Photo purported to be obama and clinton seeing live assasination of Osama are fake!

jackiebaron

yekahS wrote: »

jakiebaron, could I ask that you dial back the aggressiveness and franticness of your posts. Its not condusive to good discussion and will only end badly.

thanks,

yekahS

Yekahs....I am stating facts. If aggression is what you wish to avoid then at least also counter those who not only refuse to deliver a digestible explanation to these events but also to those whose response is ridicule in the form of tin-foil-hat sneering.

I am not going to drift into any other controversial topic. I am adamant to stick steadfastly with this photograph and the dubious circumstances surrounding it.

I don't wish to discuss any other "conspiracy theory" material, just this photograph.

Nobody can say why the press has stated that it was the president watching "Live".. Nobody can say that and even though it was a lie, nobody will admit it.

K-9

jackiebaron wrote: »

Nobody can say why the press has stated that it was the president watching "Live".. Nobody can say that and even though it was a lie, nobody will admit it.

To do that, you'd need to know how the White House released the picture and what spin was put on it.

clever_name

jackiebaron wrote: »

Nobody can say why the press has stated that it was the president watching "Live".. Nobody can say that and even though it was a lie, nobody will admit it.

Some of the press stated it because it sounds better and would sell more papers, you should try to be more sceptical of the press.

ician

I don't think there is any point arguing with him anymore. Some people get too caught up in this stuff and are blinder than the general public. Not everything is a conspiracy theory, and he is simply blind to some basic facts.


1. Yes the white house released a picture, no they never said he was watching live coverage.

2. When a big story breaks, news media attempt to fill in the blanks in the confusion right afterwards. The white house's statement on what was going on - "Mr Brennan said he would not reveal details "about what types of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there but it was - it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis"." In the hours before this the media merely gave an opinion, an interpretation of what they thought was going on.

3. The fact that there is a difference in these views of what was going on does not in any way give support to any sort of conspiracy theory. At least have some fact injected into your theory. To be grasping so frantically at one says more about jackiebaron's personality than anything else. Ban me for saying that if you want, you know its true. It's just a theory which probably has more fact to it than his own silly theory.

jackiebaron

K-9 wrote: »

It said watched in real time.

I'd go with meep on this, some of it was watched in real time, parts of it wasn't, though audio feeds would have been heard then.

As opposed to what? Slow motion?

The press reported that they were watching the assassination live. They can't have been watching live since Leon Pannetta inadvertently let it slip that the live feed was shut off once they entered the compound. So Either they were watching it at a later time (assuming it was recorded) or they are watching nothing.

Nobody can explain why it was reported that they were watching live. The press didn't issue a statement saying that they got their wires crossed and the White House have never come out and denied that they told the press that they gave them these photos and stated that it was Obama watching live.

jackiebaron

caseyann wrote: »

They look clearly distressed by what they are watching,be it whether live or not.Fact they watched something at all like that is sick.
Same as the sadam pictures of hanging sick to let them out aswell.
World is sick gone mad.

Oh please! How hard is it to tell Clinton to look disturbed and shove her paw in front of her trap?
Do you remember Bush coming out and looking all fake concerned over the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib as if he was authentically disturbed. This is a guy who authorised it. This is a guy who tortured and killed animals as a kid. This is a guy who held the record for signing death warrants in Texas and even mocked Karla Faye Tucker when she pleaded for her life. And this guy expresses concern over Lynndie England holding a naked prisoner on a leash or Charles Grainer boxing the heads of them? Get real.

jackiebaron

clever_name wrote: »

Some of the press stated it because it sounds better and would sell more papers, you should try to be more sceptical of the press.

I am sceptical of the press. But I'm even MORE sceptical about the White House press department.

Are you saying that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that this photograph was staged and that it was released and reported as live to further copperfasten the dubious story that Bin Laden has even been killed at all?

FFS, the planting of the flag on Iwo Jima was staged yet so many millions still believe that those soldiers did it after establishing a beach head. The whole Mission Accomplished farce was stagemanaged. They turned the carrier around so that when Bush's plane landed it would look like he was way out at sea instead of practically ON the California beach. The Jessica Lynch farce was staged. Photos of weapons labs were staged and sattelite images of Iraqi troops formations on the Saudi border were staged in 1991 when there wasn't so much as a fcuking Iraqi bicycle there.

Why wouldn't they stage this? You talk about conspiracies and conspiracy theories as if they don't exist. When people started talking about Nixon's dirty tricks they were called CTers until the whole thing came out. Then the naysayers were very quiet. Same with Iran-Contra....anyone who even alluded to the subject of it was called a tin-foil nut. Guess what....it panned out. And these fantastic rumours that you just believe without so much as a peep such as Libyan soldiers being given Viagra so as better to rape women....I mean who the fcuk are they trying to kid here?

Don't you question ANY of this crap? I know people's egos prevent them from admitting that they might have been duped but a 10-year old would be sceptical of this. I guess it's easier to fool an adult than a child.

K-9

jackiebaron wrote: »

Nobody can explain why it was reported that they were watching live. The press didn't issue a statement saying that they got their wires crossed and the White House have never come out and denied that they told the press that they gave them these photos and stated that it was Obama watching live.

Exactly, this is what I said earlier and others have pointed out, you are the one filling in the blanks. It could have spun that way or the press could have assumed it was. Anyway, I think I'll stop banging my head against the wall now!

jackiebaron

Another thing folks. The US conveniently disposed of (or claimed to have disposed of) Bin Laden's body at sea and then boasted that they were doing so in accordance with Islamic tradition.

Burial at sea is NOT in accordance with Islamic tradition and ALSO there is no timeframe in Islam for burial.

Anyone remember how long Ayatollah Khomeini lay in state?

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

Another thing folks. The US conveniently disposed of (or claimed to have disposed of) Bin Laden's body at sea and then boasted that they were doing so in accordance with Islamic tradition.

Burial at sea is NOT in accordance with Islamic tradition

Ahem

. 623. * If a person dies on a ship and if there is no fear of the decay of the dead body and if there is no problem in retaining it for sometime on the ship, it should be kept on it and buried in the ground after reaching the land. Otherwise, after giving Ghusl, Hunut, Kafan and Namaz-e-Mayyit it should be lowered into the sea in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet. And as far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators.



624. If it is feared that an enemy may dig up the grave and exhume the dead body and amputate its ears or nose or other limbs, it should be lowered into sea, if possible, as stated in the foregoing rule.


625. * The expenses of lowering the dead body into the sea, or making the grave solid on the ground can be deducted from the estate of the deceased, if necessary.

So there is precedent

Burying in the ground and you set a dangerous pilgrimage/focus for jihadists.


And where would you suggest burying him?

and ALSO there is no timeframe in Islam for burial.



Anyone remember how long Ayatollah Khomeini lay in state?

So? And what does this have to do with your point?

Are you saying that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that this photograph was staged and that it was released and reported as live to further copperfasten the dubious story that Bin Laden has even been killed at all?

Um how would it do that.

The press reported that they were watching the assassination live.

And the whitehouse stated "they monitored the event in real time, like a audio feed or satellite images"

Its not the Whitehouse's fault the press mis reported it.

DoesNotCompute

fontanalis wrote: »

They're not fake; they weren't watching live footage. And as far as I know the white house never claimed the footage to be live.

They're not fake; they were watching the Superbowl. And the white house never claimed the footage was live. It was TiVO'ed

caseyann

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh please! How hard is it to tell Clinton to look disturbed and shove her paw in front of her trap?
Do you remember Bush coming out and looking all fake concerned over the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib as if he was authentically disturbed. This is a guy who authorised it. This is a guy who tortured and killed animals as a kid. This is a guy who held the record for signing death warrants in Texas and even mocked Karla Faye Tucker when she pleaded for her life. And this guy expresses concern over Lynndie England holding a naked prisoner on a leash or Charles Grainer boxing the heads of them? Get real.

Seriously what?
Anyway who gives a damn about honouring Muslim religion for him.Total rubbish.
I personally dont believe he is dead at all.

kevindominguez

the hell?? this is hoax!

uprising2

Reuters has published photos of three dead men in Osama bin Laden’s hideout with blood pouring from their mouths.
The White House refuses to release a photo showing Osama bin Laden shot through the head fearing it may create more terrorism and put Americans abroad in the path of harm.

WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF DEATH AND INJURY BELOW

Photographs acquired by Reuters and taken about an hour after the U.S. assault on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan show three dead men lying in pools of blood, but no weapons.
The photos, taken by a Pakistani security official who entered the compound after the early morning raid on Monday, show two men dressed in traditional Pakistani garb and one in a t-shirt, with blood streaming from their ears, noses and mouths.
http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound

Osama Bin Laden dead: White House backtracks on how bin Laden died

The White House admitted last night that its initial account of the way Osama bin Laden died at the hands of US forces had been riddled with errors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491113/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-White-House-backtracks-on-how-bin-Laden-died.html

Whitehouse backtracks on osama video


Lot's of backtracking coming from the white house, meaning they lied and were caught out, so I find it hard to believe anything they say at face value, actually they have a long history of lies that they get caught out on, so with past record for truth at zero I'll believe it when I see it, but hollywood is amazing these days, someone is probably working on the video right now.

It's like the old mafia thing, no body, no evidence!.

In the above quoted article "Graphic" images it shows bodies in the supposed osama compound, maybe if these people can be identified it will take us a little closer to the truth, but I won't be holding my breath.

upandcumming

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

You have inspired me to find out how to ignore people on this.

Caught

Live doesn't have to mean live at that very moment.

I doubt when "Michael McIntyre Live At The Apollo" was played on Comedy Central every night a few months ago that he was doing the exact same show night after night, which the exact same audience. Of course not, thats ridiculous! He recorded the shows and then they played the same episode every night for a week. But its live because he didn't keep retaking the same jokes until he got it perfect. He just did it, and got on with it.

Di0genes

Why do you believe the bull****ters in the White House PR department but you don't believe Steve R. Pieczenik the spymaster who worked in 5 administrations when he says the pictures are a complete hoax?

Actually some people are having fun with Steve R. Pieczenk and his "claims"

Brown Bomber

Caught wrote: »

Live doesn't have to mean live at that very moment.

I doubt when "Michael McIntyre Live At The Apollo" was played on Comedy Central every night a few months ago that he was doing the exact same show night after night, which the exact same audience. Of course not, thats ridiculous! He recorded the shows and then they played the same episode every night for a week. But its live because he didn't keep retaking the same jokes until he got it perfect. He just did it, and got on with it.

By that thinking everything that has ever event been documented on fim/audio should be described as live every time you watch it. I watched Italia 90 live last night right before I watched the moon landing live and then watched some world war two live before I went to sleep. Doesn't really make any sense.

uprising2

I posted this in the photography forum......


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72147113&postcount=35

Oracle

Of course this photo is at the very least staged, because it's just too perfect. Real unrehearsed photo journalism photos show warts and all. The more people in the photo, the greater the chance of bloopers like .... people looking the other way, fixing their hair, playing with their glasses. talking to their neighbour, etc .... This photo has none of these.

The two funniest bits are Hilary in mock horror. That's so funny from a woman who routinely justifies the on-going war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who also regularly talks about the invasion of Iran. She's obviously a very sensitive soul, who's easily shocked. :rolleyes: Don't think she'll be Oscar nominated any time soon.

.... and the woman who's head is just poking in amongst the men in the background. Clearly someone had a "oh there's only one woman in the photo" light bulb moment afterwards.:D

The image of this woman may also be the giveaway that there's been some photo manipulation. There's a man beside her to the left. His face and shirt shows there's a strong white light coming from the left. But the light on this woman’s face, (who is standing right beside him) is coming from above. The even shadow cast under her neck confirms the light source as coming from above. Also the light on her face is soft and diffused, not strong. If she were really standing right behind him, the light on her face would be similar; coming from the left and bright. There maybe logical explanation for this, but it can also be a sign of photo editing.

Kingpin187

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13263426

Apologies for not using the link function but my work computer is weird and doesnt display these pages properly

jackiebaron

Here's an article from Bob Ellis that you might like:

How Secretive and Shabby the Americans Are

By Bob Ellis

May 07, 2011 "ABC" -- There was no rejoicing in Times Square when Hirohito died, though he ordered the killing of 2350 Americans in Pearl Harbor. I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, or Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung. Or Che Guevara. Or Salvador Allende. Or Joseph Stalin.

These laughing, flag-waving, crowded scenes outside the White House and across America have no precedent (except, perhaps, in the South when Lincoln was shot) and it is to be wondered why they occurred.

There was a magical-realist quality to Osama Bin Laden. He looked like the risen Christ, and was often thought dead and came always back to life. His broadcasts needed always to be authenticated because the CIA wanted him dead. He’d humiliated them so enormously they kept saying he was dead. He was ‘on dialysis’, they asserted, wrongly; he had to be dead by now. 9/11 was so clever. He had to be dead.

And once again they are covering up, and in denial.

As with John F Kennedy, whose brain was stolen, his car washed of its blood, film of his autopsy made to vanish, his alleged assassin murdered and that assassin’s evidence unrecorded, burnt or discarded, we have here, now, a significant body, the corpse of the world’s most wanted man, ‘buried at sea’. Why do this? Why even think of it, when identifying him forensically was critical to the peace of the Arab and Muslim world?

Uday and Qusay weren’t buried at sea, nor the twenty-four-hour burial rule applied to these two cosmeticked enemy stiffs. Saddam was helicoptered home to his tribal city (by Mike Kelly MP and Minister for Cheese) for interment in his clan’s sacred ground. Why treat Osama any differently? Why put his body where it couldn’t be checked over? Why not have an autopsy? Why not give their most famous son back to the rich Bin Laden family, and see them set him down in their family plot? What right do Americans have to a fallen enemy’s corpse? Where did that new rule come from? How dare they?

Clearly they feared the sight of his widow, wounded in the fire-fight, at the graveside of him and his dead son, and the sight of his grieving daughter and his other sons would humanise him in an inconvenient way. Clearly they feared his grave would become, like that of Karl Marx or St Thomas a Beckett, a pilgrim shrine for apostles yet unborn.

But there were other, forensic reasons too.

A coronial enquiry, with witnesses, would show if women were fired upon, or children. It would show if Bin Laden took his own life, as Allende did, it seems, or if his bodyguard, sworn to kill him in such a circumstance, shot him as well, in the back, perhaps.

It would show if he had his hands up, and he was therefore killed against the rules of war, or if his wife said, ‘Please, no.’ It would also get from his wife and daughter evidence of who had lodged them in their splendid quarters, who paid the bills, who took the children to the local school, and what Mushareff knew, and what Azari knew, and indeed what Benazir Bhutto knew, of his five-year stay, if that is how long it was, only three minutes’ walk from an army academy, the West Point of Pakistan.

How shabby the Americans are. How secretive and stupid.

One thinks of the 600 plots to kill Castro: the poisoned face cream, the poisoned wetsuit, the exploding cigars, the former girlfriend who, after sex, couldn’t do it, even when he offered his gun. How low grade they are. How creepy. How overpaid for their shoddy scheming and their bungled midnight raids.

And Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea. Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones are coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Imagine Hitler, buried at sea. Or Trotsky. How stupid can they be?

For there is no end to it now. As with Elvis, his voice, his image will recur on websites for fifty years. Was it him? Did he survive? Is he still alive? He must be. He must be. His widow will charge his American assassins with war crimes for killing and wounding civilians: her son, herself, her daughter. His family will spend millions cleansing his name. The Sunni clergy will denounce the blasphemous travesty of his last rites, not on family ground but the cruel sea.

Karzai will demand compensation for the towns destroyed in America’s vain search for him, in the wrong country. The Saudi royals will be shown to have given him money and Bush to have known this while his father took fees from them. A good few Pakistani colonels will be tortured and shot. The Navy Seals that shot him (in the face, not the legs) will get jobs on Fox News. The Taliban will seize Pakistan and its WMD. And his legend, like Che’s, will grow luminous, and more and more twelve-year-old suicide bombers go into supermarkets whispering his name.

And all they had to do was keep the body, film its autopsy, open it to media view and give it back, in due season, to his family for a proper Sunni funeral, as they did Saddam and Uday and Qusay, in the green, green grass of home.

What klutzes they are. And how dearly we all must pay for their clumsiness, in a rejuvenated al-Qaeda and acts of terror without end, in this country too. And an atomic war, perhaps.

And it’s a pity.

PS. Osama was unarmed, we now are told, but he ‘resisted’ and so was shot ‘above the left eye’ and ‘part of his brain was blown away’. This, and other details, might explain why Barack Obama spent so long rewriting his speech, his worst thus far on a great specific occasion, and why he seemed uneasy giving it. What, we may ask, is he now to say of a murder committed by uninvited American troops on foreign soil, illegally?

And what is he to do with an illegally kidnapped widow, daughter and sons, and their ongoing education in Abbottobad?

And, indeed, with the question, why are we in Afghanistan?

And with the further, larger question, why, if Osama Bin Laden was for five years in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s rulers knew of it, we are not making war on Pakistan today? In reprisal? As we did on Afghanistan?

Why are we in Afghanistan, by the way?

Is there any reason left?

the_syco

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't have to provide a quote...the White House PR department's silence is proof enough.

The silence of not having a quote is proof enough? Oh, right, we're already in the CT forum. Nevermind :pac:

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

Here's an article from Bob Ellis that you might like:

How Secretive and Shabby the Americans Are

By Bob Ellis

May 07, 2011 "ABC" -- There was no rejoicing in Times Square when Hirohito died, though he ordered the killing of 2350 Americans in Pearl Harbor.

Yeah he died in 1989

I remember no such gladness when Hitler died,

News of Hitler's death came through round about the time VE day was announced.

That was a party

careca11

jackiebaron wrote: »

Here's an article from Bob Ellis that you might like:

How Secretive and Shabby the Americans Are

By Bob Ellis

May 07, 2011 "ABC" -- There was no rejoicing in Times Square when Hirohito died, though he ordered the killing of 2350 Americans in Pearl Harbor. I remember no such gladness when Hitler died, or Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Tse Tung. Or Che Guevara. Or Salvador Allende. Or Joseph Stalin.

These laughing, flag-waving, crowded scenes outside the White House and across America have no precedent (except, perhaps, in the South when Lincoln was shot) and it is to be wondered why they occurred.

There was a magical-realist quality to Osama Bin Laden. He looked like the risen Christ, and was often thought dead and came always back to life. His broadcasts needed always to be authenticated because the CIA wanted him dead. He’d humiliated them so enormously they kept saying he was dead. He was ‘on dialysis’, they asserted, wrongly; he had to be dead by now. 9/11 was so clever. He had to be dead.

And once again they are covering up, and in denial.

As with John F Kennedy, whose brain was stolen, his car washed of its blood, film of his autopsy made to vanish, his alleged assassin murdered and that assassin’s evidence unrecorded, burnt or discarded, we have here, now, a significant body, the corpse of the world’s most wanted man, ‘buried at sea’. Why do this? Why even think of it, when identifying him forensically was critical to the peace of the Arab and Muslim world?

Uday and Qusay weren’t buried at sea, nor the twenty-four-hour burial rule applied to these two cosmeticked enemy stiffs. Saddam was helicoptered home to his tribal city (by Mike Kelly MP and Minister for Cheese) for interment in his clan’s sacred ground. Why treat Osama any differently? Why put his body where it couldn’t be checked over? Why not have an autopsy? Why not give their most famous son back to the rich Bin Laden family, and see them set him down in their family plot? What right do Americans have to a fallen enemy’s corpse? Where did that new rule come from? How dare they?

Clearly they feared the sight of his widow, wounded in the fire-fight, at the graveside of him and his dead son, and the sight of his grieving daughter and his other sons would humanise him in an inconvenient way. Clearly they feared his grave would become, like that of Karl Marx or St Thomas a Beckett, a pilgrim shrine for apostles yet unborn.

But there were other, forensic reasons too.

A coronial enquiry, with witnesses, would show if women were fired upon, or children. It would show if Bin Laden took his own life, as Allende did, it seems, or if his bodyguard, sworn to kill him in such a circumstance, shot him as well, in the back, perhaps.

It would show if he had his hands up, and he was therefore killed against the rules of war, or if his wife said, ‘Please, no.’ It would also get from his wife and daughter evidence of who had lodged them in their splendid quarters, who paid the bills, who took the children to the local school, and what Mushareff knew, and what Azari knew, and indeed what Benazir Bhutto knew, of his five-year stay, if that is how long it was, only three minutes’ walk from an army academy, the West Point of Pakistan.

How shabby the Americans are. How secretive and stupid.

One thinks of the 600 plots to kill Castro: the poisoned face cream, the poisoned wetsuit, the exploding cigars, the former girlfriend who, after sex, couldn’t do it, even when he offered his gun. How low grade they are. How creepy. How overpaid for their shoddy scheming and their bungled midnight raids.

And Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea. Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones are coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Imagine Hitler, buried at sea. Or Trotsky. How stupid can they be?

For there is no end to it now. As with Elvis, his voice, his image will recur on websites for fifty years. Was it him? Did he survive? Is he still alive? He must be. He must be. His widow will charge his American assassins with war crimes for killing and wounding civilians: her son, herself, her daughter. His family will spend millions cleansing his name. The Sunni clergy will denounce the blasphemous travesty of his last rites, not on family ground but the cruel sea.

Karzai will demand compensation for the towns destroyed in America’s vain search for him, in the wrong country. The Saudi royals will be shown to have given him money and Bush to have known this while his father took fees from them. A good few Pakistani colonels will be tortured and shot. The Navy Seals that shot him (in the face, not the legs) will get jobs on Fox News. The Taliban will seize Pakistan and its WMD. And his legend, like Che’s, will grow luminous, and more and more twelve-year-old suicide bombers go into supermarkets whispering his name.

And all they had to do was keep the body, film its autopsy, open it to media view and give it back, in due season, to his family for a proper Sunni funeral, as they did Saddam and Uday and Qusay, in the green, green grass of home.

What klutzes they are. And how dearly we all must pay for their clumsiness, in a rejuvenated al-Qaeda and acts of terror without end, in this country too. And an atomic war, perhaps.

And it’s a pity.

PS. Osama was unarmed, we now are told, but he ‘resisted’ and so was shot ‘above the left eye’ and ‘part of his brain was blown away’. This, and other details, might explain why Barack Obama spent so long rewriting his speech, his worst thus far on a great specific occasion, and why he seemed uneasy giving it. What, we may ask, is he now to say of a murder committed by uninvited American troops on foreign soil, illegally?

And what is he to do with an illegally kidnapped widow, daughter and sons, and their ongoing education in Abbottobad?

And, indeed, with the question, why are we in Afghanistan?

And with the further, larger question, why, if Osama Bin Laden was for five years in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s rulers knew of it, we are not making war on Pakistan today? In reprisal? As we did on Afghanistan?

Why are we in Afghanistan, by the way?

Is there any reason left?

yes , look at all the money then is being made from opium.........................the spread of heroin to every country exploded soon after the yanks invaded Afghanistan
invaded Iraq for oil contracts
invaded Afghan for the opium (somebody somewhere along the chain is creaming it from the opium trade, and I'd reckon its come big Yank corporation somewhere)

Monty Burnz

careca11 wrote: »

and I'd reckon its come big Yank corporation somewhere)

You know that big corporations have to do book-keeping and stuff, and show where their income is coming from? And even if you ignore this, can you imagine how many people you'd have to swear to secrecy in this big corporation? And ignoring those two huge problems, exactly where would their end come from? The farmers do the growing, the smugglers do the smuggling, and the dealers do the dealing.

Added to which, the rich guys at the top of the corporation would be looking at serious jail time if the truth ever got out. Would you rather be rich and free, or very rich and looking over your shoulder the whole time?

jackiebaron

careca11 wrote: »

yes , look at all the money then is being made from opium.........................the spread of heroin to every country exploded soon after the yanks invaded Afghanistan
invaded Iraq for oil contracts
invaded Afghan for the opium (somebody somewhere along the chain is creaming it from the opium trade, and I'd reckon its come big Yank corporation somewhere)

Well I don't know what kind of ins and out there are to the opium trade in Afghanistan. Haven't investigated it enough but the Afghan farmers grow poppies now because much of their land that used to grow pomegranites and other delicate fruits hase been trashed by bombing so rather than wait years for apple or pear saplings to mature into trees they just gow poppies.

careca11

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You know that big corporations have to do book-keeping and stuff, and show where their income is coming from? And even if you ignore this, can you imagine how many people you'd have to swear to secrecy in this big corporation? And ignoring those two huge problems, exactly where would their end come from? The farmers do the growing, the smugglers do the smuggling, and the dealers do the dealing.

Added to which, the rich guys at the top of the corporation would be looking at serious jail time if the truth ever got out. Would you rather be rich and free, or very rich and looking over your shoulder the whole time?

Some body is backing the dealers ................................its huge amounts of money ,
the cocaine use in American itself is worth $40bn a year ,
so Heroin is probably even more ....................................so somebody somewhere is backing this and creaming it

jackiebaron

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You know that big corporations have to do book-keeping and stuff, and show where their income is coming from? And even if you ignore this, can you imagine how many people you'd have to swear to secrecy in this big corporation? And ignoring those two huge problems, exactly where would their end come from? The farmers do the growing, the smugglers do the smuggling, and the dealers do the dealing.

Added to which, the rich guys at the top of the corporation would be looking at serious jail time if the truth ever got out. Would you rather be rich and free, or very rich and looking over your shoulder the whole time?

You can't seriously be THAT naive Monty, can you? The top brass at large corporations commit acts of felony criminality on an almost hourly basis and get away with it. You think the government is going to launch proceedings against a corporation that funds its re-election campaign? Nearly all large corporations make massive campaign contributions (that's shorthand for bribes) to BOTH parties and as a result are given favours in return in the form of no bid government contracts, the green light to operate outside the law, have legislation passed that maximises their profit such as removing regulation on safety standards, pollution, fair competition, etc. Think, Halliburton, GE, Exxon, BP, Monsanto. Only once in a while do they make an example out of one of these scumbags like Bernie Madoff or Kennth Lay (Enron) but it's all for show just to give the impression to the public that they have the public's interest at heart.

Loada bollocks.


And as for swearing people to secrecy.....you don't have to swear people to secrecy if the public just can't bring themselves to believe the uncomfortable truth. If an employee of the company walked into a bar and announced the XYZ corporation was a drug smuggling front they'd all call him a........you guessed it.........a CONSPIIIIIIRACY THEEEEEORIST.

The CIA has a long history of drug smuggling. Afghan opium is no different:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13035

Monty Burnz

careca11 wrote: »

Some body is backing the dealers ................................its huge amounts of money ,
the cocaine use in American itself is worth $40bn a year ,
so Heroin is probably even more ....................................so somebody somewhere is backing this and creaming it

But don't you realise that if it's so profitable, you don't need anybody 'backing' it? A scumbag in the US buys 10k worth of heroin with money he robbed, and sells it for say 50k. Then he can buy another 20k and sell it for a hundred. Don't you see that with this kind of cashflow, you don't need a backer? And the guys are buying it from smugglers who are paying 1k for each 10k that they sell. The farmer is at the bottom of the pyramid, making the least money. The drug trade is so cash rich, the smugglers' amd dealers' biggest problem is probably fighting each other over the easy spoils.

And you are right - somebody is creaming it alright. But not the big corporations - the drug barons. They may try to 'legitimise' their wealth by buying property, companies or shares in large corporations, but that's about it. Of course, there will always be an exception. I'm sure there are examples of ordinary companies being fronts for cartel smuggling operations, or the transport network of a corp. being used to smuggle drugs by employees, but this is not the same as Dell or Bank of America or someone being behind the whole industry.