Should Mexican Cartels Be Labeled Terrorist Organizations?

Should Mexican Cartels Be Labeled Terrorist Organizations?

www.b orderlandbeat.com

Sunday, January 16, 2011 | Borderland Beat Reporter
"The Mexican government should call a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations and ask that the cartels of Los Zetas, La Línea and other major drug trafficking groups be included in the list of known terrorist organizations. "That way all the countries in the world can develop a set of protocols to attack the finances of these 'terrorists' and freeze their accounts", said Edgardo Buscaglia, ....."

(visit the link for the full news article)

The article further goes on to state:

"Once the cartels are defined as terrorist groups, their armed branches "would be targeted by international anti-terror agencies, who are enormously sophisticated when it comes to neutralizing threats."

Hmmm. Well I guess it's a step in the right direction. For more about ITAM which Buscaglia is affiliated with, go here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's another tie in he has developed:

"Mexican Cartels Buying Afghan Heroin"
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
"Doris Gómora for El Universal - Mexican cartels have established business alliances with gangs operating in places like Afganistán and Turkey, in order to obtain and smuggle drugs to supply Europe and North America, according to investigator Edgardo Buscaglia, a fellow at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM)."

Source: www.borderlandbeat.com...

"In an interview with EL UNIVERSAL, Buscaglia confirmed that Mexican narcotraffickers operate like multinational emissaries "to establish contacts and place operatives that can deal with the Turkish and Indian criminal organizations in order to facilitate the production and sale of drugs," specifically heroin."

"Buscaglia says that according to his investigation, these criminal groups operate on an international level, and their bases of operations are located in México."

ABSOLUTELY they should be, and the US should mount joint military expeditions with the Mexican government to eradicate them. Then again the CIA might have other plans for the cartels, it seems to have been their strategy for the past few decades to keep well-armed drug-running militia/cartels around to destabilize Central American governments...

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The CIA has had their hands in narco/arms dealings for some time; Iran Contra being a prime example. Also, wasn't Bush senior the head of the CIA in the past? Interesting.

I heard something rather interesting. My friend told me that this a consolidation of one cartel. The military has become a tool of one cartel to eliminate the competitors. The fact the CIA has more than little role in this global trade possibly suggests who that one cartel might be. Loads of US weapons have been sold to the Mexican government. It would be rather embarrassing for it to come to light that the Mexican government had been knee deep in the drug trade. I believe my friend because he just came back from Juarez where he has been living. Violence is real bad down south.

What i see is a government unable to stop a well funded and far more organized crime syndicate. By labeling them terrorist's is in my opinion officially asking for foreign intervention into the country with disastrous results for its population and the intervention wont be U.S. driven only, it will be a coalition force and thus the buffer zone is created, one that was sort after for over half a century.

Contacting "criminl elements" in Afghanistan to buy heroin... That would, according to Russia, be the description of the C.I.A., Right?...

After all, didn't Russia initiate legal action against the United States recently, accusing the U.S. of being responsible for the increased heroin trafficking there?

When the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan didn't the U.S. ~first~ 'secure the opium poppy fields'?

Hmmmm....

Sure, go ahead and label the cartels as Terrorist Organizations... DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE THE C.I.A. ON THAT LIST....

US citizens are being labeled as terrorists. Why not actual criminals who cause acts of terror?

I think any gang who terrorizes and kills people should be labeled as a TO. However it does appear the drug trade is deeply connected with the Mexican government and the CIA so while it might happen on paper I dont think it will make any difference. It is more likely that anyone who uses/distributes the products in the US will be labeled as terrorists and when caught will face even stiffer penalties. If cartels are labeled as Terrorist Organizations imho it will just be a PR move.

reply to post by tristar


Yes but what are the alternatives?
Nothing else has worked to date, and this organization (ITAM) is basically a think tank based in Mexico if you read the description in the link provided. I am sure that they are aware of any possible effects and benefits of labeling cartels as such.

Mexican drug cartels are a business just like KBR/Haliburton, just like De Beers, just like any other businesses that exploit people, and kill to protect their interests.

Yes I would say they are terrorists.

reply to post by manta78


They use the same exact tools that terrorists use. They don't soley function as a business. Their goals are not just profits from the drug trade. The cartels rule their territory as warlords and treat the people in them as peasants. They have expanded their territory beyond Mexico and have now taken over parts of Guatemala.

They are insurgents. They are militants. They are guerillas.

They do not adhere to the Laws of War but they use asymetrical warfare. That by definition is terrorism.

They are terrorists.

No, first and foremost they should be labeled "Affiliates" of various covert U.S. agencies.

As far as the Mexican government is concerned, they ARE terrorists.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
No, first and foremost they should be labeled "Affiliates" of various covert U.S. agencies.

As far as the Mexican government is concerned, they ARE terrorists.

Unless you have real proof of any connection between them and the US government, thats pure speculation and hypothesis.

We have real proof that the cartels, especially Zetas, conduct asymmetrical warfare and have no regard for the laws of war.

Why do you need to tag them as terrorist? What they're doing is already criminal. Does it really open up new venues for law enforcement to change their title? I dont understand that at all. Terrorist as term and definition should be only for those who actually do terror. These guys use violence and criminal acts as a business. Not for the sake of terrorizing.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Unless you have real proof of any connection between them and the US government, thats pure speculation and hypothesis.

We have real proof that the cartels, especially Zetas, conduct asymmetrical warfare and have no regard for the laws of war.

You are right, because there is no direct evidence to surface that these "Mexican" cartels have ties to US agencies.

YET

But the past can reveal some things:

www.globalresearch.ca...

In one glaring case, an associate of mine was sent into Honduras to open a DEA office in Tegucigalpa. Within months he had documented as much as 50 tons of coc aine being smuggled into the US by Honduran military people who were supporting the Contras. This was enough coc aine to fill a third of US demand. What was the DEA response? They closed the office. (p. 175)

Sometime in 1990, US Customs intercepted a ton of coc aine being smuggled through Miami International Airport. A Customs and DEA investigation quickly revealed that the smugglers were the Venezuelan National Guard headed by General Guillen, a CIA “asset” who claimed that he had been operating under CIA orders and protection. The CIA soon admitted that this was true. If the CIA is good at anything, it is the complete control of American mass media. So secure are they in their ability to manipulate the mass media that they even brag about it in their own in-house memos. The New York Times had the story almost immediately in 1990 and did not print it until 1993. It finally became news that was “fit to print” when the Times learned that 60 Minutes also had the story and was actually going to run it. The highlight of the 60 Minutes piece is when the administrator of the DEA, Federal Judge Robert Bonner, tells Mike Wallace, “There is no other way to put it, Mike, [what the CIA did] is drug smuggling. It’s illegal [author's emphasis].” (pp. 188, 189)

These Mexican cartels and drug gangs are eerily similar to the above.

But no reason to assume there is any covert US involvement here.

And, there never will be!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Why do you need to tag them as terrorist? What they're doing is already criminal. Does it really open up new venues for law enforcement to change their title? I dont understand that at all. Terrorist as term and definition should be only for those who actually do terror. These guys use violence and criminal acts as a business. Not for the sake of terrorizing.

Maybe you should review another thread I recently posted, and see if you feel the same way:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Q: Should Mexican Cartels Be Labeled Terrorist Organizations?

A: Of course they should. But if the U.S. were to do that, then the government would have way to many questions to answer, like:

Why aren't you guys securing the border?
Or
Why spend billions on the TSA and then allow them to trample the rights of U.S. citizens when the money should be spent protecting us from the real terrorist threats like the Cartels?

It makes to much sense.

Yes they're terrorist and we're watching them from our front porch and not doing a damn thing about it. why should we be on the other side of the globe, when are neighbors are in dire straits. If Mexico would get their act together we could help them, but you can't help someone that doesn't want to help themselves.