Jeff Cohen from Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College says Webb exposed how the CIA supported the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua by trafficking cocaine, leading to an epidemic of crack use in major US cities.
Stuff you won’t see reported in the corporate media.
Can’t wait to see this movie!
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12510
Another trailer.
Can you please define “corporate funding?” I would’ve thought Democracy Now receives such funding:
“Democracy Now! receives indirect funding from George Soros, and direct funding from the Ford Foundation, the Glaser Foundation, Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Tides Foundation, and other left-leaning foundations…”
And what is your point here? That we should reevaluate this aspect of contemporary history? What are the lessons to be learned and what if any proscriptive actions are you advocating?
Foundations are not corporations.
What is my point? The point is showing the duplicity in America’s "War On Drugs"and what a farce it is. According to Gary Webb and later confirmed by C.I.A. docs, the C.I. A. were complicit in the drug trade during the time of the Contra V. Sandinista war. There have been plenty of books written on the subject of America’s involvement in the drug trade i.e. Alfred C. McCoy’s Politics Of Heroin.
And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.
[/quote]
Okay, cool. So the Koch Foundations are not corporations right?
The allegations date back to the Reagan administration. What bearing does that have on anything today?
Uh…yeah? What’s that got to do with anything today? What’s the connection?
[quote]
And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?[/quote]
To “reevaluate” = to take a second look at that period of contemporary history in light of the information you are relating? Why are you asking me if the CIA “ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade” etc? Can’t you have a normal conversation without throwing out these mad red herrings? I haven’t even challenged any of these claims. I’m merely asking what your point is. So your point is we should legalise drugs because the CIA was in some way involved with drug dealers in Latin America in the 1980’s? That’s not a logical train of thought. I was asking you to join these disparate strains of thought into some sort of coherent argument.
I finished Mr. Webb’s book not too long ago and this is part of a much, much bigger story. It’s also more complicated than the typical “independent” media outlets will let on and is about much more than the war on drugs. It gets into the proxy wars of the Cold War, the loss of hegemony in the Middle East, and really is modern history.
SexMachine is trying to bait you so he can practice reciting the hard party line. He has thinly veiled hopes and dreams of moving to Washington to attempt brown nosing his way up the greasy DC political pole.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
SexMachine is trying to bait you so he can practice reciting the hard party line. He has thinly veiled hopes and dreams of moving to Washington to attempt brown nosing his way up the greasy DC political pole.
[/quote]
Lol! I’m not a party hack. I hate the Republican establishment. I disagree with tea party “conservatives” on much too. And I’m often telling people to take off their rose coloured glasses when talking about Reagan - although usually not for the same reasons as liberals.
But getting back to the OP, I wasn’t baiting. I was genuinely wondering where we are going with this. So let’s see if I’ve got this straight - the CIA facilitated the crack cocaine epidemic? Okay…so that’s somehow an argument to legalise drugs? We want another crack epidemic is that it?
From the article:
Ah…Mr Webb? The Sandinistas were not “progressives”. They murdered tens of thousands of people; used systematic rape and torture and specifically targeted ethnic minorities including the extermination of over 70,000 Miskito Indians.
And the CIA is not involved in law enforcement. Its job is intelligence gathering/presentation and covert operations.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Another trailer.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb[/quote]
Do you agree with Webb that the Sandinistas were “progressives?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Another trailer.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb[/quote]
Do you agree with Webb that the Sandinistas were “progressives?”[/quote]
I won’t speak for Zep, but my recollection from my college years is that the question you are asking is a complicated one and it depends on the time you are talking about and who you are talking about / which faction you are talking within the FSLN. The FSLN started out as mostly students turned marxist guerrillas opposed to Somoza, but at some point after they achieved a military victory with the help of a broad coalition of anti-Samosa forces, they held an election and the party splintered between hardcore marxists committed to revolution and more moderate democratic socialists.
Re: the Moskitos, my recollection is that the Sandinistas treated them pretty poorly like the the governments and the colonial powers that preceded them and that they were treated poorly after they left. I also seem to recall Borge was accused of orchestrating the displacement and killing of coastal Miskitos suspected of anti-Sandinista activities when he was ministry of the interior.
Where did you get the 70,000 figure? I’d be curious to see a link to that (not calling you out, just curious).
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I won’t speak for Zep, but my recollection from my college years is that the question you are asking is a complicated one and it depends on the time you are talking about and who you are talking about / which faction you are talking within the FSLN. The FSLN started out as mostly students turned marxist guerrillas opposed to Somoza, but at some point after they achieved a military victory with the help of a broad coalition of anti-Samosa forces, they held an election and the party splintered between hardcore marxists committed to revolution and more moderate democratic socialists.
[/quote]
It was quite complex but not quite as you relate. See the wiki article for a brief overview:
It’s not an area of history I’ve spent much time looking into but there were no “progressive” factions within the coalition. They killed 50,000-70,000 people before they even came to power then embarked upon massive reprisals and infighting. Reagan backed FDN:
So the guy I quoted is asserting that the FSLN was a “progressive” government that the CIA was trying to overthrow(1981 onwards).
In fact, the CIA was trying to contain or rollback Marxists throughout the region and the Sandinistas were arming and supporting other Marxist insurgencies in the region aimed at destabilising and overthrowing neighbouring countries such as El Salvador. And one of the largest factions of the evil contras Reagan funded were the Indian minorities who were being forcibly removed from their land and exterminated when they resisted.
"The Sandinistas sent Soviet helicopter gunships and elite army units to attack the Miskito Indians; carried out mass arrests, jailings and torture; burned down 65 Indian communities; inflicted ethnic cleansing on 70,000 Indians; and tried to starve the Indians by cutting off food supplies. The Sandinistas boasted that they were “ready to eliminate the last Miskito Indian to take Sandinism to the Atlantic Coast” - Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp. 253â??54.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"The Sandinistas sent Soviet helicopter gunships and elite army units to attack the Miskito Indians; carried out mass arrests, jailings and torture; burned down 65 Indian communities; inflicted ethnic cleansing on 70,000 Indians; and tried to starve the Indians by cutting off food supplies. The Sandinistas boasted that they were “ready to eliminate the last Miskito Indian to take Sandinism to the Atlantic Coast” - Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp. 253â??54.[/quote]
I’m skeptical of the 70,000 figure only because my recollection is 70,000 killed would have been pretty much all of them and I just don’t think there was a genocide. I googled around and couldn’t find a credible source suggesting a genocide. I recall there was some forced relocation, attacks on villages, some killed, etc., in the context of the war with the contras. I am going to look into this further because now I’m just curious.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"The Sandinistas sent Soviet helicopter gunships and elite army units to attack the Miskito Indians; carried out mass arrests, jailings and torture; burned down 65 Indian communities; inflicted ethnic cleansing on 70,000 Indians; and tried to starve the Indians by cutting off food supplies. The Sandinistas boasted that they were “ready to eliminate the last Miskito Indian to take Sandinism to the Atlantic Coast” - Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp. 253Ã?¢??54.[/quote]
I’m skeptical of the 70,000 figure only because my recollection is 70,000 killed would have been pretty much all of them and I just don’t think there was a genocide. I googled around and couldn’t find a credible source suggesting a genocide. I recall there was some forced relocation, attacks on villages, some killed, etc., in the context of the war with the contras. I am going to look into this further because now I’m just curious.
[/quote]
As I said it’s not an area of history I’ve looked into much but wide scale and systemic human rights abuses of the Miskito by the FSLN has been thoroughly documented by NGOs, the clergy and journalists.
But getting back to the point of the thread…I’m still not sure what the argument is. I think it’s along the lines:
US = bad
Capitalism = bad
Sandinistas = progressive
US caused crack cocaine epidemic
We need to legalise drugs
I just need zep to help me fit the pieces together.
Give Zep a bit of a break. Starting to deal with and emotionally process a lot of this material is a red pill moment for a lot of people who’ve been indoctrinated from an early age that they live Disneyland, when the truth is more complicated. I’ve been going through it myself.
Pinochet, Noriega, terrorists, and dictators of all kinds have been US allies at one point or another. The key word is “blowback”.
People like a scapegoat, somebody who they can blame for everything wrong in the world upon realizing that they do not in fact live in Disneyland. Most of the time, these frustrations are initially placed upon their own country or a certain administration, for their disingenuous claims when they in fact know more than they will officially say.
If you can get through this phase and distill the situation further, you will see some baseline truths about the world start to emerge. None of this is a pleasant process.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I finished Mr. Webb’s book not too long ago and this is part of a much, much bigger story. It’s also more complicated than the typical “independent” media outlets will let on and is about much more than the war on drugs. It gets into the proxy wars of the Cold War, the loss of hegemony in the Middle East, and really is modern history.
SexMachine is trying to bait you so he can practice reciting the hard party line. He has thinly veiled hopes and dreams of moving to Washington to attempt brown nosing his way up the greasy DC political pole.
[/quote]
The ad hominem is uncalled for, especially considering you’re an admitted neophyte in regard to the study of U.S. foreign policy formation. I’d like to say it’s a personal pathology, but I’m friends with several engineers who display similar intellectual overreach.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I finished Mr. Webb’s book not too long ago and this is part of a much, much bigger story. It’s also more complicated than the typical “independent” media outlets will let on and is about much more than the war on drugs. It gets into the proxy wars of the Cold War, the loss of hegemony in the Middle East, and really is modern history.
SexMachine is trying to bait you so he can practice reciting the hard party line. He has thinly veiled hopes and dreams of moving to Washington to attempt brown nosing his way up the greasy DC political pole.
[/quote]
The ad hominem is uncalled for, especially considering you’re an admitted neophyte in regard to the study of U.S. foreign policy formation. I’d like to say it’s a personal pathology, but I’m friends with several engineers who display similar intellectual overreach. [/quote]
It was in jest. Lighten up.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.
[/quote]
Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.
I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…
again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.
[/quote]
Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.
I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…
again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]
Well they kinda did.
So the C.I.A. helped to smuggle cocaine into this country because they thought that breaking the law by the import of illegal drugs would not end up in money that could subvert the Bolland Amendment as this money was funneled to the Contras and most likely their bank accounts.
Riiigggghhttttt…