Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

[SJHovey]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

So... drug cartels don't count as terrorist groups? Coulda fooled me.

I certainly wouldn't characterize drug cartels as terrorists. They're just thugs, using extreme violence to protect their valuable, and illegal product.

I don't know if there is an official definition of terrorist, but I typically view a terrorist as someone who uses violence for some sort of political, religious or philosophical purpose.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I certainly wouldn't characterize drug cartels as terrorists. They're just thugs, using extreme violence to protect their valuable, and illegal product.

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken but are you serious? The only difference between al-qaeda and the cartels is what they are pushing. One pushes drugs and the other pushes a viewpoint. They're the same **** thing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken but are you serious? The only difference between al-qaeda and the cartels is what they are pushing. One pushes drugs and the other pushes a viewpoint. They're the same **** thing.

No. Terrorism is about political goals. Drug cartels don't have political goals, they're businesses. When a terrorist kills a solider the aim is to get another couple hundred soldiers in the area so they can kill them or so that those soldiers kill civilians and recruit more terrorists. When a drug lord kills a soldier, the aim is to scare the soldiers away so he can operate freely. He's making a plea for deregulation.

BTW, this is why the Bush I-Clinton and the Cheney Doctrine on terrorism are both wrong. It isn't a law enforcement problem like drug lords or the mafia, and it isn't a military problem like a war, it is its own thing that requires its own strategies.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

No. Terrorism is about political goals. Drug cartels don't have political goals, they're businesses. When a terrorist kills a solider the aim is to get another couple hundred soldiers in the area so they can kill them or so that those soldiers kill a ten civilians and **** off a thousand. When a drug lord kills a soldier, the aim is to scare the soldiers away so he can operate freely.

BTW, this is why the pre-9/11 and the Cheney Doctrine on terrorism are both wrong. It isn't a law enforcement problem or a war, it is its own thing that requires its own strategies.

No, they are terror groups. Just because they're run like businesses doesn't mean they don't use terror tactics (which by definition is terrorism). Hell, the last sentence in your first paragraph says exactly that. Scare, terrorize, same thing. Just because they have different methods doesn't make them not a terror group.

Terrorism is like the Genus while Al-Qaeda and the cartels are different species.

Edit: And if you think cartels don't have political goals you're kidding yourself.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

No. Terrorism is about political goals. Drug cartels don't have political goals, they're businesses. When a terrorist kills a solider the aim is to get another couple hundred soldiers in the area so they can kill them or so that those soldiers kill civilians and recruit more terrorists. When a drug lord kills a soldier, the aim is to scare the soldiers away so he can operate freely. He's making a plea for deregulation.

BTW, this is why the Bush I-Clinton and the Cheney Doctrine on terrorism are both wrong. It isn't a law enforcement problem like drug lords or the mafia, and it isn't a military problem like a war, it is its own thing that requires its own strategies.

This has to be probably the strangest snark in quite awhile.

edit: in case he's being serious.... drug cartels certainly have political goals... they want resources given to them to do with what they want... just another allocation of scarce resources after all.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I certainly wouldn't characterize drug cartels as terrorists. They're just thugs, using extreme violence to protect their valuable, and illegal product.

I don't know if there is an official definition of terrorist, but I typically view a terrorist as someone who uses violence for some sort of political, religious or philosophical purpose.

All we have here is a setting of possible nobility and greater purpose.... the only thing you're defining terrorism is that terrorism, to you, has a higher goal that is in some way, though not your way, noble.

Terrorism, bluntly, is the inducement of the fear of violence to obtain a political goal. Narco-terrorism is certainly valid. You don't behead police chiefs just because you're interested in gory art.

I would certainly deem it as terrorism.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

This has to be probably the strangest snark in quite awhile.

edit: in case he's being serious.... drug cartels certainly have political goals... they want resources given to them to do with what they want... just another allocation of scarce resources after all.

You don't see the difference? I mean, it could be splitting hairs as both groups are garbage, but to me there is a clear difference. Drug cartels who utlilize voilence to subdue anyone who might get in their way, regardless of whether it comes in the form of the intentional intervention of law enforcement or an innocent civilian who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The violence is merely a side effect of the desire to keep the money train rolling anthough there may be some intimidation tactics implemented in order protect the enterprise, it's not the primary goal.

Tradtional terrorism (Al Qaeda, etc.) on the other hand has as its entire foundation the specific intent to use using violence so as to instill fear in a populace in order to attain a, typically, politically end.

The difference in motives intent there have to be understood and acknowledged, specifically when trying to appropriately deal with each problem.

Otherwise, per some arguments below groups such as the Hell's Angels and mafia are also terrorists. While also garbage they, like the drug cartels, do not implement the same methods with the same intent that traditional terror groups do. True terrorism is an entirely different animal.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I haven't disected the arguments, but IMO:

Drug Cartels: use violence as a tactic to improve the profit of their business.

"True" terrorists: use violence to advance a political/religous stance.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

You don't see the difference? I mean, it could be splitting hairs as both groups are garbage, but to me there is a clear difference. Drug cartels who utlilize voilence to subdue anyone who might get in their way, regardless of whether it comes in the form of the intentional intervention of law enforcement or an innocent civilian who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The violence is merely a side effect of the desire to keep the money train rolling anthough there may be some intimidation tactics implemented in order protect the enterprise, it's not the primary goal.

Tradtional terrorism (Al Qaeda, etc.) on the other hand has as its entire foundation the specific intent to use using violence so as to instill fear in a populace in order to attain a, typically, politically end.

The difference in motives intent there have to be understood and acknowledged, specifically when trying to appropriately deal with each problem.

Otherwise, per some arguments below groups such as the Hell's Angels and mafia are also terrorists. While also garbage they, like the drug cartels, do not implement the same methods with the same intent that traditional terror groups do. True terrorism is an entirely different animal.

No, I think what's lost here is that you're not understanding what's going on here. Al Qaeda would certainly use the "murder not to create fear" when its presented to them... its called "Taliban"... they will certainly murder to get their way on an individual apolitical basis. So, yes, there is a general difference between murder for murder's sake where the driving force isn't to create fear. On the other hand the drug lords CERTAINLY do murder for fear sake or else they wouldn't have capped that crooner in his red Cadillac last week.

Frankly, its a distinction without a difference for the most part. The real difference is that AQs want to take over entire regions (Saudi Arabia, the greater caliphate, Spain, whatever)... the Palestinians want all of Palestine (including the part we call Israel). The drug lords, for now, just want to take in as much money as they can without a greater goal.

I think its asinine to hairsplit the definition of terrorism just to splice out AQs vs. Mexican drug cartels. Both are using the "murder to cause fear to cause political decisions"... the cartels may not care so much about national level but it appears more and more that they do. How much longer do you think it will be until the narcoterrorists threaten a governor of a US state or a mayor of a US city. I give it 10 years.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I haven't disected the arguments, but IMO:

Drug Cartels: use violence as a tactic to improve the profit of their business.

"True" terrorists: use violence to advance a political/religous stance.

yes, but its silly to believe that the drug cartels can't or won't slip into category B. Politicians don't get assassinated because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

yes, but its silly to believe that the drug cartels can't or won't slip into category B. Politicians don't get assassinated because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Well, the drug cartels aren't really trying to change political policy on drugs. Those assassinated pols probably got too close to busting the cartels. Hence, protecting the product.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

...

I think its asinine to hairsplit the definition of terrorism just to splice out AQs vs. Mexican drug cartels. Both are using the "murder to cause fear to cause political decisions"... the cartels may not care so much about national level but it appears more and more that they do. How much longer do you think it will be until the narcoterrorists threaten a governor of a US state or a mayor of a US city. I give it 10 years.

Threatening a politician is not the same tactic that terrorists use when they attempt to hold entire populations hostage. JFK and RFK were threatened, targeted, and ultimately killed by thugs. That doesn't make whoever was behind each killing a terrorist group in the same fashion our friends in the Middle East are.

I understand what you're saying, but acknowledging the differences is essential in terms of determining the best possible action to combat each situation. They just aren't the same and thus the solutions to each certainly aren't either.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I really think you guys need to go read up on Pablo Escobar.

I'm telling you, the only difference between a "terrorist" and a cartel is pushing an idea or a product.

That doesn't mean you can't take different approaches to getting rid of them.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

And in the context of immigration, it's well documented that folks from the Middle East have been coming across the Arizona border regularly. I posted a link in the last month or so about an article where someone checked with, I think it was Pinal County, and in their jail at that moment were folks from a whole bunch of Middle East countries. And there have been a number of other stories in recent years about bits of the Koran and other things Middle East-related that have been found in the Arizona desert, left behind by those crossing.

So, if this argument is an effort to say it's not as big of a deal because the Arizona border is only flooded with drugs, even that doesn't stand up, as it's a clear way that either terrorists or possible terrorists have and can come across.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

No, they are terror groups. Just because they're run like businesses doesn't mean they don't use terror tactics (which by definition is terrorism). Hell, the last sentence in your first paragraph says exactly that. Scare, terrorize, same thing. Just because they have different methods doesn't make them not a terror group.

Frankly, its a distinction without a difference for the most part. The real difference is that AQs want to take over entire regions (Saudi Arabia, the greater caliphate, Spain, whatever)... the Palestinians want all of Palestine (including the part we call Israel). The drug lords, for now, just want to take in as much money as they can without a greater goal.

There are situations in which state armies use terror tactics. That doesn't make them "terrorists." It's not just a semantic difference: terrorists are defined in terms of political goals because that strongly affects the ways to fight them and defeat their aims. Otherwise you're stuck with things like declaring a "war on terrorism," which makes about as much sense as declaring a war on flanking maneuvers.

You're conflating "terrorist" with "bad guys who use extreme violence to scare people." They aren't the same thing -- terrorists are the subset of "bad guys who use extreme violence to scare people" who have bigger, political fish to fry. As Patman points out, AQ wants sovereignty, Escobar wanted cash. You can fight Escobar by reducing his ROI. You can't fight terrorists that way -- they're living in caves because they're fighting for "paradise."

BTW, none of this means a non-terrorist group can't be just as serious a threat as a terrorist group -- the idea isn't to minimize the danger, it's just you have to identify things correctly or you wind up fighting with the wrong strategy and are less effective.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I have to spread, but that was an excellent post, Kepler.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

You anti-semantic bast*rds

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

The difference between terrorism and drug-running thugs and such varies and can often be intertwined. I can understand in theoretical terms drawing some sort of difference, but it's not a simple either or. Even with Escobar, there was always a political angle to the drug fight in Columbia. A weak political establishment is a key aspect allowing drug thugs to have significant latitude in their actions, as they have in Mexico or other nations past or present with weak governmental structures. If Mexico was a stable sound prosperous democracy with a strong tradition of law and order, drug runners wouldn't hold the significant sway they do there. Terrorism also can overlap with drug running, as drugs can be a good source of funds for terrorists.

And defining someone as a terrorist at all or not is not always easy. Were Irish who fought for independence (Michael Collins, etc.) freedom fighters, terrorists, or both? How do they differ or not from the IRA? And of course the whole Middle East/Israel mess features very different views on what is a terrorist or not at all.

This isn't a subject that lends itself to clear definition in real life circumstances as some in this thread would make it seem. If you want to get very basic, a terrorist is someone who delivers terror. Go down on the Arizona border at night without anyone else and without any protection, have a heavily armed drug running caravan come upon you, and tell me you don't feel any terror. In a way the drug runners are a more direct deliverer or terror than AQ is in general. The drug runners fundamentally alter life in Mexico in a way AQ has not remotely here or elsewhere. AQ is a threat on a broad scale, but the drug runners in Mexico directly terrorize an entire nation, as well as parts of the U.S. AQ on the other hand threatens terror, but except for an occasional strike (none to speak of in the U.S. for over 9 years now), they aren't a day to day, moment to moment deliverer of terror like they are in Ciudad Juarez or Nogales or Nuevo Laredo.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

A weak political establishment is a key aspect allowing drug thugs to have significant latitude in their actions, as they have in Mexico or other nations past or present with weak governmental structures. If Mexico was a stable sound prosperous democracy with a strong tradition of law and order, drug runners wouldn't hold the significant sway they do there. Terrorism also can overlap with drug running, as drugs can be a good source of funds for terrorists.

Both very good points.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

If you want to get very basic, a terrorist is someone who delivers terror.

My 16 year old daughter, who just got her drivers license, is going to be very alarmed to learn this.