5 ms·

At this point, isn't it more accurate to call them a terrorist organization? They have their own military, communications network and a healthy (seemingly never

by eksith 12y ago

At this point, isn't it more accurate to call them a terrorist organization? They have their own military, communications network and a healthy (seemingly never ending) supply of soldiers to do their bidding and the citizens are sufficiently terrorized. Forget fighting ghosts in far off lands; right next door is where the terrorists are.

lazaroclapp 12y ago
The goal of the cartels is not terror or using terror to achieve any political or ideological goals. The goal of the cartels is profit in most cases and local political power in some others. They are criminal enterprises for sure and warlords as well in many cases, but they are not terrorists. Whether profit-motivated un-accountable and violent criminal syndicates are more or less harmful than fundamentalist terrorists, well, that's a different question.
Shivetya 12y ago
based on recent stories where they had to track down and arrest a mayor and his wife how are you going to tell friend from foe? With the recent legalization of marijuana in a few more states we might be getting to a tipping point where we reexamine the whole drug war and reduce the influence of these people by drying up their money supply
- pyrophane 12y ago
  One would hope. I honestly think that at this point legalization and regulation of all drugs would be the most sensible approach, even when it comes to "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Doing so would not only cut out the cartels, but also allow us to implement harm reduction strategies that are lacking from our current "War on Drugs" approach. Just being able to ensure that what is being sold provides a predictable dose of the drug and is free from unnecessary contaminants would be a huge step forward, not to mention all of the treatment options that would become available to abusers if we were to stop treating them like criminals.
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    Legalization with heavy regulation honestly seems like the best way forward at this point, to combat both the politico-economic (drug cartels) and health (addiction treatment) consequences of drugs that will always exist whether legal or not. From the perspective of someone who is from Mexico, I can attest that at least the general consensus is that the cartels derive the majority of their power from their interactions with the US market: most of their money from selling drugs north of the border, most of their strength from buying weapons from US sellers. They have some more local sources of income (extortion, protection rackets, kidnapping, theft) but in cash terms all of those pale compared with the drug business. As for weapons? They definitely don't have any local manufacturing capabilities and I doubt they have any suppliers not from the U.S. at the moment. At this point, legalization won't be the full solution for the problems with the Mexican cartels, but it's probably the single best thing that can be done to combat the issue. More effective than armed intervention, faster and more reliable than any current attempts to boost the Mexican rural economy (lack of jobs and very low earnings from normal crops is part of what allows drug cartels to recruit enforcers easily and convince farmers to grow pot instead of wheat) and definitely easier to implement than any anti-corruption measure targeting the Mexican institutions (which have corruption as a very endemic historical problem and rooted in ways that most anglo-saxon countries cannot fully imagine). Edit: That said, this is an interesting counterpoint: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/global/mexicos-deadly-power-vacuum.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/global/mexicos-dea... by a very respected subject expert (Dr. Buscaglia), arguing that larger and wealthier criminal organizations than the Mexican cartels exist in other countries, and that the main reason for the cartel-related violence in Mexico and not say in Russia, China or the U.S. is the relative weakness of the state and the job-generating economy.
apta 12y ago
They're probably not Muslims, so they're not "terrorists". Only Muslims are terrorists nowadays.
- seivan 12y ago
  Daesh is butchering kurdish women. You know, selling 9 year olds christians and kurds because they are "kafirs". Majority of the kurds getting killed are muslims as well. Genuinely dislike what you're insinuating but it borders close to clouding criticism as 'islamophobia' as the left-wing do in Sweden.
  - ddrt 12y ago
    He's doing satire, my friend.
  - apta 12y ago
    I was being sarcastic, as another poster pointed out. Daesh is not the point of discussion here, though yes, their actions are abominable.
    - andreasvc 12y ago
      Hint: if your comment is only a single line of sarcasm, you're probably not contributing anything to the conversation.
- gaius 12y ago
  You're being down voted, yet remember that the US was quite happy for NORAID to operate there even after 9/11.
pizza234 12y ago
"Terrorist" has a quite specific meaning; I think that there is a subtle difference with the fact that cartels don't use terror for ideological reasons, instead, very simply, as a business tool. I think terroristic organization are characterized by asimmetry toward their enemy (that's where the terror strategies come from). Cartels are not asymmetric - I wouldn't surprised if their "GDP" would be higher than Mexico. I would rather think of them either as a state inside another, failed, state, or a corporation who controls its state of residence through guns instead of money.

by eksith 12y ago

lazaroclapp 12y ago

The goal of the cartels is not terror or using terror to achieve any political or ideological goals. The goal of the cartels is profit in most cases and local political power in some others. They are criminal enterprises for sure and warlords as well in many cases, but they are not terrorists. Whether profit-motivated un-accountable and violent criminal syndicates are more or less harmful than fundamentalist terrorists, well, that's a different question.

Shivetya 12y ago

based on recent stories where they had to track down and arrest a mayor and his wife how are you going to tell friend from foe? With the recent legalization of marijuana in a few more states we might be getting to a tipping point where we reexamine the whole drug war and reduce the influence of these people by drying up their money supply

pyrophane 12y ago
One would hope. I honestly think that at this point legalization and regulation of all drugs would be the most sensible approach, even when it comes to "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Doing so would not only cut out the cartels, but also allow us to implement harm reduction strategies that are lacking from our current "War on Drugs" approach. Just being able to ensure that what is being sold provides a predictable dose of the drug and is free from unnecessary contaminants would be a huge step forward, not to mention all of the treatment options that would become available to abusers if we were to stop treating them like criminals.
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  Legalization with heavy regulation honestly seems like the best way forward at this point, to combat both the politico-economic (drug cartels) and health (addiction treatment) consequences of drugs that will always exist whether legal or not. From the perspective of someone who is from Mexico, I can attest that at least the general consensus is that the cartels derive the majority of their power from their interactions with the US market: most of their money from selling drugs north of the border, most of their strength from buying weapons from US sellers. They have some more local sources of income (extortion, protection rackets, kidnapping, theft) but in cash terms all of those pale compared with the drug business. As for weapons? They definitely don't have any local manufacturing capabilities and I doubt they have any suppliers not from the U.S. at the moment. At this point, legalization won't be the full solution for the problems with the Mexican cartels, but it's probably the single best thing that can be done to combat the issue. More effective than armed intervention, faster and more reliable than any current attempts to boost the Mexican rural economy (lack of jobs and very low earnings from normal crops is part of what allows drug cartels to recruit enforcers easily and convince farmers to grow pot instead of wheat) and definitely easier to implement than any anti-corruption measure targeting the Mexican institutions (which have corruption as a very endemic historical problem and rooted in ways that most anglo-saxon countries cannot fully imagine). Edit: That said, this is an interesting counterpoint: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/global/mexicos-deadly-power-vacuum.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/opinion/global/mexicos-dea... by a very respected subject expert (Dr. Buscaglia), arguing that larger and wealthier criminal organizations than the Mexican cartels exist in other countries, and that the main reason for the cartel-related violence in Mexico and not say in Russia, China or the U.S. is the relative weakness of the state and the job-generating economy.

apta 12y ago

They're probably not Muslims, so they're not "terrorists". Only Muslims are terrorists nowadays.

seivan 12y ago
Daesh is butchering kurdish women. You know, selling 9 year olds christians and kurds because they are "kafirs". Majority of the kurds getting killed are muslims as well. Genuinely dislike what you're insinuating but it borders close to clouding criticism as 'islamophobia' as the left-wing do in Sweden.
- ddrt 12y ago
  He's doing satire, my friend.
- apta 12y ago
  I was being sarcastic, as another poster pointed out. Daesh is not the point of discussion here, though yes, their actions are abominable.
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    Hint: if your comment is only a single line of sarcasm, you're probably not contributing anything to the conversation.
gaius 12y ago
You're being down voted, yet remember that the US was quite happy for NORAID to operate there even after 9/11.

pizza234 12y ago

"Terrorist" has a quite specific meaning; I think that there is a subtle difference with the fact that cartels don't use terror for ideological reasons, instead, very simply, as a business tool. I think terroristic organization are characterized by asimmetry toward their enemy (that's where the terror strategies come from). Cartels are not asymmetric - I wouldn't surprised if their "GDP" would be higher than Mexico. I would rather think of them either as a state inside another, failed, state, or a corporation who controls its state of residence through guns instead of money.