CIA and drugs

[LoneStranger]

Lol' date=' is that you Syntax?

 

Yes, if you're saying that there's no evidence of a government drug war conspiracy because you see no evidence that any bank has been convicted of laundering, that would be a straw man fallacy, because the bank conviction issue is peripheral to the main point. The polite thing to do would be to say something along the lines of "well I'd like to see evidence of those alleged banking convictions, but let me get back to your main point..." and proceed to refute him on substance from there.

 

Personally I would just call it "nit picking", but either way I'm left at a loss for what your (LongStranger's) point is at the moment. I don't happen to agree with Phi's conspriatorial leanings, but I don't see any eggregious wrongs in his statements that need addressing (much less sniping about). He's just expressing his opinion. (shrug)[/quote']

 

Perhaps a reading of the thread would be informative.

 

PFA said that "many us banks" had been caught laundering money for the drug trade. I asked for documentation of that and he posted an opinion article from a Communist publication.

 

I have not, as yet, made a statement about whether ot not I think the CIA is involved in drug trafficing.

[LoneStranger]

The war on drugs really doesn't exist. The 700 or so billion dollars of drug money that flows through our country is vital to our economy. Originally the CIA probably only had intentions of hurting the black communities back in the day' date='[/u'] but they created a monster and instead of slowly killing it they keep feeding it because it helps keep our economy strong. I mean who cares about kids ODing or so many addicted to drugs, I mean at least we still have the most important thing..... money. /Sarcasm off

 

Just another case and point on how the poor and middle class suffer to keep the upper class strong, with the coordination of the government of course.

 

/Ducks the flame fest that is incoming.

 

Can you back that up with documentation?

[LoneStranger]

I guess I missed the part where I said there was[/i'] a conviction in a US court. I said they were caught for laundering drug money, in this case by the Financial Services Agency. Several offices were shut down.

 

So, you agree that this "many US banks have been caught" stuff is a mere hyped up statement meant to impress the uninformed, and that what you should have said is that it is alleged that they were caught in improper banking practices--correct?

 

Now you're catching on. You're adding a misleading vividness to my argument and refuting that as opposed to refuting my original argument.

Why, does that make them liars? Does their state-control bias make what they print unworthy of reading?

 

Oh, no, not at all. I am challenging one element of your "argument." What I am challenging is whether ot not many US banks have been caught in laundering money for the drug trade. I have not, as yet, taken a stand on the CIA's involvement in the drug trade.

 

 

Careful now, this one comes from BlackElectorate.com, but I made sure it included a clip from a Reuters news story (you trust Reuters' integrity, don't you?) about the Senate Investigations subcommittee's year-long probe where they found that "U.S. banks' complacency and lax controls of so-called correspondent accounts provided a significant gateway for money launderers to move their ill-gotten gains into the U.S. financial system.

 

Now, which is it? is it the banks that are laundering money? Or is it that these banks loaned money to people who were involved in money laundering? If a bank loans money to someone who uses it for an illegal purpose, is the bank responsible for the crime?

 

Among those criticized were Citigroup, Bank of America, First Union, and Chase Manhattan.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=310

 

I'm somewhere between Pangloss and TimeTraveler on this issue. I'm not into the Illuminati conspiracies, nor do I beleive the government is coordinating efforts to oppress the middle class. But I definitely believe people who deal in billions of dollars annually will see very little as being beneath them when it comes to keeping the $ flowing.

 

The key word is "criticized." Were charges brought? Was there a conviction in an American court?

[Phi for All]

Now, which is it? is it the banks that are laundering money? Or is it that these banks loaned money to people who were involved in money laundering? If a bank loans money to someone who uses it for an illegal purpose, is the bank responsible for the crime?

Wow. I'm really glad you're not into banking. How do you think money is laundered in the first place? You open an account in a bank with dirty money, then take out a loan in clean money. Money laundered.

 

We have to say goodbye to LoneStranger now, aka syntax252 and Darth Tater. Not only does he not understand money laundering and strawmanning, he also doesn't understand that it's wrong to send foul, hate-filled, threatening emails to Moderators. I'd reprint the one he sent me this morning, but it wouldn't pass the censors. I'm glad my 6-year-old didn't see it.

 

You should really be ashamed, syntax252. Does your wife know how foul-mouthed and petty you have become? I hope I have more wisdom and class when I am your age.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps a reading of the thread would be informative.

 

PFA said that "many us banks" had been caught laundering money for the drug trade. I asked for documentation of that and he posted an opinion article from a Communist publication.

 

I have not' date=' as yet, made a statement about whether ot not I think the CIA is involved in drug trafficing.[/quote']

 

I am familiar with the entire thread. I used the word "if" for a reason.