• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does The Cia Run Drugs Today?

Sal The Butcher

Scholar
S
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
103
there are alot of reasons to believe they have been involved somehow in the drug trade in the past, do you guys believe the CIA is currentley involved in the drug trade?
 
What would be these reasons for being involved in the past?

And please define "involved somehow". That all seems a bit vague.

-Andrew
 
Sal, your thread topics seem to follow the same pattern: assumptions followed by a question, with no evidence provided or indication of what you find interesting about the topic. I believe I mentioned this before. Just thought I'd point it out again.
 
well im reffering to the whole barry seal thing, i would just like to know what self proclaimed skeptics believe when it comes to this topic
 
Sal The Butcher said:
well im reffering to the whole barry seal thing, i would just like to know what self proclaimed skeptics believe when it comes to this topic
Click to expand...


Sal I want to clue you in to some things about this forum you may not understand because you haven't been here long.

We get ALOT of people that join looking to prove something or looking to troll through here trying to achieve "pwnage" and there are distinct patterns. I am referring to someone that looks to "get" this forum for whatever reason. We see those patterns alot. One of the big red flags is terms like "self proclaimed skeptics." There are other things that indicate more often than not the discussion being attempted is less than intellectually honest.

Here's the thing. You've raised a few red flags. Now the discussions so far have been pretty good so far as answering questions you have, but I would suggest a couple of things to avoid finding yourself in a position of being covered in raw meat in a wolf den. Instead of simply making an assumption and asking questions in a very ambiguous way, I would suggest framing your threads or posts in a very precise way. For example choose what topic you want to talk about, put together the evidence you want to examine, and then clearly state your hypothesis on that subject based on the evidence gathered. At that point you'll find more people respond to your posts in a rational discourse.

The thread about the DOD document you wanted to examine is a good example of a thread that started with every earmark of what DJLegacy, or ChildlikeEmperess attempted to do here. What I mean is, their posting style was confrontational and not very intellectually honest. I wouldn't want your intentions to be mistaken for that if it is not the case.

I welcomed you here very sincerely. The threads so far are somewhat difficult to discuss with you because they are rather ambiguous. However once we nailed down what you wanted to discuss in the DOD document thread, I think it went well. Question, answer, discussion. The problem is clarity. If you start the thread very clearly with hypothesis, evidence, discussion and not with open ended questions and innuendo without support I think you'll find your stay here alot more constructive.

So, just some food for thought.
 
fowlsound said:
Sal I want to clue you in to some things about this forum you may not understand because you haven't been here long.

We get ALOT of people that join looking to prove something or looking to troll through here trying to achieve "pwnage" and there are distinct patterns. I am referring to someone that looks to "get" this forum for whatever reason. We see those patterns alot. One of the big red flags is terms like "self proclaimed skeptics." There are other things that indicate more often than not the discussion being attempted is less than intellectually honest.

Here's the thing. You've raised a few red flags. Now the discussions so far have been pretty good so far as answering questions you have, but I would suggest a couple of things to avoid finding yourself in a position of being covered in raw meat in a wolf den. Instead of simply making an assumption and asking questions in a very ambiguous way, I would suggest framing your threads or posts in a very precise way. For example choose what topic you want to talk about, put together the evidence you want to examine, and then clearly state your hypothesis on that subject based on the evidence gathered. At that point you'll find more people respond to your posts in a rational discourse.

The thread about the DOD document you wanted to examine is a good example of a thread that started with every earmark of what DJLegacy, or ChildlikeEmperess attempted to do here. What I mean is, their posting style was confrontational and not very intellectually honest. I wouldn't want your intentions to be mistaken for that if it is not the case.

I welcomed you here very sincerely. The threads so far are somewhat difficult to discuss with you because they are rather ambiguous. However once we nailed down what you wanted to discuss in the DOD document thread, I think it went well. Question, answer, discussion. The problem is clarity. If you start the thread very clearly with hypothesis, evidence, discussion and not with open ended questions and innuendo without support I think you'll find your stay here alot more constructive.

So, just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

i see, i really wasnt even trying to start a dispute on this topic, i was just wondering what you guys feel about this, it seems that you all know wtf your talking about, i sort of believe that seal probably was involved with the CIA, but i have no reason to believe they are still involved with the drig trade, i was sort of wondering of anyone had any evidence to support the idea that they are
 
I haven't seen any. But I don't discount it. However I won't believe it either till I see evidence ;)
 
Sal The Butcher said:
i see, i really wasnt even trying to start a dispute on this topic, i was just wondering what you guys feel about this, it seems that you all know wtf your talking about, i sort of believe that seal probably was involved with the CIA, but i have no reason to believe they are still involved with the drig trade, i was sort of wondering of anyone had any evidence to support the idea that they are
Click to expand...

It helps those of us not US resident, and not completely clued up on every piece of information about everything, if you can post a few links, or some background information, rather than a vague title, and a name or two thrown in.
 
I would be shocked if the CIA was NOT involved Some how with drug smuggling.

The CIA has to deal with a lot of shady people in the course of their work. From the exposes of the CIA and smuggling it seems if any agent has any contact with someone involved in any way in the drug trade then that gets counted as "CIA involvement in the drug trade".

Let's say that a CIA agent in South or Central America is dealing with an informant or hiring someone to perform some needed task and that person is less than reputable. I am assuming that in the course of their work this sort of scenario occurs. What are the odd this un-named person would NOT somehow be involved in some aspect of the drug trade, at least in some tangental way?

When a relationship like this can be documented it is used as 'proof' os CIA involvement in the drug trade. By that token most police departments are also involved in drug trafficking since they must deal with informants and cut deals with convicted felons.

As for Barry Seal; how much are we supposed to believe? Here is the number one result when I Googled Barry Seal:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/W_plane.html

I would sure love to see that video!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom