Changing rhetoric into vocabulary

Time Magazine has an article titled The New Druglords, about the Colombian cocaine trade, which leads with

The war on narcoterrorism faces a new evil as Colombia's paramilitaries turn into a cocaine cartel

"The war on narcoterrorism"?

We're merging the "war on drugs" with the equally successful "war on terror"?

Posted by Prometheus 6 on June 18, 2004 - 10:48am :: Random rant
 
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Get Your War On said it best...

"Remeber when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Posted by  Pat (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 1:43pm.

No, just simply without the Cold War, insurgencies need an independent source of cash because genereous superpower and rogue state patrons ain't what they used to be. They give out money here and there but not like when the US and the USSR were squaring off in CA, Namibia, Afghanistan and Cambodia in the 1980's.

Where the FMLN once relied upon Cuba,, FARC and it's far right paramilitary rivals have siezed the drug trade instead of just levying " war taxes " on smugglers. Weapons, supplies, electronic equipment, safe houses, medicine, false documents all cost money.

In Africa it's usually diamond smuggling and in Central and SE Asia it's heroin. Kidnapping, extortion, sex trade slavery and old fashioned slavery are also money-raisers for Marxist guerilla groups, Islamist terrorists and fascist death squads.

Posted by  mark safranski (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 1:55pm.

I can't wait till Afghanistan is a major player in this new, fun, infinite wargame. Wait, they already are.

Posted by  norbizness (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 2:27pm.

The term "narcoterrorist" was first (and only) used by Ashcroft, and it's an attempt to tie drug trafficking to terrorism in the same way that Iraq was "tied" to Al Qaeda (which I will one day learn to spell)…a back-door justification of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 5:52pm.

Does this mean we are bringing the same brilliant techniques used in the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Terror" namely, instead of addressing the conditions that cause the problem and working to address the concerns of any anti-American groups, we will make an example out of any large enough anti-American group that takes on a political bent by locking up or killing all their senior leadership, to ensure that the youngest, craziest, ruthless ones are the ones who call the shots? Great plan!

Posted by  Mike (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 11:36pm.

I should have been clearer I was talking more about street gangs than drug cartels. I pry should have typed the "War on Gangs". (Haven't they declared one of those yet?)

Posted by  Mike (not verified) on June 18, 2004 - 11:41pm.

The second problem is they define the enemy too broadly. I know I saw somewhere this week that Al Qaeda only has 190 members. How about we get them, instead of declaring war against the rest of the Muslim world?

Posted by  Mike (not verified) on June 19, 2004 - 12:04am.