4 ms·
Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades
- tejohnso 2mo agoSo you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang. I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.
- crypttales 2mo ago[dead]
- monkaiju 2mo agoNot sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.
- inigyou 2mo ago[flagged]
- monkaiju 2mo agoOh yeah, you wont catch me defending the US government one bit. What I'm saying is a group of people in a community taking up arms to defend themselves is not inherently the same as a drug cartel.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- cwnyth 2mo agoApparently, words can just mean whatever people want, so long as it aligns with one's feelings or helps them feel superior to others.
- tejohnso 2mo agoYeah, I guess "self-defense militia" aligns more closely with some people's feelings than "violent gang" does. To each his own.
- eth0up 2mo agoIn case you need one, you have made a friend. Excellent comment, which fits the scene as might a custom tailored glove.
- 14 2mo agoThe reminded me of Johnnie Cochran "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" slogan he used during the O.J. Simpson murder trial.
- tejohnso 2mo agoThe only equating I did was to point out that either way you're stuck having to align with a group of people willing and ready to commit lethal violence with lethal weapons. Use whatever words you want but I think that's clearly violent and it's clearly a gang, which by definition is "a group of persons working together" or even more specifically, "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends". In this case the newly formed gang is certainly unlawful.
- unclad5968 2mo agoI'm not sure that it's certainly unlawful to defend yourself against gang violence, but I'm not a Mexican lawyer. It's such an odd thing to say that people defending their homes are now a gang because they fight back against the cartel.
- esseph 2mo agoLaws != morality
- eth0up 2mo ago[flagged]
- wmf 2mo agoWithout oversight, a self-defense militia may expand beyond its original scope in unfortunate ways. The history of the Italian Mafia can be instructive here.
- bluefirebrand 2mo agoI'm pretty sure that a self defense militia was the standard way that people would defend their farms and livelihoods against violent outsiders for the majority of human history
- esseph 2mo agoThat gang has international arms. They have logistics trains. They have industry analysts! Sometimes maybe they have Pay and HR issues. They're a global business with external trade agreements with elements in other countries. They lease other business services back and forth like B2B.
- esseph 2mo ago[dead]
- inigyou 2mo agoThese gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.
- arjie 2mo agoThe entire reason there is any conflict there is a lack of a monopoly on violence… The monopoly part is significant. It’s not just “doing a lot of”.
- cucumber3732842 2mo agoThe conflict isn't because of the lack of monopoly. The conflict and lack of monopoly are because whoever as the closest thing to a monopoly is doing such a bad job.
- gibbitz 2mo agoIn this case it's like cable TV. Only not a monopoly if you look at the whole country...
- threatofrain 2mo agoI don't think you need total control, just enough so that you're the go-to party for diplomatic and military negotiations in the geopolitical region.
- inigyou 2mo agoSo Russia isn't a state?
- psionides 2mo agoPersonally I would prefer no violence from either side…
- ahartmetz 2mo agoThe state monopoly on violence (+ a judicial system) tends to result in a low amount of violence... at least intra-state. Wars are another matter. Notably, there is no monopoly on violence between states. States are allowed and somewhat expected to be violent psychopaths externally.
- patcon 2mo agoI agree, not all violence is the same. But further, perhaps our sense of morality atrophies when we concede the idea of just violence (just as in "justice") only to the state. I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though
- esseph 2mo ago> But further, perhaps our sense of morality atrophies when we concede the idea of just violence (just as in "justice") only to the state. > I presume those fighting the cartels might have more of a developed sense of civic pride and duty than anyone in a more stable place. Perhaps I'm wrong though 100%. You can either become familiar with violence and temper it, or you are simply subject to violence by anyone that wishes it upon you. For most of the Western world we grow up as "house cats", but that isn't the case in much of the world.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- esseph 2mo ago> I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence. Like the Taliban?
- krapp 2mo agoAll states maintain a monopoly on violence. That's literally the definition of a state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- esseph 2mo agoDid you respond to the wrong comment? The OP is saying they want the state to maintain the monopoly on violence. My counter to that argument is the very existence of the current Afghan government. It's a "Are you sure you want that?" statement.
- Dig1t 2mo agoMexico has gun laws which are significantly more restrictive than the USA. There is only one legal gun store in the country, they must all be permitted, calibers are limited, and only permitted within the place of residence. "Monopoly on violence" is an illusion that's propped up mostly by the culture of the people who live in a country. Sweden's gun homicide rate has increased by 400% since 2010 due to nothing other than demographic change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden
- ButlerianJihad 2mo agoIn the 1990s, I traveled into Tijuana from San Diego County a few times. We usually walked, because of reasons. For people traveling north into the USA, the border checkpoint included long queues of vehicles and people alike, customs inspections, routine searches of everything, passport checks, and questions by actual Border Patrol officers. Walking south into Mexico, there was a broad, unsupervised walkway and a one-way turnstile. Large signs read: WELCOME ¡BIENVENIDOS! NO FIREARMS And that was it! We were in Mexico!
- jjav 2mo ago> I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence. Yes, until they go completely outlaw rogue like ice has done in the USA.
- halJordan 2mo agoAnd by go rogue you mean do exactly as ordered
- jjav 2mo agoIf you want to put it that way, yes. The US government is split into three branches with separation of powers. The executive branch does not have the authority to give orders which bypass laws and the constitution. Any agency that follows such orders has gone rogue, as following illegal orders is the definition of that.
- jopython 2mo agoThe Founding Fathers would have rejected that premise. They designed the American system in deliberate opposition to the idea of an unchallengeable state monopoly on legitimate force.
- groos 2mo agoThis is a bad take. When the stste is either unable or unwilling to offer security, what is the alternative? The 'vigilantes' are doing the honorable thing, protecting their communities from criminals and oppressors. I wish them all good luck as it seem like they need it. The danger always is that these militias can themselves become corrupt and oppress their own people.
- int0x29 2mo agoThese self defense groups sound great until you think about all the problems with vigilante groups. Also they have a history of turning into cartels. That and all things being equal I suspect most of the people in these groups would rather not be fighting.
- aucisson_masque 2mo agoWhat other choice ? Politics are yet to give a solution after decades of problems.
- e40 2mo agoWhat choice do they have? This is not your usual vigilante group. This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.
- autoexec 2mo ago> This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them. Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it.
- esseph 2mo ago> Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it. Then to be blunt, you don't know how a fucking thing. The cartels have their own intelligent networks, anti-air missiles, RPGs and anti-tank weapons, encrypted radio comms and their own 5G/LTE networks. They have helicopters, armored vehicles, etc. In many cases they have the support* of the people. * through fear, intimidation, coercion, social bonds, financial motivators, etc. The cartels also have tens of billions.
- autoexec 2mo agoIf the cartels had more military fighting power and training than the entire Mexican army, air force, and navy the entire country would have been overthrown by now. If Mexico's entire armed forces really are outgunned and outclassed then I guess the cartels should have it. They might as well take Canada too since their military is roughly as powerful as Mexico's and there's a long list of countries with far less military spending then Mexico they could consider invading since they are so unstoppable.
- aucisson_masque 2mo agoMexico has been like that for decades, I believe it's top 1 priority for most Mexicans yet it's still not fixed. What gives ? At some point when your government is so corrupt, you got to take weapon and organize yourself. It's sad.
- forinti 2mo agoA characteristic of most of Latin America is that the Police and the Army were created to protect power, not the people, and there hasn't really been an effort to change the mentality.
- gibbitz 2mo agoMeanwhile in the US the laws are being changed to protect the wealthy, while the current administration is siphoning value of national assets into their own pockets. The poorer the country, the more likely this is to happen. I wonder how long it will take for warlords to set up shop in Kansas...
- krapp 2mo agoThat's a characteristic of police everywhere.
- dietr1ch 2mo agoWhy do you think the brits arrest peaceful protesters? It's like you can't even say free Palestine without being considered a terrorist
- rayiner 2mo agoMany countries are effectively ruled by gangs and cartels. That’s why kings became kind of a big deal in Europe. The states monopoly on violence was solidified back the
- autoexec 2mo ago> At some point when your government is so corrupt, you got to take weapon and organize yourself. It's sad. At that point you might as well point those weapons at the failed government that forced you to have to play soldier instead of protecting you. Not allowing your own citizens to be enslaved by roving bands of criminals is like the single most basic thing a country's government is for. Since the Mexican government has abandoned them and ceded control of that land to hostile armies I hope those poor farmers aren't still paying them taxes.
- Kalanos 2mo agothe real war the US should be fighting
- hereme888 2mo agoWhy should the US fight Mexican cartels? They have their own armies and plenty of ammo.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2mo agoIf you think the outputs of Mexican cartels stay in Mexico, you're severely underinformed. Do you know how many civilian deaths (to say nothing of human trafficking and more) are directly due to Mexican cartels? The US absolutely has an interest in the destruction of Mexican cartels.
- hereme888 2mo agoI'm not uninformed about cartel drug manufacturing and resulting American deaths. That's why we had to seal the border, and we need to keep enforcing it. But to send troops into a country that denies their entry is another thing. I don't mind bombing the cartels from a distance. I'd rather the U.S. continues to pursue diplomatic options vs. war.
- krapp 2mo agoAlso the cartels are funded and propped up by the CIA. We need them to destabilize the Mexican government, launder blood money, traffic children for our rich pedophiles and push drugs into our poor neighborhoods.
- hereme888 2mo agoAbout 30% of Mexico is gang-controlled
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- TacticalCoder 2mo ago[flagged]
- fhn 2mo agothose that sniff aren't thinking about anybody except themselves, not one little bit
- a34729t 2mo agoI was under the impression ferrying migrants over the border and avocados were almost as big revenue streams as the drugs. Et tu, avocado toast and gardener?
- orwin 2mo agoNo, not really, it's two orders of magnitude smaller overall. Drugs, gold (from illegal mines in the Amazon) and weapons (from US lost military stock/police seizure mostly) drive cartels economy (in that order last time I checked, pre-covid). Human trafficking and racketeering are for smaller, more local gangs. Most illegal immigrants cross the border legally and overstay, and racketeering have a scale issue. It might have changed recently but I don't see how.
- moralestapia 2mo agoThis is true, though. But please do not say this out loud, you might hurt the feelings of a passing junkie.
- doodlebugging 2mo agoVery sad but true post. When you think about it many of the ones who are downvoting this post are the children and grandchildren of old dopeheads who created the market that the cartels eventually began to fill. None of this happened without the consent of ordinary Americans who chose to consume the illegal drugs. All of these people share responsibility for the deaths of those who lost their lives due to addiction, whether theirs or someone else's. The tens of thousands of people who have died in Mexico and Central America while trying to stay out of the way of these cartels and their violence all died because Americans created and still sustain a market for illegal drugs. Those with the most blame are the ones highest placed in our system who knew about and facilitated the smuggling, paying Americans along the way to assist, so that drugs could be located by anyone interested no matter where in this country they lived. They helped create the system that would lead to incarceration of people at the bottom of the ladder while those at the top who financed it all and benefited the most from it escape accountability. They created a network of small-town airports, private airstrips, and safe houses where distribution could be managed in a way that shielded the money people from the operations. If you are a drug user, even a casual experimenter in your own home, your drug use continues to cause death and misery to uncounted other people and that makes you partly responsible for the societal destruction that drugs have wrought.
- fhn 2mo ago[flagged]
- sriacha 2mo agoHighly recommend the 2015 documentary 'Cartel Land'
- tantalor 2mo agoOur heroic self defense group. Their brutish narco terrorist cartel.
- alephnerd 2mo agoI'd recommend reading the history of Autodefensas and FARC/FLN in Colombia. Anti-Drug militant groups have a habit of turning into drug lords as well.
- charlieyu1 2mo agoWhat’s their choices then? At least they got something to protect them
- black_13 2mo ago[dead]
- jauntywundrkind 2mo agoRelated, Colombia's new president Abelardo d' Espriella is getting sworn in in a couple hours. He won a somewhat close election against a more peace process party, on a platform of radical violence & all out total war against the various cartels, gangs, and rebel factions. Definitely huge echoes of El Salvador's intense crackdown. But it seems pretty uncertain that he actually has the military force capable of doing this. Colombia's wide array of insurgents are far more organized and well equipped than El Salvador, ala the Mexico situation here; this isn't like the nasty but kind of low level violence of El Salvador. Who all in all had a pretty easy time at it just built a ton of super brutal prisons, stripping legal protections, and then rounding up a couple % of the state's population immediately (and letting some go too, eventually, after months of brutal incarceration). I'd love recommendations beyond War Fronts, who in tune into a decent bit. I need to subscribe, to support. They just had a video on Colombia today. https://youtu.be/OiQZCJmkmR8 https://youtu.be/OiQZCJmkmR8
- MrDrMcCoy 2mo agoThe article said they got their arms smuggled in from the US, but that only explains the small arms and drones. Where are they getting hand grenades?
- esseph 2mo agoThey make some of them, some of them are sold to them, some are traded to them for other things. Mexican Cartels have gotten weapons from Russia before in several ways. This year the US took down a network connected to Viktor Bout and a $56mil arms trade for anti air launchers, automatic grenade launchers, rockets, drones, and military explosives.