.

In any case Chul-hong, governments will deal with the sponsors of terror one "Axis of Evil" at a time, as befits the circumstance.

I see little Kim has grasped the idea that having nuclear weapons does not buy a nation's security, and is giving them up to be more secure and less of a risk in the neighborhood.

These are the products of harsh choices presented.

The stark choice for organized crime families is to divest themselves of involvement in narco trafficking and gun running that supports terrorism in order to personally survive.

Now if nations fail to engage criminal elements to deny terrorists the opportunity of using these org's for their own ends, then you will not "drain the swamp" of the supply lines that keep terrorism alive.

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
October 15, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2008/unisnar1034.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/commission-on-narcotic-drugs-con...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

During Ronal Reagan's administration more drugs moved into the US than any other time in History, though he mandated a War against Drugs. Why? Reality -- the concept was to "control" what came in and who controlled it.

The old Chicago Mentality was in place, so to speak. There is going to be crime, there is going to be drugs so why not control it by granting distribution to one group? Which worked fine until everyone got greedy. Money laundered after Nam went into new manufacturing, strip malls, franchises -- it put people to work, taxes were paid, etc and everyone knew who everyone was. The players were established and some fell simply because they did their jobs and came across it. Even Clintons new FBI Accountants found 1.2 billion or so in Mexico -- six Presidential Cabinet personal were directly implicated, two DEA lives lost. Heck, there was even a "hit" out on an American FBI agent who ran with his family after he discovered a "holding whse" in the States..that is documented.

At the same time good old Ollie North was doing his lap dog dance at the Congressional Hearings on TV, there was another hearing in Chicago, with the Truth exposed. Did anyone see that or know about that? Or how about the good old Pilot in LA, who ratted out the Homestead holdovers? Seems we conveniently put him in protective custody and told the Columbians where he was.

If you cannot eliminate the customer base, then you need to eliminate the monetary base; but, it that base is productively contributing to jobs, etc, what is the point?

The only alternatives replacement business at the source and here are Education to lower the demand and implement control elements that are more dependable; people who purchase their commodities from countries we are at war with become our enemies as well. Our countries Security is always an issue and people get carried away with power that should not be in leadership capacities. Sometimes, as during elections, they need to forget about it...LOL! Greed kills more than people?

We have a wonderful country and serve all and have to deal with all levels of problems. With the NARCO Dollar still a major form of valuation and trade worldwide, we need to deal with it in the manner most productive to the system -- but with safeguards. Churches should not sell narcotics -- let the devil deal with the devil, as it should be...

John
|
Greece
October 15, 2008

John in Greece writes:

CIA is very clear concerning drugs AND OTHER major issues. The guys in VA are Global heroes! Sometimes, when you have to burn the "devil", you have to do it from the inside!

For example, this is what you do when you have to deal with oil well fires. When you have to deal with SUPER-drug dealers, human traffickers, weapon "salesmen", counterfeiting, etc. (and all these have to do with politics, after you finalize the analysis) you have to fight with non-conventional ways. And then you face the danger to become misunderstood. (unfortunately without taking the 1$ (credit for action) for every time it happens, as wisely Eric says).

I really do not know the subject (Ronal Reagan's administration "moves"), but I am sure that they offered a great service, the majority of us cannot really comprehend with wikipedia refs. The problem with such "moves" is that we easily talk about rumors and conspiracy scenarios, but NOBODY, nobody talks or "describes" their (CIA) PURE success!

Please Note:
1. https://www.cia.gov/careers/faq/index.html - gr4
"What if I used drugs or still use drugs; will this disqualify me from employment?"
To be considered suitable for Agency employment, applicants must generally not have used illegal drugs within the last 12 months. The issue of illegal drug use prior to 12 months ago is carefully evaluated during the medical and security processing. Drug abuse is one of the common reasons applicants are denied a security clearance. YOU CANNOT WORK FOR THE CIA WITHOUT A SECURITY CLEARANCE.

2. Some years ago, I had read (https://www.cia.gov/index.html) something like this (I use my own non-English native words):
WHY -- the CIA guys -- ARE WE AGAINST DRUGS? BECAUSE, PEOPLE (CIA) WHO WANT TO HELP THE WORLD MUST BE SOBER ENOUGH to stop the "others" who are attempting to destroy everything!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 16, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I suppose it is always convienient to blame someone in government for whether a drug interdiction program is succesful or not.

But without the Hollywood elite deciding cocaine was the ultimate party drug back in the 80's, and glorifying its use on film, it's use would have remained pretty much confined to the bohemian lifestyles of the counter culture practitioners, rather than an epidemic among the youth of the nation.

So I do agree that user demand must be addressed, but that is more a factor of greater social awareness among peer groups regarding the health risks of usage, rather than anything the government can address as effectively via law enforcement.

We spend more money than any other nation on education, yet trail among nations. And we wonder why? The solution starts in changing the mindsets of the young, and that starts with good parenting.

We have to let kids know it's "cool" to get a life, rather than let them think it's "cool" to waste it in constant party mode.

But the issue here is drug production and the financial support groups like the Taleban derive from it, and what to do about it that hasn't yet been tried.

Concrete ideas anyone? Or am I the only one posting that dares take the question seriously on its face and offer something constructive?

Fact is the war on drugs has not been a shining success, and the government is now litterally asking for better ideas.

So who are we to fail to deliver? Are we not "dipnote"?

(a la "Men at Work"...chuckle. Dipnote theme song ideas #451 for the upcoming TV mini series, or pod cast....LOL!).

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
October 16, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

1. CIA has many various functions in which the capacity and qualifications vary, from Abstract to Formal agents in the field to Formal Legal office personal -- as with most agencies.

2. What is the specific program you are relating to John? What was a success?

3. A conspiracy is simply a plan which did not work or was border line if not illegal. Still in all it is simply a plan to achieve a goal. It is a Misused word for the most part.

4. It is about Economics, nothing more nothing less.

Devalue or eliminate the market or control it until you can provide support mechanisms to devalue and eliminate. They are the only solutions available.

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
October 21, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

17 October 08

There is one other method that nobody has thought of in this whole process.

"Divine Intervention"

I think the signs of God are present. Hurricanes, Floods, Mudslides, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Famine, Diseases, plagues.

Greed will conquer and destroy peoples lives...!!!

When all those signs happen everyone asks, "WHY"?

It's clear to me why it happens. You might say it's God at the helm of the ship saying he is in charge. Scientist have become very intelligent over the years but they can never stand the time of God.

Hundreds of years Arabs continue to fight battles, "Brother against Brother" over what? Greed, Power, Wealth, Drugs now?

The nightmare become a reality when these drugs were found! However, there is hope that through education people will learn that drugs are bad, they are a poison and can be very harmful of your health.

When a great flood comes to your town or city, "Look up in the sky and ask God,"? Thinking back in Noah's age, he was the only person on earth God trusted. He was the only person at that time who had a relationship with God. Everyone else in his village thought he was completely nuts. God told him to build an ARK and he did. In life we all have an ARK. Noah listened to God and when the flood came he survived the test. Will we be so lucky to continue surviving the test of time if things don't change for the better or will there be more floods, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more earthquakes. The promise that everyone forgets is in the bible. When you see the rainbows in the sky after it rains. That is a sign of God telling us people it is safe.

The solution to this great problem might be resolved through "Divine Intervention" and no question that God probably has a response for the Evil doers who continue to cause great pain on innocent people in life. The wrath of God is greater than any Military on earth. He is the most powerful spirit in the world. I had a dream a few nights ago. In that dream war and attacks happened. The ironic part of the dream was a man faced the cross of Jesus on the wall. God asked the man what he thought it meant? The man said, "Its a cross with Jesus" God said, Look again, It's the holy spirit" then the man bent down on his knees and prayed. In the jungle where I believe this dream took place, it started pouring rain. In the instant the man started praying. The lesson here is we all have to be humbled under God even under turmoil times in the world. The evil doers will continue testing the good faith of good people on earth.

On earth People think that President George W. Bush is nuts. How quaint that people in Noah's age thought the same thing at the time, and look what happened to them. One part that everyone forgets is that he is the only United States president to stand up tall to the terrorists and say we had enough.!!! He is the only President that decided to fight the enemy and bring peace and democracy to people never even heard the language before. Granted it was at a high cost! What cost can you place on Freedom?

A salute to the Bush Administration Team because we all in America have become safer because of his actions. We might not always agree on all issues of politics but we all can agree that action is being taking to prevent future 9/11's in our country.

John
|
Greece
October 17, 2008

John in Greece writes:

Dear Joe, the big "problem" with CIA is that this Global SERVICE cannot have a PR department explaining "field situations" -- if you know what I mean. I trust your brain. I am sure you know?

However, I wonder why you can't "understand" what are we talking about?

I already explained my personal view: we can easily talk about "blame CIA" rumours and "CIA conspiracy scenarios" (attributing "things" to a bad functioning CIA), but NOBODY, NOBODY can talk or "describe" their (CIA) PURE successes! And there are a couple of millions... of millions... PURE successes! Nobody can also talk about staff's "human sacrifices". Except the "stars", as the movie shows.

You know better than me that CIA and GOD are the two only words that cannot have a pre-THE. You do not say the CIA. You do not say the GOD. This is because both God and CIA cannot speak for themselves. So, they are not a "the"! All of which make these words have -- automatically -- soul and brain and morality, no one can easily see?

My answer is a bit poetic due to your "non-realistic questions" (allow me this phrase/I respect you), as long as unfortunately we can have no answers back Joe.

Just "trust in" secrets and scope!

P.S. I will give you only one general example of this "Company without PR" success. I am glad that, today, my niece is not working as a call-girl for "Putin & Co", due to these CIA successes that cannot easily be described! Many -- no the -- people died. Let's respect them!

Sarmoye B.
|
Mali
October 17, 2008

Sarmoye in Mali writes:

All accomplices of terrorists are considered as terrorist:

1-Fund of terrorism come generally in a country as an economic or development help or gift;the government of the country receiving the gift must make a very precise evaluation of work which is done by the fund and to be sure that a part is not used for another thing.

2- All humanitary helping must be done under the cover(control) of government in the risk countries.

3-Every big amount who dispeared in the official economic integred circuit (as bank,National Treasure,private fortune not invested...) may be suspected.

.

Latest Stories

April 23, 2009

"Greening Diplomacy"

Secretary Clinton spoke today at the State Department's "Greening Diplomacy" Earth Day event. In her remarks, the Secretary said :… more

Pages