Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Secret ties between CIA, drugs revealed


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#16    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:08 PM

View Postpallidin, on 21 February 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:


That US blacks were specifically targeted with a CIA influx of drugs to "undermine" the black community?


I think there is a very good possibility that this was indeed the case.

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#17    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,970 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View PostOverSword, on 21 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:



Which some one else refuted so I told them they nee to learn about how the CIA put alot of drugs in the ghetto, and started this thread.  That's all.

just gettos????

pretty much anyone that is willing to pay, gets the drugs, you'll be surpriced how much demand for drugs is in rich white areas,  and wall street, lol, you have no idea how much they spend on coke, pbly more than all projects combined (since they get cheap crack, coke is not too popular in gettos,).

like i said usa gvmnt does not discriminate.

btw, actually it is mexicos cartels, that make coke, crack is coke +baking soda cooked on the spot by dealers,  while poppy that cia grows in afganistan used for opium and heroin,

none of it btw, is as bad in usa as meth, and you can't blame gvmnt for meth. can you?

Edited by aztek, 21 February 2013 - 10:10 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#18    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,970 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:14 PM

View Postjugoso, on 21 February 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I think there is a very good possibility that this was indeed the case.

if that is the case,  so is this. btw, there are planty of blacks in gvmnt, obama is the first one that comes to mind



Edited by aztek, 21 February 2013 - 10:15 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#19    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,460 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

View Postaztek, on 21 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

just gettos????

pretty much anyone that is willing to pay, gets the drugs, you'll be surpriced how much demand for drugs is in rich white areas,  and wall street, lol, you have no idea how much they spend on coke, pbly more than all projects combined (since they get cheap crack, coke is not too popular in gettos,).

like i said usa gvmnt does not discriminate.

btw, actually it is mexicos cartels, that make coke, crack is coke +baking soda cooked on the spot by dealers,  while poppy that cia grows in afganistan used for opium and heroin,

none of it btw, is as bad in usa as meth, and you can't blame gvmnt for meth. can you?
And I suppose that kids in the suberbs had crack way before black kids in the inner city right?


#20    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,970 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:47 PM

View PostOverSword, on 21 February 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

And I suppose that kids in the suberbs had crack way before black kids in the inner city right?
have no idea.

do you?

RESIDENT TROLL.

#21    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:21 PM

View Postaztek, on 21 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

just gettos????
No but that was where it all started and the people are most susceptible to addictions.


View Postaztek, on 21 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:



btw, actually it is mexicos cartels, that make coke, crack is coke +baking soda cooked on the spot by dealers,  


I think most of the coke is manufactured where the coca leavres are grown (South America) and not in Mexico. THey bring in the finished product not the raw product

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#22    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:24 PM

View Postaztek, on 21 February 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

have no idea.

do you?

I think it´s been fairly well-documented that crack was an inner-city problem before moving to the suburbs. Don´t have time to look for any links right now but that is my recollection.

I never said it was supposed to be exclusively for blacks..

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#23    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:24 AM

Even the author of the Mercury News piece claims that his allegations were blown out of context by certain folks with an agenda (black leaders looking to bolster their own coffers and power).  The piece received little attention from other media outlets when it was published and the US' 3 major newspapers reviewed the allegations and found the evidence lacking.

The Washington Post weighed in first on October 2, 1996, with a short analysis -- "Running with the CIA Story: Reporter Says Series Didn't Go as Far as Readers Took It" -- noting that the allegation of CIA involvement in drug trafficking in the United States had not actually been made in the article. The Washington Post followed-up two days later, on October 4, 1996, with a story entitled, "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is Lacking of Alleged Plot." The Washington Post piece concluded that "available information does not support the conclusion that the CIA-backed Contras -- or Nicaraguans in general -- played a major role in the emergence of crack as a narcotic in widespread use across the United States." The Washington Post article mainly addressed the Mercury News series' claims about Ross' and Blandon's roles in the growth of crack cocaine. It did not, for the most part, wrestle with the series' claims about drug dealing by the Contras. The Washington Post noted that the series had been selective in its use of Blandon's testimony to support its claims:


The Mercury News uses testimony from Blandon in establishing that Nicaraguans selling drugs in California sent profits to the Contras. But if the whole of Blandon's testimony is to be believed, then the connection is not made between Contras and African American drug dealers because Blandon said he had stopped sending money to the contras by [the time he began selling to Ross].
And if Blandon is to be believed, there is no connection between Contras and the cause of the crack epidemic because Blandon said Ross was already a well-established dealer with several ready sources of supply by the time he started buying cocaine from Blandon.

The Washington Post piece also emphasized apparent contradictions between Ross' and Blandon's accounts. For example, while Blandon claimed to have been a used car salesman in 1982 who on the side sold two kilograms of cocaine for Meneses, Ross said Blandon was instead handling bulk sales of 100 kilograms of cocaine for Meneses at the time. The article did not seek to resolve these issues and merely noted the conflicts.
The Washington Post piece was followed on October 20 and 21, 1996, by two New York Times articles that also found fault with the Mercury News series. One article, "Though Evidence Thin, Tale of CIA and Drugs Has Life of Its Own," primarily reported on the reactions within the black community to the series. The other article, "Pivotal Figure of Newspaper Series May Be Only Bit Player," noted problems with the series' portrayal of Blandon and Meneses. It concluded, after conducting interviews of various unnamed sources:


[W]hile there are indications in American intelligence files and elsewhere that Mr. Meneses and Mr. Blandon may indeed have provided modest support for the rebels, including perhaps some weapons, there is no evidence that either man was a rebel official or had anything to do with the C.I.A. Nor is there proof that the relatively small amounts of cocaine they sometimes claimed to have brokered on behalf of the insurgents had a remotely significant role in the explosion of crack that began around the same time.

After reportedly assigning three editors and fourteen reporters to the story, the Los Angeles Times published its own three-part analysis of the Mercury News piece, which ran from October 20 to October 22, 1996. The Los Angeles Times concentrated on three claims raised by the Mercury News series: 1) that a drug ring related to the CIA had sent millions of dollars to the Contras; 2) that the same drug ring had created a cocaine epidemic in South Central Los Angeles and other United States cities, and 3) that the CIA had approved a plan for the ring to raise money for the Contras through drug trafficking or had deliberately turned a blind eye to the drug ring's activities. The Los Angeles Times found that "the available evidence, based on an extensive review of court documents and more than 100 interviews in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington and Managua, fails to support any of those allegations."

Read more here:  http://www.justice.g...9712/ch01p1.htm

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#24    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:00 PM

Holy Cow, Rafterman, I'm amazed to discover that the mainstream media would do the bidding of the CIA or any other government branch! :w00t:


#25    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,970 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

View Postjugoso, on 21 February 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

I think most of the coke is manufactured where the coca leavres are grown (South America) and not in Mexico. THey bring in the finished product not the raw product
lol, sure, and cartels in mexico make toys, and don't smuggle drugs, get real,
crack is made on the spot by dealers from coke. google it.

Edited by aztek, 22 February 2013 - 03:30 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#26    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostRafterman, on 22 February 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Even the author of the Mercury News piece claims that his allegations were blown out of context by certain folks with an agenda (black leaders looking to bolster their own coffers and power).  The piece received little attention from other media outlets when it was published and the US' 3 major newspapers reviewed the allegations and found the evidence lacking.

The Washington Post weighed in first on October 2, 1996, with a short analysis -- "Running with the CIA Story: Reporter Says Series Didn't Go as Far as Readers Took It" -- noting that the allegation of CIA involvement in drug trafficking in the United States had not actually been made in the article. The Washington Post followed-up two days later, on October 4, 1996, with a story entitled, "The CIA and Crack: Evidence Is Lacking of Alleged Plot." The Washington Post piece concluded that "available information does not support the conclusion that the CIA-backed Contras -- or Nicaraguans in general -- played a major role in the emergence of crack as a narcotic in widespread use across the United States." The Washington Post article mainly addressed the Mercury News series' claims about Ross' and Blandon's roles in the growth of crack cocaine. It did not, for the most part, wrestle with the series' claims about drug dealing by the Contras. The Washington Post noted that the series had been selective in its use of Blandon's testimony to support its claims:


The Mercury News uses testimony from Blandon in establishing that Nicaraguans selling drugs in California sent profits to the Contras. But if the whole of Blandon's testimony is to be believed, then the connection is not made between Contras and African American drug dealers because Blandon said he had stopped sending money to the contras by [the time he began selling to Ross].
And if Blandon is to be believed, there is no connection between Contras and the cause of the crack epidemic because Blandon said Ross was already a well-established dealer with several ready sources of supply by the time he started buying cocaine from Blandon.

The Washington Post piece also emphasized apparent contradictions between Ross' and Blandon's accounts. For example, while Blandon claimed to have been a used car salesman in 1982 who on the side sold two kilograms of cocaine for Meneses, Ross said Blandon was instead handling bulk sales of 100 kilograms of cocaine for Meneses at the time. The article did not seek to resolve these issues and merely noted the conflicts.
The Washington Post piece was followed on October 20 and 21, 1996, by two New York Times articles that also found fault with the Mercury News series. One article, "Though Evidence Thin, Tale of CIA and Drugs Has Life of Its Own," primarily reported on the reactions within the black community to the series. The other article, "Pivotal Figure of Newspaper Series May Be Only Bit Player," noted problems with the series' portrayal of Blandon and Meneses. It concluded, after conducting interviews of various unnamed sources:


[W]hile there are indications in American intelligence files and elsewhere that Mr. Meneses and Mr. Blandon may indeed have provided modest support for the rebels, including perhaps some weapons, there is no evidence that either man was a rebel official or had anything to do with the C.I.A. Nor is there proof that the relatively small amounts of cocaine they sometimes claimed to have brokered on behalf of the insurgents had a remotely significant role in the explosion of crack that began around the same time.

After reportedly assigning three editors and fourteen reporters to the story, the Los Angeles Times published its own three-part analysis of the Mercury News piece, which ran from October 20 to October 22, 1996. The Los Angeles Times concentrated on three claims raised by the Mercury News series: 1) that a drug ring related to the CIA had sent millions of dollars to the Contras; 2) that the same drug ring had created a cocaine epidemic in South Central Los Angeles and other United States cities, and 3) that the CIA had approved a plan for the ring to raise money for the Contras through drug trafficking or had deliberately turned a blind eye to the drug ring's activities. The Los Angeles Times found that "the available evidence, based on an extensive review of court documents and more than 100 interviews in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington and Managua, fails to support any of those allegations."

Read more here:  http://www.justice.g...9712/ch01p1.htm


Well that´s what the CIA does. They cover their tracks very well and avoid being able to be directly linked to crimes by using "contract" agents and intermediaries with shady backgrounds who are easy to discredit if/when TSHF. The fact that the L:A Times dedicated 17 reporters and 20,000 words to a three-day rebuttal to " sounds to me like they were trying pretty hard to discredit the story. They were also inconsistent in their reporting of the players involved.

From your link:

Quote

It is undisputed that individuals like Meneses and Blandon, who had ties to the Contras or were Contra sympathizers, were convicted of drug trafficking, either in the United States or Central America. There is also undeniable evidence that certain groups associated with the Contras engaged in drug trafficking. The pervasiveness of such activities within the Contra movement and the United States government's knowledge of those activities, however, are still the subject of debate, and it is beyond the scope of the OIG's investigation,


Quote

Meanwhile, spurred on by Webb's story, the CIA conducted an internal investigation that acknowledged in March 1998 that the agency had covered up Contra drug trafficking for more than a decade. Although the Washington Post and New York Times covered the report -- which confirmed key chunks of Webb's allegations -- the L.A. Times ignored it for four months, and largely portrayed it as disproving the "Dark Alliance" series. "We dropped the ball on that story," said Doyle McManus, the paper's Washington bureau chief, who helped supervise its response to "Dark Alliance."

The fact that the CIA covered up the Contra drug-trafficking for more than a decade and the fact that field officers and agents were instructed to turn a blind eye towards drug-trafficking whilst required to report many other crimes is also suspicious IMO. It is also documented that many of the field officers were operating with very little supervision of activities. There also seem to be some credible witnesses that offered first-hand testimony as to CIA operative involvement with bringing drugs into the country. How much money ended up supporting the Contras will forever remain unknown?

I´d just like to say that blaming the CIA for the crack epidemic is really a stretch. They certainly didn´t invent it and in no way held a monopoly on it. That being said, I don´t believe we will ever truly know how complicit they were in the bigger picture of bringing in big cocaine shipments and the amount of money funneled back to the contras.

Edited by jugoso, 22 February 2013 - 04:16 PM.

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#27    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:58 PM

View Postaztek, on 22 February 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

lol, sure, and cartels in mexico make toys, and don't smuggle drugs, get real,
crack is made on the spot by dealers from coke. google it.

View Postaztek, on 22 February 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

lol, sure, and cartels in mexico make toys, and don't smuggle drugs, get real,
crack is made on the spot by dealers from coke. google it.

Aztec, you claimed that Mexico cartels make (which means manufacture the cocaine). That to me seemed to imply that they import the raw product and manufacture it in Mexico. This is simply not tthe case. They move the finished product and distribute it. Mexico acts primarily as a transshipment and financial center rather than a huge manufacturer of coke. You google it.
Now Meth..... that is a completely different story

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#28    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:04 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Holy Cow, Rafterman, I'm amazed to discover that the mainstream media would do the bidding of the CIA or any other government branch! :w00t:

So when the media reports something you like, it's to be believed and worshiped.  But when the same media doesn't support your worldview then they are shills for Big Whatever.  Fairly typical for around here.

Find me one reporter at any of those agencies who wouldn't sell their first born for a chance to nail the Feds, especially the CIA (and REAGAN'S CIA at that), on anything and I'll eat your shoes.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#29    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:07 PM

View Postjugoso, on 22 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Well that´s what the CIA does. They cover their tracks very well and avoid being able to be directly linked to crimes by using "contract" agents and intermediaries with shady backgrounds who are easy to discredit if/when TSHF. The fact that the L:A Times dedicated 17 reporters and 20,000 words to a three-day rebuttal to " sounds to me like they were trying pretty hard to discredit the story. They were also inconsistent in their reporting of the players involved.

From your link:






The fact that the CIA covered up the Contra drug-trafficking for more than a decade and the fact that field officers and agents were instructed to turn a blind eye towards drug-trafficking whilst required to report many other crimes is also suspicious IMO. It is also documented that many of the field officers were operating with very little supervision of activities. There also seem to be some credible witnesses that offered first-hand testimony as to CIA operative involvement with bringing drugs into the country. How much money ended up supporting the Contras will forever remain unknown?

I´d just like to say that blaming the CIA for the crack epidemic is really a stretch. They certainly didn´t invent it and in no way held a monopoly on it. That being said, I don´t believe we will ever truly know how complicit they were in the bigger picture of bringing in big cocaine shipments and the amount of money funneled back to the contras.

Was there involvement?  It does seem likely, but certainly not to the extent that is being claimed by certain individuals - the Mercury News writer even says this.

A lot of this is simply black inner-city mythology and if we say it long enough and loud enough, it will become true.  Evidence be damned.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#30    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:22 PM

View PostRafterman, on 22 February 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

Was there involvement?  It does seem likely, but certainly not to the extent that is being claimed by certain individuals - the Mercury News writer even says this.

A lot of this is simply black inner-city mythology and if we say it long enough and loud enough, it will become true.  Evidence be damned.

It certainly does. To what extent......only the CIA operatives involved really know. Really not surprised that irrefutable evidence didn´t surface. As mentioned above, the CIA cover their tracks well.

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users