Why Drug Cartels aren't qualified as Terrorist Organisations?
21 replies, posted
Recent watch of a movie Sicario 2 brought up a point about a thin line that is separating criminal cartels from terrorists working against underming society.
I took a dive into web and discovered that same discussion was going on for years and was wondering about facepunch's opinion on issue.
There's actually a really good book on the topic that I never got to read because of my life suddenly becoming incredibly busy called "Historical Perspectives on Organized Crime and Terror" by James Windle, John F. Morrison, Aaron Winter, Andrew Silke. It explores how historically organized crime and what would now be termed as terrorist acts often coincided with one another and were both used by their respective organizations for their purposes.
I think they're more like mafia and gangs than actual terrorists. Terrorists commit violence to push an ideology. Mafia, gangs, and drug cartels tend to commit violence for personal profit. (With some leeway regarding gangs but they still wouldn't fall under terrorists because that tends to be focused on another gang in particular or people the gang member personally knows.)
Buth both cartel and religios zealots bear marks of affinity toward certain mindset and gang mentality with constant infighting. Also you get rituals, bloodsheed based on cycle of revenge, aura of fear that is pressed onto locals they exploit. Soo no matter if their deity's name they do it for power and methods alighn. Heck, in a way spreading drugs is akin to spreading of extreme radical views, cause it entangles person in a tightly controlled hostile enviroment that bends his will.
The actions of cartels aren't done expressly for ideological or political aims. Thus, they're not terrorism. Classifying things as terrorism has more to do with the intent of the perpetrator, not the affects or nature of their actions.
Unlike the 'average' terrorist organisations that you'd expect, cartels, mafias and gangs also tend to corrupt and subvert governments or other systems, rather than out-right aiming for their destruction.
Which in my opinion makes them even more dangerous.
Aren't al queda also not constantly busy with bombing runs but also has a big territory of drug fields in Afganistan? Seems to do a bit less with political aims.
The problem is mostly that cartels are a fucking nightmare to unravel. We should be treating them as standing paramilitary forces[non-state actors], and putting them on trial at the Hague for war crimes. These fuckers make anything ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others do look like the work of the tooth fairy. I have seen plenty of videos while browing /k/, as well as stuff shared around by militia groups, and none of it is pretty.
Just to give an idea: It's very common for these groups to physically skin people alive, and pour citric acid into the exposed muscle. All the while taking wine corkers and pulling out bones with them.
if there is soo much evidence, what is keeping goverment from inclusion of affiliated into list of organisations related to terrorism? do we really need such a narrow definition soo that soo many escape proper aplication of force just because misery they have inflicted on others is not strictly motivated by a fucking religion or political agenda?
but the taliban operates more like a cartel and we consider them a terrorist group.
From what I understand their trafficking and black market activity is used to fund their terrorist activity, not the other way around.
This is specifically one of the primary differences though. Drugs aren't a view. And in addition to this terrorists commit violence as the main method of spreading their ideology. Drug cartels commit violence but it's in the name of profit. They're protecting their enterprise. In a way a cartel is like a corporation, just operating entirely outside the law.
I couldn't weigh in on that since I don't know the details of how the Taliban operate.
Not to push this view, but this is why a wall will not fucking work. As long as shit like this goes on down there, they will risk everything but family to come up here, because as bad as it gets up here, it will never get as bad as it is down there.
I'd argue though that this is a result of American intervention into communist regimes, but either way it began we need to find a way to end it. Legalization can only go so far, since these guys are basically mini-governments.
Taliban are more of a rebel faction than anything, I'd say. They have actual goals of territorial control, and fulfilled those goals from 1996 to 2001 with pretty much complete control of the country. They fit the terrorist definition very poorly for sure.
Aren't some central american cartels quite similar to it the the point of affiliation wiht local militia groups?
I would say the difference is simply that terror is the terrorist's goal, whereas terror is just a tool to the cartels, whose ultimate goal is money and power. Also, a subdefinition of terrorists adopted by people who don't care enough to think is any Muslim organization that opposes 'Murica.
In general, I feel like the word "terrorist" is thrown around too freely when a more general classification as a criminal of a specific type would be more appropriate. But nothing keeps your population in line like threats of the dirty terrorists coming to get them. Y'know, there's probably not a lot distinguishing a lot of other organizations in action besides terrorists and cartels, things like governments, religions, corporations...
i'd liek to clarify that by thread's title i meant that right now, amout of complex measures and spending that is dedicated by USA and other goverements to track and defuse terrorist at home and abroad is pale in comparrision to what little resistance is there to armed cartel menace.
A group can be a guerrilla army and rebel faction as well as terrorists. Terrorism isn't so much a state of being as it is a tactic. Take, for example, the FLN in Algeria. They were guerrilla fighters, yes, but terrorism was also used as a political and military tactic. As an example, indiscriminate bombings of French citizens and the murdering (often torture and mutilation, too) of those deemed to be against Islamic values (drinkers, prostitutes and their clients, etc) were some forms of terrorism utilized by the group.
I think classifying things in terms of "terrorist" and "rebel group" without overlap is probably a bit too black and white for the topic, as in absence of the possibility to establish a stable government, the latter tends to resort to the former. Likewise, the act of terrorism and the formation of terror cells can (and often, historically, has been) be the prelude to guerrilla warfare, with the goal of weakening legitimate forces until a takeover is possible, so one can still be a terrorist with the goal of territorial control.
Well, that's not what you've been arguing pal, but fine, I can kick for those goalposts too. Because cartel's haven't blown up a building in NYC.
Do I get to call state and private militaries terrorist organizations too?
well what I meant was the taliban operate the regional economies exactly as a cartel would, including the cultivation of illegal drugs in large poppy fields. They strong arm the businesses and people they control, fleecing money from them much like a cartel and have supply networks to smuggle the drugs south and east to get them to potential buyers overseas and in asia. they have the goal of total control over the state I guess which sets them apart from the south american drug cartels in that sense but they meet like all but that one criteria.
well cartel did some other shit though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.