Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Takes On a Mexican Drug Cartel

New submitter NarcoTraficante writes "After one of their members was kidnapped in Veracruz, Mexico by the Zetas drug cartel, Mexican Anonymous members have issued an ultimatum to the Zetas in a recently posted YouTube video. The video demands the release of the kidnapped member and threatens to publish information of cartel members and affiliates in Veracruz if the victim is not released by November 5. The Houston Chronicle article warns that there will be bloodshed if Anonymous publishes information on the Zeta's operations, either perpetrated by rival cartels or reprisal attacks by the Zetas themselves."

548 comments

  1. already attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's already been one politician web page defaced denouncing him as a Zeta.
    http://sdpnoticias.com/nota/216899/Anonymous_hackea_sitio_de_presunto_funcionario_involucrado_con_el_narco

    1. Re:already attacked by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      borderlandbeat.com

      I hope that Anonymous has read up on the cartels. They don't play minor league down there. Those sumbitches just cut you up into tiny pieces, and scatter those pieces around the countryside. The average ggek or nerd looking to "do good" in the world would do well to steer clear of this mess. Zeta, like all the other cartels, own police chiefs, mayors, and governors, on both sides of the US/Mexican border. They own representatives in both Mexico City and Washington. And, by "own", I mean, they OWN them. Step out of line, and you die. Really piss off the cartels, and your entire family dies.

      To date, all of Anonymous' activities have been "safe", in that all the parties to their little spats have been civilized. There is nothing civilized about those Azteca swine. The casualties in the cartel wars have long ago exceeded 40,000. That is only the "official" number that the Mexican government admits to. I suspect that the real numbers exceed that by 50% or more.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:already attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they're about to "walk the walk"

    3. Re:already attacked by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really think you don't understand 'Anonymous' at all. There is no 'Anonymous', 'Anonymous' is anonymous to itself. You do not join 'Anonymous', you either carry out activities in the name of 'Anonymous' anonymously or you do not.

      In any case, when you comes to oppression, you either resist and work to end it or you live in fear and die when others choose to make you a random example anyhow.

      The drug war is an insane activity of a corrupted organisation, the US government, designed it seems to promote pharmaceutical profits, allow the CIA a ready source of income, a means by which to destabilise other countries by forcing them to participate in drug war (whilst surreptitiously supporting the drug dealers ie money laundering and of course keeping the drugs illegal), ensure inflated profits for privatised prisons, maintain a massive anti-drug operation to suppress challenges to the status quo, allow intelligence operations to enter foreign countries masquerading as drug enforcement agents or paradoxically as drug dealers and of course the number one to win votes with the 'we're tough on crime' bullshit (of course excluding muggings, house break ins, car thefts, purse snatching, home invasions, crimes that affect the majority because, they are to busy chasing and convicting drug users).

      The best war to declare war on violent criminals involved in the drug trade is to legalise drugs, quite simply bankrupt them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:already attacked by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes - I understand who and what Anonymous is. You seem to miss an important point about Anonymous. While the rank and file of Anonymous is indeed very much anonymous, there are some core leaders who are very much less anonymous than the hangers on. The script kiddie who checks the forums now and then, and occasionally participates in an attack, is indeed quite anonymous. Not so with some of the higher profile people. While HBGary made complete asses of themselves, it is NOT an insurmountable task for a dedicated group of IT professionals to identify and locate some of the most active members of Anonymous. In fact, I'd be very surprised if the CIA and/or FBI haven't already done so.

      Now, back to my point. To date, Anonymous has mostly gone after corporations, governments, and individuals who are civilized. To attack any criminal organization with no government, church, or social oversight is dangerous. Take a look at what is happening in Mexico today. People are butchered. In fact, truckloads and busloads of people are butchered. Many mass graves have been discovered in Mexico, some holding hundreds of bodies, others only dozens. In other cases, pickup trucks loaded with bodies have been dumped on major thoroughfares. The cartels are as lawless, and as savage as any organization in the world.

      The most insane Muslim radicals have nothing on the cartels.

      If and when the cartels identify anyone who they think belongs to Anonymous, we will be reading about yet another dismembered body, whether that body be in Mexico or the United States.

      Oh yeah - Zeta doesn't have any special burden of proof to meet. If some foot soldier is only partly sure that he has identified an Anonymous member, that's good enough. No burden of proof, at all. In fact, if they are half sure that Anonymous has a member who lives in a subdivision, but can't determine who it is, they may well round up every living soul in that subdivision, slaughter them all, and leave one of their famous messages. Written in the victim's blood, of course.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:already attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tal como lo advirtieran el día de ayer la agencia estadounidense Stratfor y El Universal, el grupo de hackers activistas Anonymous, luego de que lanzó una segunda advertencia contra los cárteles de la droga que coartan la libertad de expresión, en esta ocasión específicamente contra “Los Zetas”, este día fue hackeado el presunto sitio del ex procurador de Tabasco, Gustavo Rosario Torres: www.gustavorosario.com del cual se dio a conocer la “Columna Incómoda” de Alexia Barrios en SNPNoticias.com, de que dicho sitio sería para limpiar su imagen pública.

    6. Re:already attacked by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      I hope that Anonymous has read up on the cartels. They don't play minor league down there.

      Fortunately anon has you to warn them, saving them the horror of a 30 second Google search. Now that they're armed with the enlightenment you've provided I'm sure they'll desist from their foolish and ill-conceived plan.

      You've almost certainly saved lives today, sir. Kudos.

    7. Re:already attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I happen to agree with your post. If I was a member of this gang, first thing I would go after is the web host, or the domain owners of all the hangout's... Anonymous has not thought this one out. I would not be surprised of we find the founder of 4chan dead in the next 3 months as a point to Anonymous.

    8. Re:already attacked by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      The cartels are as lawless, and as savage as any organization in the world.

      The question is what happens when they have to leave their neighborhoods. Members of Anonymous don't all live in San Diego and El Paso. Mexican cartels don't exactly have a full-strength crew in Finland or the Ukraine.

      Plus, "middle class kids in suburbia" are not exactly their usual targets even in the US. If they send a death squad to murder a whole family of yuppies on Long Island, they have to expect there to be more severe political consequences than when they burn down a couple of crack houses. They might be violent but they're not stupid.

      That isn't to say that anyone who goes after a cartel under the flag of Anonymous is going to be "safe", but predictions of their collective demise seem a bit premature.

    9. Re:already attacked by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      So what, they should just bend over and take it?
      All of us should then for ever? Accept as fact that the cartels will be our overloards? Shall I just start forwarding my paycheck to them now?

      You are right about what the cartels are, but your could not be more wrong about how to deal with them or what should be done in this situation. It's about time someone with some balls stood up and said Fuck You. We ALL should be doing this. Fuck, the US should have been fighting a war on the cartels the past 20 years instead of dicking around in the mid-east. THAT would have been worthwhile.

      But sorry, you're right, wouldn't want to reach a hand out for someone else when there is a one in millions chance that collateral damage might somehow affect YOU.

      Let me guess, you also wouldn't stop and help out at the scene of an accident either just in case the person bleeding out might have some blood born disease?

      Fuck.

      --
      No Comment.
    10. Re:already attacked by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to read about what the cartels are doing, and another thing altogether to see it. Prohibition must end, if for no other reason than to end this.

    11. Re:already attacked by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Whoa, now. You've obviously read something into my posts which isn't there. Did I actually say that Anonymous should abandon their efforts? Did I say that they should just write off their former member? I don't recall saying that.

      What I HAVE said is, if Anonymous takes on any of the drug cartels, they are entering an entirely new and different world than they have operated in, in the past. And, there will almost certainly be some bodies left lying about. I most certainly DID say that the average naive script kiddie should steer clear of the situation. Some twelve year old moron who thinks he's real bad, because he can hack his mother's computer, and he can beat up his little sister is in for a rude awakening if he's within reach of Zeta. Zeta's victims don't die easily.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:already attacked by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      They are the sort of people who will slaughter a village of farmers and then tell anonymous that if they dont stop they will do it again. Thay are insanely violent evil people and life means less than nothing to them. Anonymous are going to get innocents killed if they keep this up.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    13. Re:already attacked by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      You can't really put that on anonymous. If you are the type to believe that it really would be the fault of anonymous if innocent/unrelated parties are harmed - and not the Zetas themselves - then that is a level of ignorance I really can't understand.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    14. Re:already attacked by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      After a dozen ignored warnings to desist and after yet another youtube beheading of an uninvolved blogger shouldn't they share even just a little tiny bit of responsibility.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  2. Identifying what exactly? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

    Somehow I don't think the Mexican Cartels are too worried about people finding out their names.

    1. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Daniel_is_Legnd · · Score: 5, Informative

      They claim to have the identities of corrupt police officers and journalists. That could prove more useful.

    2. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the fund any (US) politicians, they might be worried. Who benefits the most from prohibition, and who keeps prohibition going? Yeah, a bit tinfoily, but I've always wondered if there is a connection...

    3. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Xugumad · · Score: 2

      Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

      This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

    4. Re:Identifying what exactly? by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So why are they getting their panties in a bunch over what a bunch of nerds publish about them? And kidnapping people that they believe to be part of Anon?

      Given the PR that they like to generate about themselves, I'd say they are very sensitive about both details concerning their operations and their public image. Perhaps Anon can hurt them in ways that the Mexican authorities cannot. Anon doesn't give a sh*t about which politicians get taken down with the cartels, so that's one factor in their favor. Anon isn't constrained by laws the same way the police are. There are no rules of evidence, court issued warrants, civil rights, etc. that they have to concern themselves about. As long as they can keep themselves physically secure, its game on for the cyber war. Keep in mind that Mexican Anon doesn't necessarily have to be located in Mexico. Its going to be tough for the Zetas to reach out and touch someone posting from Boise, Idaho. Unfortunately, the person they have kidnapped will probably have to be written off as dead.

      The other advantage that Anon has is that they can tailor their releases of info to instigate inter-cartel warfare. The Mexican police may be unwilling or unable to act. But the competition next door will be more than happy to take their enemies out.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Identifying what exactly? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      The list would be so much shorter if they listed the honest ones.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    6. Re:Identifying what exactly? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

      This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

      This one looks pretty accurate.

    7. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous?

      Well, yeah. That's similar to what we've been doing so far with WikiLeaks, right?

    8. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Calibax · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has nothing to do with the USA (assuming that's what you meant by "we"). The threat is that they will publish a list of police officers, politicians journalists, etc. aligned with the Zetas. The competing cartels then kill them in the hope of weakening the Zetas - I don't think they are strong on needing proof.

      Anonymous is threatening the Zetas with exposure to get their member released, they aren't threatening all the cartels.

    9. Re:Identifying what exactly? by znerk · · Score: 2

      Has anyone else noticed how CyberPunk the world has gotten in the past couple years?

      ... just checking, chummer.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    10. Re:Identifying what exactly? by ThePangolino · · Score: 1

      Last time I heard someone threaten a bunch of people with having a list, a dude named Robespierre I think, ended up dead quite fast.

      --
      My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
    11. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can pic any issue of Proceso magazine to read about corruption in Mexico, the Anonymous list will be used or can be used to falsely flag people in the payroll of cartels. We have already big troubles with the anonymous report of innocent people as members of cartels or kidnappers, we don't need a list made by script kiddies. My grandmother was falsely accused of being a kidnapper and had her house stormed by the army, my uncle beaten and my cousin sent to the hospital. In the end, it appeared that the ones doing the tip were the actual kidnappers to make a big fuss in my grandmother's small town were she is a loved and respected citizen, the kidnappers got away. Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    12. Re:Identifying what exactly? by todrules · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course there is. The anti-drug establishment is huge. Not only does it employ tons of people in law enforcement, but it allows a lot of otherwise law-abiding people to be incarcerated, which supports the penal system, which is a huge industry and has a lot of influence on our legislature.

    13. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cartels don't have a twitter and a facebook, don't be and idiot. Anonymous can't just assume somebody is in a cartel, and the cartels don't have a server farm or a fucking corporate building they can just break into. What a bunch of fucking idiots.
      They operate very secretly and you have to be a cartel foot soldier to even know who is in your team.
      Many innocent people are gonna die because of this "list".

    14. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should be!
      Anon is just releasing names related to one of the cartels!
      So I'm sure the others will be interested to find out who else their people are working for!

      I expect a national shortage of C4 and Ammo on Nov 6th...

    15. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Caraig · · Score: 1

      I dunno, McCarthy managed to keep from being killed, and he had a list, or said he did, anyway. His death at age 48 may or may not have been natural causes, depending on if you believe hepatitis, or liver failure from alcoholism, counts as 'natural causes.'

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    16. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to sound like I'm taking your very real problems lightly - I'm not - I do feel your pain, but have you considered just joining America as the next state? Then Federal forces and being part of a strong government would make these issues much less prominent. America hasn't had a new state since Hawaii joined in 1959 (52 years ago), so we can also use some fresh meat. Why don't you just give it a think over the long weekend.

    17. Re:Identifying what exactly? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      What you need is a revolution to impose order and kill all the criminals.

      Due process has failed and so has Mexico. Democracy isn't any good for imposing order when a large portion of the population are members of the "opposing force".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Identifying what exactly? by JohnSearle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A slashdotter with a japanese name, quoting aspects of american law, and stating that his family is mexican? Let's face it, you're 16, white, and from toledo...

      He has a ID of 1098, so he was around since the founding of Slashdot.

      Considering Slashdot was founded in 1997, which is 14 years ago, for him to be 16 now, he would've joined the site when he was 2 years old.

      He may be white and from Toledo, but I'm guessing he's at least 30+ in age.

    19. Re:Identifying what exactly? by madprof · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're allowed to choose any username you like on here. It doesn't even have to be your real name.

      Due process is a term used in more countries than just the US.

    20. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's bound to become more so in the next coming decades.

    21. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico recruits Asians heavily, especially US-educated ones. Depending on where exactly they came from, Asians find the climate in Mexico to be more-or-less close to their home country.

      Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

    22. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Maestro4k · · Score: 2

      And the disadvantage is that if Anonymous gets names of innocent people on the list by accident, they've given them a death sentence (also all the non-innocents as well). The Zetas' rival gangs will probably kill (or at least try to) everyone on the list. Anon better be damned certain about those names they release, or they're no better than the drug gangs themselves, and will have bloodshed of innocents directly attributable to their actions. (Which will make it easy for the US government, among others, to declare Anonymous a terrorist group and start a serious crackdown.)

    23. Re:Identifying what exactly? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Are we going to just accept a list posted on the Internet that someone claims is from Anonymous? Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

      This doesn't seem entirely flawless...

      Are you suggesting the ones that are in opposition to them care?

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    24. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries ..."

      Exactly. Hippies know their Grammar.

    25. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently you're allowed to choose any username you like on here. It doesn't even have to be your real name.

      It doesn't? Aw, damn-- *now* they tell me...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:Identifying what exactly? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society."

      That didn't happen in Mexico, which needs another revolution to liquidate organized crime.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:Identifying what exactly? by PPH · · Score: 1

      They operate very secretly and you have to be a cartel foot soldier to even know who is in your team.

      Not everyone who is a cartel foot soldier is so willingly. In many cases, its 'join or die'. But those that have been drafted into the organizations might be willing to trade their position on Anon's list for the names of a few others. In hope that when everything is distilled down to the hard core membership and that is taken out, everyone else can just go home.

      Darknets have some impressive processes for vetting true participants, posers and planted agents. It wouldn't be too much trouble for Anon to adopt these techniques in order to divide their list into the guilty, the unwilling and the falsely accused.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    28. Re:Identifying what exactly? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      The US could have annexed all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war, but decided to take only northern Mexico (land that became the following states: all of California, Nevada and Utah, most of New Mexico and Arizona, some of Colorado and Wyoming)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    29. Re:Identifying what exactly? by westlake · · Score: 1

      As long as they can keep themselves physically secure, its game on for the cyber war. Keep in mind that Mexican Anon doesn't necessarily have to be located in Mexico. Its going to be tough for the Zetas to reach out and touch someone posting from Boise, Idaho.

      Do you really believe that the Zeta Cartel doesn't have contacts in the states?

      That the kid in Boise is safe from the hired killer?

    30. Re:Identifying what exactly? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Cartels have pretty impressive hardware at the top. It's often enterprise level stuff, hidden in semi-legit business govt can't touch. You can't manage Swiss bank accounts without that stuff now. Remember the cartels have been branching into cyber-crime for the last decade... They are already hiring a lot of people associated with groups like Anonomous already.

    31. Re:Identifying what exactly? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      yeah. That's similar to what we've been doing so far with WikiLeaks, right?

      Not exactly. Lying consistently is coNP-hard. We should be dubious of a flat list of names dumped onto the net. But if someone dumps a huge trove of correlated information like those diplomatic cables, having the trove be both a convincing and a false narrative is exponentially more difficult for them to execute... assuming P != NP :-).

    32. Re:Identifying what exactly? by FritzTheCat1030 · · Score: 2

      The threat is that they will publish a list of police officers, politicians journalists, etc. aligned with the Zetas. The competing cartels then kill them.

      And nothing of value was lost.

    33. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhh, actually, this has a LOT to do with the USA.

      The United States' "War on Drugs" is the root cause of all that violence in Mexico. And, NAFTA helped to deprive the common man in Mexico of his livelihood, mostly small farmers, thereby driving more recruits into the cartels. Add to that, the fact that there are now about 20 million lawbreaking illegal aliens in the United States. Some indeterminate number of those illegals are also members of Zeta and other cartels.

      Everything drug related has to do with the United States. Everything.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    34. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Just so you know - Mexico is pretty big. I think they have 30 states. If each of those states were to apply for, and be accepted, as member states in the United States of America, there would then be about 80 states. So, let's just shitcan that 51 states nonsense, alright?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    35. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But Wikileaks has credibility. Anonymous doesn't.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    36. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Given that Anonymous are going to release the list anyway I'd say the kidnap victim is as good as dead.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    37. Re:Identifying what exactly? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that the Zeta Cartel doesn't have contacts in the states?

      They'd be operating in an environment where they can't pay off enough politicians and LE officials to protect themselves.

      That the kid in Boise is safe from the hired killer?

      Or is Boise just the location of the proxy relay? You think a US ISP is going to help track down Anon's customer info. for the Zetas?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    38. Re:Identifying what exactly? by zachie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, because no innocents will wrongfully enter the list, ever. No need for fair trials.

    39. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      Nothing like a martyr for the cause.

      His name was Robert Paulson.

    40. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How well do you know Spanish? Clearly he is not a native speaker.

    41. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They usually dump raw data that is incredibly hard to fabricate. Whether there are subtle changes within that data is another matter entirely.

    42. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that someone claims is from Anonymous

      Wait a second...

    43. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

      First time I've heard the Barons of the early 14th century called victorious revolutionaries who put their life on the line (King John was pretty unpopular and didn't have much power at the time) as that is when due process was first put down on a piece of paper called the Magna Carta and stating that all free men have the right to not be punished except through the law of the land.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    44. Re:Identifying what exactly? by murdocj · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course, the USA is the source of all the problems in the world, I understand it now. Everything is the fault of the USA, everything.

    45. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Be as facetious as you care to be. No other nation on earth declared a "War on Drugs", then spent untold billions persuading other nations to join that war. No other nation imports as many drugs as we do, while at the same time incarcerating everyone caught doing so. We have indeed created the situation in Mexico. The fact that so many Mexican officials are corrupt only makes the problem worse. The situation is our creation.

      Got anything constructive to say? Would you like to refute any of my points? Or, would you prefer to make more pointless, inane comments?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    46. Re:Identifying what exactly? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't 'chummer' be Shadowrun slang, not 2020?

      Both great games, but they make for a shitty reality.

    47. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is that we are mis-educated. If people were more aware of how poorly the producers/transporters/suppliers of drugs are treated they would feel compelled to stop using. The market would dry up and the cartels would go away. Or not.

      Oh wait, do I have to give up my iPad too?

      Of course the "war on drugs" is wrong-headed. A legal supply + opportunity for addiction treatment would work much better. But the cartels are entities that won't simply go away. They will find a new line of work that fits their mode of operation. Home mortgage financing, maybe...

    48. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Due process is a concept that comes from the times of Romans, if not earlier. The lack of it is a hallmark of tiranny. Personally, I have the uppermost contempt for the US Supreme Court because with their decision in the Citizen United case they demonstrated that they never really read a book about law or philosophy in their entire life. The great thing about the USA is that is not only a melting pot of people, but also of ideas, specially at is foundation they took many ideas from the french, the same french that US supreme court judges have never read.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    49. Re:Identifying what exactly? by znerk · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't 'chummer' be Shadowrun slang, not 2020?

      Both great games, but they make for a shitty reality.

      To be honest, I don't differentiate between the two - they are both interchangeable gritty high-tech environments. The only real difference is the existence (or not) of magic. After one of our group made a min-maxed mage character who got 4 actions per combat round, was practically invincible, and whose primary mode of combat was to fling NPCs, vehicles, and small buildings at whatever he was mad at (and this was a starting character without any Karma spent), we decided to tone down the magic a bit.

      Here's a nice glossary of dystopian future slang, if you're interested. Between that and some good background music (Pandora has some excellent sounds, if you seed it properly), you can really set the proper mood.

      Oh, and to answer your question (and the subsequent commentary), yes and yes. Welcome to the new era.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    50. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Aside from that, we must fix our own country, we have a lot of work to do, the problem is that the US never has seen us like a potential ally, but like a backyard full of junk. The only time this changed was at the time of president Lázaro Cardenas, and that was only because him was a reliable ally against fascism, so the country didn't got invaded when he nationalized the oil industry because that would mean to open a war front in northern America at the same time the Axis powers started to flex their muscles, in the end, Mexico provided an important support to the Allies in WWII.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    51. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      It did happen in the early days of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The Constitution that emerged from that war was very advanced in 1917, and the revolutionary regime worked really well from the 1930's to the late 1950's but a bunch of stupid authoritarians ruined the country. The last batch of mexican presidents from 1982 to date have been far more pro USA than pro Mexico.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    52. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can pic any issue of Proceso magazine to read about corruption in Mexico, the Anonymous list will be used or can be used to falsely flag people in the payroll of cartels. We have already big troubles with the anonymous report of innocent people as members of cartels or kidnappers, we don't need a list made by script kiddies. My grandmother was falsely accused of being a kidnapper and had her house stormed by the army, my uncle beaten and my cousin sent to the hospital. In the end, it appeared that the ones doing the tip were the actual kidnappers to make a big fuss in my grandmother's small town were she is a loved and respected citizen, the kidnappers got away. Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

      So, your bitching about anonymous, using an example that has actually nothing to do with what anonymous is doing, but with corrupt or stupid ass police officals, who decided that a "tip" they received was enough proof to terroize your family.

      Sounds to me like your just angry.

      You know, the police in your grandma's town probably are working with the kidnappers, and used it as an excuse to beat some sense into your family. Because by your post, you need it.

      ARMY, ARMY moron. The police in the town was used to deal only with domestic violence and the occasional brawl in the bar, not to face tugs with RPG's, AK-47 and Barret guns. The next door neighbor was kidnapped 7 months ago, a honest hard working man, leader of the real main opposition party in that municipality. His family now only expect to find his body. I can't visit my sick grandmother because the road is too dangerous to do that trip, so please go and fuck yourself. You don't know nothing.

      The only proof that Anonymous will show if only they show a list with names will be their word. For less than that people as died at the hands of the army, the police and criminal gangs. The problem in Mexico is systemic, we have a impunity rate in crime of 98-99%, more than half of the population below poverty line and half of the nation's wealth in the hands of less than 40 families that monopolize all the economic life in the country. For a big percentage of our population the only chance to ever improve their lives is to emigrate to the USA or join a crime cartel. The first step is to break the monopolies, end the impunity at the top and send to jail all the corrupt politicians that rule the country, but, since they are allies of the USA like that SOB of Musarraf or Pinochet is hard to make it happen, even more when the DEA and ATF send happily thousands of guns to the criminal gangs and the US DoD even more weapons to the army.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    53. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      So why are they getting their panties in a bunch over what a bunch of nerds publish about them? And kidnapping people that they believe to be part of Anon?

      Given the PR that they like to generate about themselves, I'd say they are very sensitive about both details concerning their operations and their public image. Perhaps Anon can hurt them in ways that the Mexican authorities cannot. Anon doesn't give a sh*t about which politicians get taken down with the cartels, so that's one factor in their favor. Anon isn't constrained by laws the same way the police are. There are no rules of evidence, court issued warrants, civil rights, etc. that they have to concern themselves about. As long as they can keep themselves physically secure, its game on for the cyber war. Keep in mind that Mexican Anon doesn't necessarily have to be located in Mexico. Its going to be tough for the Zetas to reach out and touch someone posting from Boise, Idaho. Unfortunately, the person they have kidnapped will probably have to be written off as dead.

      The other advantage that Anon has is that they can tailor their releases of info to instigate inter-cartel warfare. The Mexican police may be unwilling or unable to act. But the competition next door will be more than happy to take their enemies out.

      Actually there is a very big alliance among the government and the rest of criminal gangs against the Zetas. The Zetas originally was a unit of Mexican Special Forces trained in USA that joined the Gulf Cartel to be their special assassination team. But they grow to compromise all the gunmen of the cartel and they formed their own cartel and started a war vs the Gulf Cartel and continued to fight against their arch rivals, the Sinaloa Cartel, that enjoys the tacit support of the conservative party, PAN, and maybe of the US government too. The rationale is that with only one gang in the country peace will return, but avoiding to fix the systemic problems in the country.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    54. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything drug related has to do with the United States. Everything.

      you have very little chance of winning but I would love you to run for the President. I salute you, sir.

    55. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's also the reason for all the space aliens in Mexico. Depending on where exactly they came from, aliens find the climate in Mexico to be more-or-less close to their home planet.

    56. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Zontar, this is your manager: get back to work!

      We don't pay you to be a II for nothing.

      (That was going to be "We don't pay you to be an Engineer II for nothing", but Texas doesn't allow programmers to call themselves engineers.")

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    57. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      >we have a impunity rate in crime of 98-99%

      Impunity rate? Is that like where people commit crime with no fear of the consequences?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    58. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They claim to have the identities of corrupt police officers and journalists. That could prove more useful.

      You're totally missing the point. People already know who they are. All this is going to do is piss them off, and when these folks get pissed off heads start rolling... literally. You're not going to get "vanned". You're not going to spend 10 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. These people will simply kill you.

      Good luck.

       

    59. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aahh...that explains chupacabras.

    60. Re:Identifying what exactly? by 32771 · · Score: 2

      Given that Mexico has acquired a narco culture that tries to give drugs a positive image, the US still has one more step to go it seems.
      Also notice that this isn't a new thing in Mexico.

      http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sinaloa-cradle-mexicos-narcotrafficking-industry-jesus-malverde-sinaloan-bandit-their-patron-saint

      --
      Je me souviens.
    61. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      the cartels don't have a server farm

      Well, the Colombians had an AS/400 so who knows?

      http://cocaine.org/cokecrime/index.html

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    62. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      revolution to impose order

      Revolutions: That is not how they work.

    63. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      That particular article pays tribute to one of many of the narco's "saints". One must understand a bit of history, to understand the myriad other "saints". The Azteca were death worshippers. Their capital was home to that infamous pyramid, atop which captives, slaves, and/or political opponents were killed.

      Along came the Spaniards, and the Catholic church. Officially, and openly, people converted to Christianity. Covertly, however, the Azteca pulled off the same trick that others throughout the Caribbean and South America did. They clothed some of the old gods and "saints" in robes borrowed from Catholicism.

      http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Santa-Muerte/santa-muerte.htm

      Of course, if one only looks at the flag of Mexico, he will see that Mexico has incorporated nothing of Catholicism, Chritianity, democracy, or any other European ideas into that flag. The flag depicts the legend of how Mexico City was established in the middle of a swamp, by a death worshipping druggy, later deified as part of the Azteca cult.

      In short, you're about 1000% right!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    64. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Snide as this comment might have been meant to be, there's very little on this planet going on where the US is completely "innocent", directly or indirectly. Which isn't really the fault of the US, more it's an inevitability if you're a superpower.

      Look back a century or two, and you'll notice that the same could be said about England and France. Every conflict that happened anywhere on this planet during the 18th and even more the 19th century somehow involved either of them, or more often than not even both of them. It's only natural that a world dominating power affects the world, and that affect is rarely beneficial.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, if Anonymous posted the docs linking names to the cartel on wikileaks then it would be more credible?

    66. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Gripp · · Score: 4, Informative

      He does have a point. We declared the war on drugs. No one else. And barring the war drugs, legit pharmaceutical companies would be who provided the dugs (of a much higher quality) - NOT cartels. Cartels wouldn't have a chance at even competing with big business
      Add to that both the Netherlands and Portugal who have (basically) stopped the war on drugs, and have found that their drug problems drastically decreased. (You can start here if you aren't already aware of what i'm trying to explain: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html) and it should be clear that we are definitely partly to blame for these problems. i suppose human nature and greed would be where the rest of the blame falls....

    67. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they suggesting they have any proof, or just a list?

      Maybe if they have some playing cards printed up with the faces of those on the list...that seems to be a good way for people to accept it without questioning it.

    68. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      he United States' "War on Drugs" is the root cause of all that violence in Mexico.

      Funny - I thought the root cause of all violence in Mexico were Mexicans shooting and killing one another...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    69. Re:Identifying what exactly? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, if you're a school teacher working in a zetas funded school or working for a mayor in a municipality which is 100% zetas funded, just how innocent are you?

      granted, this just shows how fucked up the general situation in mexico is. a lot of people on the list didn't really have an option to act otherwise, apart from trying to get the fuck out of mexico to live.

      but still, threatening to release the list is pretty much the only option against them - it's not likely the anonymous could cough up enough cash to buy them out or bribe them with something else.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    70. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that so many Mexican officials are corrupt only makes the problem worse.

      This is the root cause of the problem in Mexico (Mexicans). It's just not as convenient for you to cry about as some grand conspiracy you've dreamed up.

    71. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Revolutions are usually carried out by bloodthirsty mobs. If you want a revolution in Mexico, you'll end up with the Zetas in power over the entire country....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    72. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      There are lots of hits carried out in the USA. The people who carry them out are generally the ones considered "expendable".

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    73. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, but the US surely as fuck has a lot to do with the situation down in Mexico. You can see that, right?

    74. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dave420 · · Score: 0

      Please stop being short-sighted and ask yourself how people get to the point where they're killing themselves over drugs. Notice how you don't get massive cartel action in well-developed first-world countries where the vast majority of people are fed, watered, clothed, and healthy. Even you can put two and two together and get it right. Don't let me down ;)

    75. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      14th century? It was signed in 1215 :)

    76. Re:Identifying what exactly? by zachie · · Score: 1

      You miss my point, which is precisely that truly innocent people might enter the list and become new victims of this nonsense. And, while I wan't pity the guilty ones, I still believe they have the right to a fair trial, and a punishment in accordance to their level of involvement in drug related violence. If you can't agree with this principle, you don't really agree with pretty much any "western democracy" (I know this label is flawed but I couldn't find a better one).

    77. Re:Identifying what exactly? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      if you spent 30 seconds researching the name it's interesting http://www.anime-planet.com/characters/kyusaku-natsume

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    78. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly that. A political caricaturist named Patricio said that if the Police and the courts disappeared nobody would notice the difference. Almost everyone in my workplace that saw that cartoon said "it's funny because is true".

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    79. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Who needs credibility? You have a list of names. It's independently verifiable information. You have internal affairs tap their phones and so forth. If the list is fiction then you spend a few man hours proving it. If four out of the first five random names you investigate turn out to be dirty then you start taking it seriously.

    80. Re:Identifying what exactly? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The anti-drug establishment is huge. Not only does it employ tons of people in law enforcement, but it allows a lot of otherwise law-abiding people to be incarcerated, which supports the penal system, which is a huge industry and has a lot of influence on our legislature.

      This isn't often mentioned, but there's definitely truth in it. Here in California for example, the majority of law enforcement, both state and local, and the prison guards invariably oppose any measure which might serve to legalize or reduce penalties for possession of marijuana. All of them understand that their continued employment depends upon having a ready supply of people to run through the system and marijuana prohibition provides an almost irresistibly easy means to accomplish this, it makes their jobs easier albeit by wasting the taxpayer's money. No doubt, the situation is similar in other states. They know that they have a good thing going for themselves with this "war on drugs" and they realize that once prohibition is lifted it will never again be reimposed. Having said that, there are a very few law enforcement people, mostly retired now, who support ending the war on drugs, but unfortunately they seem to represent a mostly minority voice withing the law enforcement community which means that policy makers can and do ignore them, just like they ignore the rest of us.

    81. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      And the disadvantage is that if Anonymous gets names of innocent people on the list by accident, they've given them a death sentence (also all the non-innocents as well). The Zetas' rival gangs will probably kill (or at least try to) everyone on the list. Anon better be damned certain about those names they release, or they're no better than the drug gangs themselves, and will have bloodshed of innocents directly attributable to their actions.

      Why is it that people never seem to be this concerned when courts put innocent people in prison or to death?

      Making a mistake is the risk of any system of punishment. You do all you can; that's all you can do.

      (Which will make it easy for the US government, among others, to declare Anonymous a terrorist group and start a serious crackdown.)

      That isn't going to play well in the news. The media is thick on framing everything as good vs. evil. If Anonymous is fighting a drug cartel, there is no way you can paint the cartel as the good guys, which means the cartels are the bad guys and whoever is fighting them must be the good guys.

    82. Re:Identifying what exactly? by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Many people in Mexico trust organized crime MORE than the government. Actually, that's the case here in the US as well. THAT is why both countries need a revolution. Not do deal with organized crime, but to deal with the even better organized criminals run by corporations who treat both countries and their citizens like those of a banana republic.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    83. Re:Identifying what exactly? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Wow, your posts in this thread are really just all over the map aren't they?
      You're getting the responses you are because, well, you're being a total dick.

      Look, everyone knows that the cartels are fucked. And everyone knows that they are thriving on the war on drugs, and that that situation was created by the US. Nothing new here. But you're arguing for the sake of argument. One minute you're saying one thing, then the next something completely different.

      Lets try this then, got anything _constructive_ to add here?

      --
      No Comment.
    84. Re:Identifying what exactly? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Given that this went public, the kidnap victim is as good as dead anyways.

      --
      No Comment.
    85. Re:Identifying what exactly? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      You're right about the bloodthirsty mob part, but wrong about the rest. It usually requires a bloodthirsty mob to overthrow a violent suppressive regime. Btw, who do you think is in charge of the entire country of Mexico right now anyways?

      A revolution is absolutely needed, but it's going to need a lot of help down there.

      --
      No Comment.
    86. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Typo caused by mixing beer and posting. I know well that it was first signed in 1215

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    87. Re:Identifying what exactly? by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

      Once kidnapped by one of these cartels I thought the idea was you might as well be dead.

      This might be one of the few things that can keep him alive. I like the irony of getting the other cartels to clean up this one, however I am pretty sure none of the cartels involved survived this long by being stupid.

    88. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Which if true, ironically makes them even more vulnerable to the likes of anonymous.

    89. Re:Identifying what exactly? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Due process exist for a very good reason, laws were not written by tree hugging hippies, they were wrote by victorious revolutionaries that put their life in the line to make a better society.

      First time I've heard the Barons of the early 14th century called victorious revolutionaries who put their life on the line (King John was pretty unpopular and didn't have much power at the time) as that is when due process was first put down on a piece of paper called the Magna Carta and stating that all free men have the right to not be punished except through the law of the land.

      That wasn't in the US so it doesn't count here.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    90. Re:Identifying what exactly? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is not a thing that be assigned attributes/adjectives. It is an abstract concept defined by the fact that it cannot be defined. As such, it is blameless.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    91. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Real_Reddox · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks? Isnt that just a list on the internet?

      --
      I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
    92. Re:Identifying what exactly? by rleibman · · Score: 1

      Is that the same Mexican Revolution of 1919 that was planned by Madero at the U.S. embassy in the D.F.? Nope... the revolution of 1910 was theoretically as corrupt as it showed to be through 70+ years of PRI rule, Please don't make up golden ages that never existed. the 30's to 50's were no such thing.

    93. Re:Identifying what exactly? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      The story is very convoluted, Madero was killed in a coup planed in the US embassy. Madero was a honest but naive man that sent the army that put him in power to their homes ASAP, and failed to see that the revolutionaries wanted not only a restoration of legal order, but a new, more just economic and social order. Despite all his mistakes, the Constitucionalist under Carranza incorporated many of the key demands of their rivals Zapata and Villa, and thanks to the pressure of the Axis powers, president Lázaro Cárdenas had a chance to truly modernize the country, and make it a good place for the europeans that looked for refugee from fascism. We benefited greatly from this migration, the people in general prospered, and had the Mexican Miracle in the 1950's and early 1960's, that made people turn a blind eye to the autoritarian, single party regime of PRI. It was in those years when Mexico had many great, world class artists.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    94. Re:Identifying what exactly? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Were there victorious revolutionaries who pushed due process in the United States of Mexico, the country the thread is about?
      And if you're talking about the United States of America, the revolutionaries were amongst other things, pissed off because they were getting deprived of their rights as English men. Rights that were spelt out in various English laws including the Magna Carta and common law.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  3. Have the drug cartels met their match? by pro151 · · Score: 1

    After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down. (Also a hoot) :-)

    1. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also extremely unlikely.

    2. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down. (Also a hoot) :-)

      Also a miracle.

    3. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After all of the money spent fighting them, it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down.

      If Anonymous releases info, they will be lucky if they are the only ones that are killed. These cartels don't just go after you. They go after you, your family, and your friends. They are extremely ruthless, and extremely smart. The prisoner they have, if he's not already dead, is getting worked over pretty good right now, and they will get him to talk. Then they'll kill him. Anonymous is in over their heads. It's one thing to deface some websites, or DDOS some banking websites. It's different to go after a group that is well armed and not restrained by morality and laws.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by steppedleader · · Score: 2

      Cartels don't work that way. Even in the unlikely event that Anonymous disrupted one cartel's operations, another will simply take its place, exactly like what happens when the police do the same. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

    5. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I have to say, I also kind of love this idea. I wonder, however, how much information technology might affect a drug cartel. I've always imagined their operations to be conducted largely in meatspace. Surely anonymous can stir up some antagonism between the gangs and also provide information to law enforcement in the process.

    6. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And these cartels can also magically track your ip address (even if you were using a VPN or proxy).

    7. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      They have one person. You can bet that a lot of these Anonymous members in Mexico know each other in real life, or have other identifying information. If you think stuff the US did to prisoners (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc) is bad, then you don't want to know what these cartel members will do. If they want you to talk, they will make you talk. Remember, there is a real world outside of computers. And it's painful.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by CRCulver · · Score: 3

      You can bet that a lot of these Anonymous members in Mexico know each other in real life

      Why do you bet that? I've observed several communities similar to Anonymous where the members not only have never met in real life, but they have no inclination to do so. Their entire relationship plays out online in relative or total anonymity.

    9. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if Anonymous were primarily operating in or near Mexico, that would be a grave cause for concern. Given that Anonymous is primarily European or from the northern parts of the US, they're less of a physical threat. I highly doubt the Mexican cartels can easily strike at people living in Boston, or Washington, or Vancouver, or London, or Moscow. They're very powerful within their domain, but they don't have much reach.

      Additionally, Anonymous is generally pretty good at remaining anonymous. The prisoner they have probably doesn't have much more information on the others than aliases, perhaps vague geographic areas.

      Still, I don't think Anonymous has all that much ability to strike at the cartels, either. They're decent at taking down websites, but the cartels don't have any. They're good at digging up embarrassing information, but drug lords aren't public figures that can be shamed out of office. It's a classic stalemate - neither side can seriously affect the other.

    10. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by mkraft · · Score: 1

      That's one of the benefits of the way Anonymous works. Even if the prisoner gives up the names of the few members he knows about (assuming he does), the prisoner would have no idea who the vast majority of members of Anonymous are. That's the way Anonymous is designed.

      I would be like trying to stop a swarm of army ants by stepping on a few of them.

    11. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You missed the point - anonymous isn't trying to end the drug cartels - they want the release of a certain person or they'll expose all the cartels "partners" - the crooked cops, politicians, newswriters, etc., who are enablers.

      Then the other cartels go after that cartels partners-in-crime - either by co-opting them, or eliminating them if they don't play ball. The problem with co-opting them is they're not all that useful once it's known they're crooked.

      Another side effect is that's one cartel less to worry about.

      So anonymous takes out kiddie porn rings, exposes crooked politicians and cops and drug dealers ... someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

    12. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      Denying them access to communication and organisation via the internet would be effective in it's own right. Unfortunately, Anonymous gets bored easily, ruling out any persistent denial of service.

    13. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      First, you can be sure that they're smart enough to have a policy of "spill everything you know because we're going to assume it's been compromised anyway", same as the CIA and the military.

      Second, most such groups are organized around cells of 2-3 members. You might know the other one or two, but you don't know anyone else. Your cell-mate knows you're gone, and has already gone down the rabbit-hole. They are assumed to be burned as well as the one who is missing. The druggies won't get anything useful.

    14. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      International drug trade is pretty high-tech these days. If Anonymous was able to strike Freedom Hosting for child porn, they'll at least inconvenience places like Silk Road.

      The drug lords are sitting unashamed and well-armed in Mexico, but the infrastructure that finances them is all over the world, on the internet, and likely tied to people who can be shamed and arrested.

    15. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

      It's a philosophical question of vigilantism. Is it morally right to take the law into your own hands when you perceive that the police, judges, and juries aren't doing their job? We can probably come up with scenarios that all but the purist will sit back and snicker about (e.g., CP) -- and we can come up with scenarios that fewer people support (remember Bernhard Goetz?). We might even come up with scenarios that almost no-one supports (e.g., road rage -- yes, road-rage is a form of vigilantism where a person goes berserk over a perceived crime and seeks their version of justice).

      When these unelected, unaccountable, <ahem> anonymous people do something you agree with is one thing; when they do something you disagree with, now what?

      Note: I'm not passing judgement. I'm just answering your question.

    16. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I think the point that is trying to be made is that the taking out of this particular group will simply result in a small hole in the overall problem, which will quickly be filled by another existing group, or a new group.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    17. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      So anonymous takes out kiddie porn rings, exposes crooked politicians and cops and drug dealers ... someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

      Exactly the fact that they do the jobs the cops and politicians won't touch makes them especially bad guys. Because it draws public attention to the fact that cops and politicians won't touch them.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      Yes yes there certainly is, but do understand the computer one is a black box for you based on the context of your post, so you cannot bridge the two. The cartels would have to start an IT department lmfao. Also, the person they have if they have a person might just be a publicity stunt for them or a poser, one thing the cartels actually ARE known for is their indiscretion in their brutality and they might just be killing someone to show that they can and this is what will happen to you. I'd need a full server log and identity trace to believe otherwise, not even close.

    19. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark Knight story line, part 3.

    20. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I think it's obvious they are crooked once you know they are cops, politicians and newswriters.

      Adding the fact they are Mexican doesn't make it any more certain. They're no such thing as 110% crooked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      By making the identities of the cartel leaders starkly obvious, it draws world attention and thereby pressure on the mexican government from the world, so yes information is worth money and power to anybody.

    22. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Anonymous gets bored easily, ruling out any persistent denial of service.

      ... unless one were to attempt to alleviate one's boredom by writing a quick script to keep up a DoS attack - just because they're "Anonymous" doesn't mean they're retarded.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    23. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by houghi · · Score: 1

      someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here

      They take away the power and control from those who have it now.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    24. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by houghi · · Score: 1

      There is another way. Legalize it and tax it instead of fighting it. I can buy legal stuff that kills me at a slow pace at McD so why not something that makes me mellow or something that kills me faster.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    25. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police do not need anonymous's help with CP - they are deluged in cases and regularly run their own sting operations. Some are on TV as mass entertainment. When they run out of perps to bust then they go after eg Jock Sturges or someone else who dared photograph a naked child. I can't help but feel that Anonymous's targeting of kid pron is aimed at building PR support from Joe/Jane Average ("see how good we are"), who has a hard time getting at all worked up about (eg) disruption to cellphone service during public protests (yawn). CP gives the punters something they all can love to hate. Going after CP is just too easy. It's difficult not to feel that anon are cynically manipulating the public by hiding behind such a feel-good popular cause (anti CP). If anonymous were truly brave and radical, they would be campaigning to wind back the encroachment of draconian and illogical censorship laws that say a mere image of a naked child is obscene and illegal while an image of a child being butchered is merely violent.

    26. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering modus operandi of Los Zetas, I would fully expect the person in question to be released - as a set of disjoint parts, and probably with a video detailing the process.

      Remember, when they call them "ultra-violent", it's not an overstatement. It's a cartel that thrives on violence and terror it begets to control their areas.

    27. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine this: Anon gets a list of top cartel leaders, puts out bogus notices that Cartel A is planning a hit on Cartel B, with assistance from Cartel C.. Once the fireworks dies down from that, post the same hit, but from B to A.. Let the cartels kill themselves... Right up Anon's alley....

    28. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Additionally, Anonymous is generally pretty good at remaining anonymous. The prisoner they have probably doesn't have much more information on the others than aliases, perhaps vague geographic areas.

      Wrong, launching DDoS attacks is exactly the way to compromise anonymity. They already had several of their members sued.

    29. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by epine · · Score: 2

      They are extremely ruthless, and extremely smart.

      Contrary to Hollywood, these qualities don't always play well together. The personal risk involved in getting to the top of this pyramid is insanely high. A certain kind of smart person settles into a comfortable and infinitely less risky niche. Ruthless animal smarts describes the guys who can't figure out how to become Hesh Rabkin.

      The prisoner they have, if he's not already dead, is getting worked over pretty good right now, and they will get him to talk. Then they'll kill him.

      Information extracted under torture is hard to bet your life on. There... Are... Four... Lights! Pretty soon the subject regards the truth as whichever answer has the least perceived repercussion. You can perform some Skinner maximization, but only if you known enough of the truth already. Every kingpin just loves to employ the shrewd and sadistic lieutenant who approaches the whole thing as a day in the office. Install the ambition restraining bolt very carefully. What could possibly go wrong? I think in reality savagery is carefully metered. The few insanely charismatic despots who run their regimes with complete disregard become the subjects of Hollywood motion pictures.

      Anonymous is in over their heads.

      Not until their heads are found. The whole premise rests on the A in anonymous. For double the fun, get the suits in Baltimore mad enough to conspire with the despots in Managua.

      It's different to go after a group that is well armed and not restrained by morality and laws.

      The amorality meme is increasingly under fire. When you look closer at human behaviour it doesn't break down into Biblical sheep pens.

      There's obviously an incentive for cartels of bloodshed to promote their methods as if your depiction is the last word. But as BB Mesquita points out concerning democrats vs autocrats, talk is cheap and is normally excluded from his models. No organization with recourse to violence means fails to promote their intangibles of ruthless omnipotence. On the down side, terror earns a fragile compliance. Hatred runs deep and burns hot when the day finally comes to settle those scores.

      I get kind of tired of ruthless + smart being portrayed as a pair of independent D&D character dice. I weary of dramatic tropes where the supervillian picks the least appropriate moment since galactic creation to gape the jaws in celebration immediately prior to retiring the arch nemesis of justice; I weary also of the notion that doing the exact opposite is therefore a faultless and infinitely more cool depiction, though it wears well on a T-1000.

    30. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I did support Anonymous in the brief period of time when they had a clearly defined goal and a strict code: those who attack free speech on the Internet should be removed from it. As a free speech radical I fully aggreed with that. After all, on what basis do you call them vigilantes? Who gave nationstates the right to control the Internet? As a possible first step towards, an independent net, they could be its self-defence organization. But it's almost impossible to make an anarchistic group of people follow a strict code and only attack those who deserve it. There were more and more questionable actions, and after a while they have lost their original goals from sight.

    31. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      There is another way. Legalize it and tax it instead of fighting it. I can buy legal stuff that kills me at a slow pace at McD so why not something that makes me mellow or something that kills me faster.

      "Yes, Prime Minister: The Smoke Screen (#1.3)" (1986)
      Sir Humphrey Appleby: [discussing how to stop the PM's anti-smoking legislation] I think the crucial argument is that we are living in a free country and we *must* be free to make our own decisions. After all, government shouldn't be a nursemaid, we don't want the nanny state.
      Sir Frank Gordon: Oh, that's very good.
      Sir Ian Whitworth: Excellent.
      Sir Humphrey Appleby: The only problem is that that is also the argument for legalising the sale of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, arsenic and gelignite.
      Sir Frank Gordon: Well maybe that's a good idea if we can put a big enough tax on them.
      Sir Ian Whitworth: Politically difficult.
      Sir Frank Gordon: Pity.

      FWIW I'm for the legalisation of some of those things, but that quote always reminds me of the difficulty in choosing where to draw the line.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    32. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      How big is Anonymous? If they're as big as they say they are, the patterns of old hacker/cracker squads won't apply -- there'll be plenty of people not quite clued up or tooled up enough go "down the rabbit-hole" or "off the grid" that quickly.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    33. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is in over their heads.

      I keep hearing this phrase, over and over... and it seems to have joined the other myths, such as "BSD is dead".

      xkcd references are great, but I think Penny Arcade may be more relevant in this context.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    34. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Except Anonymous isn't an organization with a hierarchy and membership lists, it's more like a flock of birds or even a herd of cats, there really isn't anybody for the cartels to retaliate against, but then again they haven't been too concerned with collateral damage before, either the Cartels or Anonymous.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    35. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      To join in on this threadjacking, I think the world would be a better place if all of those objects (and more things that aren't listed) were freely available to anyone who desired them.

      Stupidity, left to its own devices, is a self-solving problem. We should take the warning labels off of everything, and let the world sort itself out.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    36. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by couchslug · · Score: 0

      The solution is martial law, and killing the cartel members without trial or possibility of intervention. War without prisoners is best because all prisoners do is take over the prisons.

      The preconditions for democracy don't exist in Mexico. It needs a revolution, and that the winners impose order by overwhelming force.

      Do what Soviets would do to enemy partisans and that would be a fine start.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    37. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what they're already threatening to do, without nearly as many labyrinthine steps?

      Cartel Z's information is to be released, which will lead to anyone on the list (and many who are merely related in some way to those on the list) having prices on their heads - whether from Cartel Z attempting to cover its tracks, or from Cartels A through Y attempting to take the competition down.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    38. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "there really isn't anybody for the cartels to retaliate against"

      They retaliate against the next public demonstration Anonymous whips up.

    39. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      I think the point that is trying to be made is that the taking out of this particular group will simply result in a small hole in the overall problem, which will quickly be filled by another existing group, or a new group.

      Whoosh. The point that is trying to be made is that if this particular group doesn't play by the rules being imposed by Anonymous, then Anonymous will hasten the taking out of this particular group. The ever-present drug cartel problem isn't the target of Anonymous' ire.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    40. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No. Leave the warning labels on. The stupid ones already ignore them and there are some people ignorant of the effects who *would* heed the labels.

      If you're going to let the stupid remove themselves, you need to ensure those left aren't culpable.

    41. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If the Zetas operate the way I assume they operate, this kidnapped person is, if they find him is going to be made into an example and it will be horrific. The hierarchy of the Zetas is probably trying to figure out who out of the hundreds of kidnap victims Anonymous wants back; how import can one nondescript person be to a Cartel that holds whole towns hostage?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    42. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Anonymous has been practising Darwinistic selection for some time. Those who currently survive are likely to be a bit more careful than those that have been caught so far.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    43. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      All that to try to say that Anonymous putting one of the largest hordes of Kiddie Porn off the net is no big deal. If it's no big deal, why didn't the cops do it?

    44. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difference being that Anon frequently does, demonstrably, get in over their heads. They've made so many threats lately that they couldn't follow-through on that nobody really listens anymore. Their little LulzSec tirade was the last time people paid attention, because that handful of kids actually did stuff, for better or worse... and then they all went to jail.

      Remember their demands that Bernake step down? Or their earlier, independent Occupy movement? Or when they where going to take down the NYSE? I can think of 10+ recent demands and claims that turned out to be hot air.

    45. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering modus operandi of Los Zetas, I would fully expect the person in question to be released - as a set of disjoint parts, and probably with a video detailing the process.

      Remember, when they call them "ultra-violent", it's not an overstatement. It's a cartel that thrives on violence and terror it begets to control their areas.

      Anonymous is already aware of that. So, when doing nothing is going to result in your aforementioned scenario, why not try something different, if only to make them - and everyone else - think twice about jacking a member of Anonymous.

      Anonymous is just using the same logic as the Russians did - and if you recall, it worked. And they're in a better position to do it than the Russians were, because it's not like the drug cartel can target other members of Anonymous. So the cartel really has only two choices - release the hostage, or lose a lot more than "an eye for an eye."

    46. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You get a one-word text message - "LEAVE359" - you drop whatever you are doing immediately and go into hiding. You should have some cash to be able to go completely dark - rent a room somewhere, go live on skid row or at a shelter for a while, buy a used car for cash, throw on a stolen license plate (and put YOUR plate on the car you swiped it from - nobody checks their own license plate), or even just use a bicycle and a backpack - you can cover 100 miles in a few days that way, and that gets you to a different city, and gives enough time to accumulate enough "road dirt" and rough edges to change your appearance somewhat. A quick-and-dirty hair dye job, hair cut, different (or no) glasses, your own mom won't recognize you in a lineup.

      Take a job for cash in the new location, rent a cheap room, get a burn phone, call a predefined number and wait, knowing it may be a few years before you're contacted.

    47. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Maestro4k · · Score: 2

      International drug trade is pretty high-tech these days. If Anonymous was able to strike Freedom Hosting for child porn, they'll at least inconvenience places like Silk Road.

      From what I understand Anonymous just attacked Freedom Hosting and the various CP sites on Tor through Tor itself. That only takes knowing the site's .onion address, which were apparently all listed on the Hidden Wiki. It doesn't take much high-tech knowledge to read a URL then DDoS it.

    48. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Or maybe the Zetas are going to find the dickheads who yanked the guy, and make an example of them? Because the one thing organized crime doesn't want is anything that threatens "the business."

      It allows them to save face - "Here's your guy - we didn't order it" and use it as an excuse "clean house^W^Wsettle a few old scores" at the same time - a win-win for both sides.

    49. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      So anonymous takes out kiddie porn rings, exposes crooked politicians and cops and drug dealers ... someone want to remind me of how they're supposed to be the bad guys here when they're doing the jobs that the cops and politicians won't touch?

      How about the fact that any list they release is likely to contain innocents because no one is perfect. And everyone on that list will be the target of the rival drug gangs, most of them will probably end up dead. Does that help you understand why Anon's not the good guys yet? Personally I find it disgusting that even if that list somehow contains only non-innocents (people who are part of the Zetas cartel or work with them) that it will result in actual deaths in the real world. Getting people murdered isn't how the good guys act, that's how terrorists (and ironically, drug cartels) work.

    50. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Cartels don't forget stuff easily. If they hold a grudge against someone it can last for centuries. So, even if they did play along and released the Anonymous member Los Zetas would likely bide their time and you'd sooner or later read about Anonymous members dying or disappearing in various ways over time. And Los Zetas could just replace the people who they expect to have been compromised before they start taking Anonymous members down, so if Anonymous did retaliate by exposing those people the losses would be minimal on Los Zetas' side.

      And how would they find out who the Anonymous members are? Well, the same way Anonymous finds out about people: hacking into various services, collecting data, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Los Zetas also got a few hackers in their members list.

    51. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Anonymous doesn't read the news very much or simply missed the news article a few weeks back about the Nuevo Laredo executions. A couple of very young bloggers who dared to write stuff against the cartels. He they virtually sliced an arm off and strung him up on a pedestrian bridge, she they disemboweled and tied her up like a pig next to him, guts flapping in the wind.

      And to drive home the point, La Nena de Nuevo Laredo, a journalist who also dared to write against them, was forced to write her execution note before they decapitated her and left the head propped up as a bizarre hood ornament of her own car.

      This is what they will be up against.

    52. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      On the kiddie porn thing, it was the list of users on the servers, so it was accurate.

      On the current list, there's no more guarantee of accuracy than, say, your stupid no-fly list. Or wrongfully-convicted murderers on death row. So, to paraphrase you, does that help you understand why for several decades your government has been at war with you, citizen?

      To quote you - "Getting people murdered isn't how the good guys act" - why do you put up with such things? Isn't it time to end the war on drugs, as well as the military-industrial-congressional complex? You know, the one your last honest president warned about?

    53. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by frisket · · Score: 1

      [...]banking websites. It's different to go after a group that is well armed and not restrained by morality and laws.

      Banks are restrained by morality and laws? I must have missed something in the last 3-4 years.

    54. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      First, they would have to find them. If Anonymous is as good as they think they are, then it will be difficult for the cartels to trace them, or to hire someone else good enough to do it for them.

    55. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LEAVE359

    56. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Without wishing to contradict any specific part of your insightful analysis, have you seen the fucking murder rate in Mexico?

      There are an awful lot of people being killed on a daily basis by the cartels, and a scary number of them don't die gently.

      Even if torture doesn't work, the fear of torture does. The heavily brutalised corpse of an anonymous member is worth a lot even if none of the actual information gained is accurate. If the info includes 2-3 names of other members, they need to find themselves a new home/identity/country/life pretty sharpish.

    57. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      That pretty much describes the US process for fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Half the people in gitmo were on those lists created with about as much intel as Anonymous has.

      The armies an police trying to clean up the drug war kill innocents all the time. I'd agree they should be responsibly, but they're not killing people are they?

    58. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by steppedleader · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss any point -- I never claimed anonymous was trying to end the cartels. I was just responding the GP's statement of "it would be ironic if a bunch of hackers brought the cartels down." Guess I should have quoted him.

    59. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's not *my* code :-p

    60. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by causality · · Score: 1

      No. Leave the warning labels on. The stupid ones already ignore them and there are some people ignorant of the effects who *would* heed the labels. If you're going to let the stupid remove themselves, you need to ensure those left aren't culpable.

      Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about. You think that's the mark of good decision-making?

      No warning labels. It's not like information on the standard street drugs is difficult to find. If you can't be bothered, then you take a risk. I'm fine with that. Looking before you leap when it's so easy to do it is a cardinal sign of intelligence.

      The only legitimate concern over labels is that the package really does contain what the label says it contains. Otherwise, let it work itself out.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    61. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by lucm · · Score: 1

      > there's no more guarantee of accuracy than, say, your stupid no-fly list.

      The no-fly list is very accurate because the people on that list are indeed unable to fly!

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    62. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by md65536 · · Score: 1

      What do you do when other people do something that you disagree with?

      Make laws to make it illegal.
      Force ID systems on everyone so that they can't avoid you through privacy.
      Treat everyone as a potential criminal so that you can weed out anyone doing anything you don't agree with. Random security pat-downs etc.

      Now the question becomes, what do you do when you're not the one who's making all the decisions about what people can and can't do, and you're doing something that disagrees with those who are?

      Ideally, all laws would be fair and fairly enforced, and GP's question wouldn't be applicable, and neither would either of our posts.

    63. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You know what though - lets say I'm a drug cartel boss sitting in Mexico somewhere. I get this little message and I ask myself, have they actually got this information? I mean this information can be got, but it would take years of sophisticated intelligence work that probably the Mexican authorities themselves haven't got. And its not like the lists of the corrupt are sitting somewhere on a webserver just waiting for a junior high SQL injection - most of this stuff happens very far off the books.

      So, as this hypothetical cartel boss, I decide that these guys are bluffing. So I call their bluff by not just murdering the captive, but his family, friends, anyone he's ever done business with, neighbours, and associates. Then I get a few hackers of my own and start finding out who these anonymous guys are, using my contacts in various other international crime groups, and you better believe they are all online. Rinse and repeat.

      These anonymous guys have fucked up big this time. This really isn't an Antonio Banderas movie.

    64. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You know what though - lets say I'm a drug cartel boss sitting in Mexico somewhere. I get this little message and I ask myself, have they actually got this information? I mean this information can be got, but it would take years of sophisticated intelligence work that probably the Mexican authorities themselves haven't got. And its not like the lists of the corrupt are sitting somewhere on a webserver just waiting for a junior high SQL injection - most of this stuff happens very far off the books.

      The problem isn't "Do the have the info?" The cartel KNOWS they have the info, since the cops and pols do, and aren't acting on it because they're on the payroll. The problem is that Anonymous isn't on the payroll, there's no way to buy their silence, and Anonymous is going to expose who is on the cartel's payroll to the OTHER cartels.

      Illegal drugs are a very competitive - and literally cut-throat - business. You're the leader of a cartel and you know that the info is out there, and that Anonymous very likely have it (cops and pols aren't exactly comp sci security specialists). And that your whole network is about to be exposed. You don't have time to recruit your own team of hackers, and even if you did, you'd have no way of knowing if they weren't plants, either by another cartel, anonymous, the DEA or some other law wnforcement agency, the CIA (hey, what better way to set up your next "drugs for hostages" deal) or whatever.

      Nope - not gonna fly. And you don't have time to hunt down all this guys relatives and acquaintances, because you're too busy making sure that all the people who are about to be exposed STAY bought.

    65. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by ghettoimp · · Score: 1

      Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about.

      Seriously, what the hell.

      When the doctor prescribes an antibiotic for my infant son, I remind him that he's also taking Prilosec for reflux and doesn't tolerate milk/soy, and ask if it's still the right thing to prescribe. When I pick up the prescription, I double check this with the pharmacist, and ask him whether I should give the medicines together or at different times, etc. When I get home, I read the labels and papers to see what I need to do for storing the medicine, what the right dosage is, etc.

      You want to make this harder... so that "stupid" people will accidentally kill themselves and their children?

      I'm good at math and programming. Do I deserve to die because I don't know foobarzacil + bazidrol = heart attack? For anyone who isn't a doctor/pharmacist/expert who has been trained about all of this stuff, having these discussions with experts and reading the labels is doing the research.

    66. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      My mistake,

      Leave43916

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    67. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely to be the other way round. Anonymous are biting off more than any script kiddie can chew.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    68. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Yes, if regular members of the public can identify anons then so can the cartels. It also doesn't help that Anonymous wear masks at public protests, easily recognisable just follow them when they leave the protest. Or just snuff them in public.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    69. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about warning labels for advanced and complex things like potential drug interactions.

      I'm referring to warning labels like the one on a hair dryer, that state that using it in the shower can kill you. I'm talking about the warning labels that keep idiots from suffocating themselves because they put a plastic bag over their head. I'm talking about the labels that are on a pan of take-n-bake lasagna that warn you not to burn yourself on the pan, because you're too stupid to realize that something that's been in the oven for the past 90 minutes, cooking at 425 degrees will be HOT.

      We could use a drastic increase in the number of fatal household accidents due to things such as drinking drain cleaner, "huffing" oven cleaner, watching TV while the bug bombs spray toxic fumes into the house, setting off explosives (fireworks) in the garage, using a cigarette lighter as a light source to determine the depth of a petroleum tank, falling out of 5th floor windows, jumping off of third-floor balconies into swimming pools, shooting themselves in the testicles with a 22-caliber bullet they decided made a good replacement for that empty spot in the pickup truck's fuse-box while coming home from hunting frogs, making toast in the tub, surfing on the roof of the vehicle they just climbed out of (from the driver's seat, no less - be sure to watch the video), washing the base of a blender in the sink while it's still plugged in, putting a hand into a running garbage disposal, stepping in front of a train doing 50mph despite the flashing lights, gates, and the train itself desperately honking its horn, cutting one's own limbs off with a running [chain|table|circular|band|jig] saw, and anything else that the terminally stupid would do without a host of warning labels to keep the public safe - and better yet, they do them despite the warning labels.

      All of the items in the above paragraph are excellent search terms for your favorite internet search engine if you find yourself beginning to give the human race the benefit of the doubt in the brains department. These are things people apparently continue to do, even with the warning labels all over everything because every manufacturer of anything is terrified of being sued (and the resulting PR scandal) should an end-user harm themselves with their product. Some places even have laws against doing things that any sane and rational sentient being would think are a joke - but those laws are in place because someone did something stupid and ended up hurt or dead.

      Keep in mind that the average person is an idiot... and half of them are dumber than that.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    70. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they didn't DDOS it, they DDOSed the Tor network itself. That is the nature of an attack on a hidden site (or any non entry or exit node on the network really).

      It's stupidity like this that make me resent having ever been a Yotsubite (though it is mostly Reddit\Facebook idiots now).

    71. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      It's not a big deal and it's already back up (as confirmed by pedophiles on slashdot in the original story). Why don't they try to take down the bigger -commercial- sites run by the Russian Mafia if they wanted too instead of sites that were probably run by Anon too?

    72. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by znerk · · Score: 1

      there really isn't anybody for the cartels to retaliate against

      They retaliate against the next public demonstration Anonymous whips up.

      Man, those electrons better watch it, the Mexican Mafia is gonna get 'em!

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    73. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      After all, on what basis do you call them vigilantes?

      From The Free Dictionary:

      vigilante (vj-lnt)
      n.
      1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
      2. A member of a vigilance committee.

      So to answer your question -- on the basis of the definition of the word.

    74. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody's watched way too many movies

    75. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      What do you do when other people do something that you disagree with?

      I guess you missed the part where I said I'm not passing judgement.

      Make laws to make it illegal. Force ID systems on everyone so that they can't avoid you through privacy. Treat everyone as a potential criminal so that you can weed out anyone doing anything you don't agree with. Random security pat-downs etc.

      What you're brushing against is what if mob rule in the form of democracy stomps on your rights? Frankly, that's why the founders of the United States restricted what the federal government can do, leaving everything else to the states or individuals. Ultimately the purpose of the original constitution (regardless of how it has morphed over time) was to protect the individual from mob rule.

    76. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different to go after a group that is well armed and not restrained by morality and laws.

      Which is precisely what the cartels may be about to find out.

    77. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Berfert · · Score: 1

      To be fair, since the internet is global, every government that tries to enforce it's own rules on it is engaging in the acts of a vigilante. That's doubly the case when they go after businesses that are not physically present in their own country.

    78. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I like the Superman cape toy warning: "WARNING: Cape does not enable user to fly."

    79. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by ancienthart · · Score: 1

      You don't think that the Anonymous members aren't going to get a bit nervous when the ones that can't hide, get whacked?
      As other people have commented, Anon has only gone up against soft targets.
      I get the distinct feeling that they've gotten too cocky for them to make a serious assessment of the danger this time.

    80. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      A ugly side effect of their training in psy-ops in USA. Still, since their terror as almost stopped the flow of illegal immigrants from Latin America to USA, there is a theory that the violence in Mexico is fueled by the US government to exactly achieve that.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    81. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by matunos · · Score: 1

      To summarize what you said: "stop snitching".

    82. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      No. Leave the warning labels on. The stupid ones already ignore them and there are some people ignorant of the effects who *would* heed the labels.

      If you're going to let the stupid remove themselves, you need to ensure those left aren't culpable.

      Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about. You think that's the mark of good decision-making?

      So how much research do you do before eating a packet of chips?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    83. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by toriver · · Score: 1

      On on a bag of glass marbles: "Not for human consumption". Which would not prevent a kid from feeding a marble to their dog and lawsuits ensue anyway...

    84. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Wrong, launching DDoS attacks using a testing tool like LOIC which does not even try to sppof your IP is exactly the way to compromise anonymity.

      FTFY.

    85. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Still, not even close to the two usually considered ultimate stupidity warnings.

      On a bottle of disinfectant: "Avoid contact with brain."
      On a chainsaw: "Do not stop chain with hands or genitals."

    86. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Yes you need to checkout some of the sites for people working in COIN and small wars - the zetas are tame compared to the Templars think chaos cult from Warhammer and then some.

    87. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      yes going against people who skin and disembowel prisoners alive - yes I think thats in over your heads

    88. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      No - just lived through a time where the government had to call in the army to help patrol the streets because cells were putting bombs in the stock exchange, kidnapping a foreign diplomat, financing their activities by bank robberies, killing one government minister, stuffing bombs in mailboxes and stuff.

    89. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      or even just use a bicycle and a backpack - you can cover 100 miles in a few days that way,

      Spy-school should issue turbo-trainers, cos a regular cyclist would be able to do that in a day. (I really should be training more myself -- I haven't got past 85 miles yet.)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    90. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      On the current list, there's no more guarantee of accuracy than, say, [...] wrongfully-convicted murderers on death row.

      I'd say there's less of a guarantee of accuracy because of the lack of judges, juries, admissability guidelines, due process and all that other stuff. The justice system isn't perfect, but it's certainly not arbitrary.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    91. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The justice system isn't perfect, but it's certainly not arbitrary.

      Anyone stopped for DWB would disagree. Also, even judges say that between 5% and 14% of all convictions are of innocent people.

      In other words, justice is often being meted out based on arbitrary factors, not facts.

    92. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by causality · · Score: 1

      Think about why you would need a warning label. Oh yeah, because you want to put something into your body that you haven't taken the time to first research and learn about.

      Seriously, what the hell.

      When the doctor prescribes an antibiotic for my infant son, I remind him that he's also taking Prilosec for reflux and doesn't tolerate milk/soy, and ask if it's still the right thing to prescribe. When I pick up the prescription, I double check this with the pharmacist, and ask him whether I should give the medicines together or at different times, etc. When I get home, I read the labels and papers to see what I need to do for storing the medicine, what the right dosage is, etc.

      You want to make this harder... so that "stupid" people will accidentally kill themselves and their children?

      I'm good at math and programming. Do I deserve to die because I don't know foobarzacil + bazidrol = heart attack? For anyone who isn't a doctor/pharmacist/expert who has been trained about all of this stuff, having these discussions with experts and reading the labels is doing the research.

      Man, this pattern is getting old. You make a reasonable point and then someone has to get all hyper-emotional and go off the deep end with it.

      I'll just sigh and explain it this way: the moment you are hiring a doctor, you are supplying the expertise. You may not have the expertise yourself, but you are coming up with it all the same by hiring someone who does. Just like I don't know how to rebuild an engine. If mine needed to be rebuilt, I would hire a mechanic. That's because prescription drug interactions and engine rebuilds are non-trivial and require specialized knowledge.

      I swear somebody has to do this in every conversation. Since what I said wouldn't be reasonable when talking about things that require specialized knowledge... that must not have been what I was talking about. Do you see how simple that is? Did you notice that others in this thread did understand me? You are capable of discerning that on your own. I know it's more fun to assume I'm a dumbass who didn't notice this "glaring omission" in my statements and you, being so clever, saw it instantly. But I'm not going to review every last possible interpretation of what I said and disclaim the ones you might happen to get hyperemotional about just to prevent you from assuming that. If you want that sort of help with your inability to remain reasonable and to recognize when you are dealing with someone who is reasonable, you're going to have to find it yourself.

      Anyway, NONE of that has anything to do with warning labels, like the ones on bug spray telling you not to drink it. Wow, really? You mean something so poisonous it makes cockroaches drop dead on contact might be dangerous for me to ingest? I say we don't need to protect these people from themselves.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    93. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Are between 86 and 95% of the population guilty of crime? If the justice system was truly arbitrary, the wrongful conviction rate would be equal to the proportion of innocent people in the wider population.

      There are about 312,000,000 people registered in the US, plus an unknown number of illegal immigrants. The prison population is around 3 million. If the prison population is roughly equal to the number of true criminals, that's 1%.

      So for the justice system to be arbitrary, 99% of all inmates would have to have been wrongly convicted.

      OK, lots of crimes go unsolved, so maybe the population of criminals is higher than 1% of the population, but still, we're still talking about a minority.

      I will say it again: the justice system isn't perfect, but it's certainly not arbitrary.

      HAL.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    94. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The prison population is made up disproportionately of people of color. That's pretty arbitrary. And btw, more than 95% of the overall population are guilty of *some* crime. It's most likely 100% of all adults. It's impossible to even know what all the laws are, never mind comply with them.

      So the application of justice, when 100% of the population is guilty of various crimes, is definitely arbitrary.

    95. Re:Have the drug cartels met their match? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Look, just because you can't stop a chainsaw with your genitals...

  4. Police by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?

    1. Re:Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better quesrion is how did the cartel know who is a part of Anonymous? Is the cartels online presence that significant?

    2. Re:Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most likely some of the people in question leaking said information is equally part of it.
      Also probably one of the reasons for the kidnapping.

      Or possibly that they never paid up and they were just one of many people who were caught, this time it just happened to be one of the people part of one of the sub-groups of Anonymous.

    3. Re:Police by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2

      So why do the police not have this information? Or do they make up the majority of the people on the list?

      And if they had the information, what would happen then? Heh. That's not how things work in Mexico.

    4. Re:Police by Truekaiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because the police make a %^&*( ton of money off the drug trade. they don't want to stop it either. a lot of the police districts in the south near the Mexican border when they seize drugs going north they get money from the feds. when they seize cash going south to the cartel's they get to keep it and add it to their budget.
      if they solve the problem they will lose money, and they don't want that.

    5. Re:Police by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In mexico, the police are running scared. The gangs are better armed, better equipped, better trained, with people who want to make money at the cost of their lives. It also doesn't help when the cartels string people up from bridges, skinned alive. Generally makes people lose their nerve to fight.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Police by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      More likely, the cartel kidnapped the family of somebody in Anonymous because they owe them money or something stupid like that, and the person decided to organize a posse. Kidnappings like that are common place in the parts of Mexico affected by the drug war.

    7. Re:Police by Nidi62 · · Score: 3

      In mexico, the police are running scared.

      Only the honest cops. The rest are on the cartels payroll. And it also doesn't help that in many cases the Mexican army has also helped and protected the cartels as well. Of course, this comes more into play in protecting the cartels at the border from ICE.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:Police by climb_no_fear · · Score: 2

      The honest ones are seeking asylum in the US.
      Anyone remember Mexico's bravest woman?:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisol_Valles_Garcia

    9. Re:Police by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The honest ones are seeking asylum in the US. Anyone remember Mexico's bravest woman?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisol_Valles_Garcia

      Half of me wondered if that was nothing more than a brave, albeit desperate attempt to gain asylum from the beginning. That girl was either very smart, or a little less smart and a lot more naive. She's lucky she's still alive.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:Police by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      The guy in question was leafleting for Operation Paperstorm when he was kidnapped. Here's a quick tip, Anonymous: online, you have a better chance of remaining anonymous.

      HAL.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    11. Re:Police by Scaba · · Score: 1

      Pick up a book called El Sicario if you want the answer to those question directly from someone who once was an assassin for one of the cartels in Juarez. It's a fascinating and quick read. (Disclaimer: I am neither a drug kingpin nor a former cartel assassin.)

    12. Re:Police by hovelander · · Score: 1

      What a Douchey thought that half would have been. This Woman is a Grade A+ Fucking Hero. She tried applying the idea of non-violence in a situation where there are no other ideas or current hope. Unfortunately for everyone, she failed because the situation is just that dire. Naive or not, she was absolutely right to try.

      Cynic or not, we at least have to be able to identify True Fucking Heroism when it sporadically pops up.

      C'mon!

    13. Re:Police by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      i was talking about the american police. many police districts along the border have as much as half if not more of their yearly budget made from either seizing drugs coming in or money on it's way out.
      if the problem was actually worked on in a way that would solve it you would see a glut of out of work police officers from California to Texas.

    14. Re:Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dumb question.

      What a dumb response.

  5. Spaniard accent !!!?? by bzImage8 · · Score: 2

    It won't be difficult; we all know who they are and where they are located," says the man, who underlines the group's international ties by speaking Spanish with the accent of a Spaniard while using Mexican slang."

    LOL.. the guy its using a text to speech program.. !!!

    --
    Unix its simple, but sometimes it takes a geniuos to understand the simplicity -- Dennis Ritchie
    1. Re:Spaniard accent !!!?? by splatter · · Score: 1

      Not sure why that matters. If the individual is typing using Espinosa Spanish then the text to speech will sound like a Spaniard. The changes in pitch found in spoken accents are of course mostly removed, but use of specific words or expressions in Spanish or really any language will give away information of the person behind the desk. Same for use of colloquial Mexican slang. They obviously have traveled to Mexico or have Mexican friends.

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  6. Drug Cartels by cosm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can I just say that I think it is fucking ridiculous that we send troops all over the world, even just lately to Uganda, but yet we let fucking Mexico turn into New Afghanistan before our eyes. Oh wait. I know. Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up. More drugs more problems more need for daddy DoD to swell and swell and enforce and strip rights way.

    Nevermind Mexico. As you were. We'll come knocking when you actually threaten our financial interest. Until then, keep up the good show. We won't bother.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Drug Cartels by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Politicians cannot stop the war on drugs. Too many votes, I mean jobs depend on it.

    2. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you're worried about the wrong issue here.

      The real issue that's, as you say, fucking ridiculous, is that Mexico has sent troops to the United States.

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/mexican-troops-conduct-vehicle-search-on-u-s-soil.html

      http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/24/seal-equipo-seis-united-states-objects-to-mexican-troops-briefly-entering-u-s/

      Et cetera. Do some light Googling.

      Well. Despite being fucking ridiculous, I guess I can understand the reasons why we haven't done anything. Our government can't protect us from people bringing full-sized bottles of shampoo onto planes; they certainly wouldn't be able to stop the fifth column of illegals they've happily let into our country, were it to come to blows.

    3. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US doesn't send troops to their puppet governments...
      US Companies and government are already making money by selling weapons to the Mexican army.
      Also, guess where the cartels get the majority of their weapons from.

    4. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The last time US troops were sent to Mexico, we took over half their territory. Sending American troops to stabilize Mexico would be like German troops stabilizing Poland.

    5. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything? We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      The US government sold the cartels thousands of guns, which have been used to kill hundreds of people including police officers and politicians. I'm sure the Mexicans would be just as happy not to have much more "help" from the US.

    6. Re:Drug Cartels by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you unfamiliar with the "Mérida Initiative"("Plan Mexico" to skeptics)? For reasons, um, wholly unrelated to that incident where the border between Mexico and the US shifted abruptly some time back, Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil. We've settled for rolling out just about all the various instruments of policy-by-proxy we have available there and elsewhere in Latin America(Plan Columbia, Central American Regional Security Initiative, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, likely the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in some capacity)

      We've carefully avoided doing anything terribly effective; because Prohibition 2.0 is Going Just Fine Thanks For Asking; but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico, an overt military presence in the area seems unlikely(and dubiously productive, most drug production is protected by means other than brute force, which makes soldiers less useful than they might be).

    7. Re:Drug Cartels by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The total percentage of weapons coming from the US into cartel and mexican civvie hands through US civvie or .gov channels is less than 14%(of which US civvie sourced weapons are between 5% and 7% of the total weapons held by mexicans). That means 84% of the weapons in Mexico are never present in the US at all. Try whipping up a more pertinent taking point next time.

    8. Re:Drug Cartels by Knuckles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up.":

      During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

      -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29

      Of course in October 2001 the US and allied forces invaded Afghanistan.

      Despite the [2009] decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium. (...) In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008 (...) In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008.

      -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/02/us-afghanistan-drugs-factbox-sb-idUSTRE58144M20090902

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    9. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so it's OK to invade a country on the other side of the world, but attacking on drug cartels just below the border isn't? Those countries are also sovereign and US has nothing to do with them (except the love of oil), so what's the big f*cking difference?

    10. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Invading Mexico to stop the cartels makes more sense than invading Iraq for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

    11. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies.

      [Citation Needed]

      Seriously. Unless we have on the order of 100-150,000 troops, agents, or personnel tasked JUST to combat the cartels, it's a joke.

      The southern US border is almost 3000 miles. My above number, would be anywhere from 33 to 50 people per mile for monitoring, and disruption of the cartels as they're crossing the border. That's on OUR side of the border.Having been to and driven along the southern border from TX to California, I have yet to see THAT kind of density of said agencies.

      I say OUR side of the border, because we shouldn't be crossing into Mexico unless we're explicitly asked to by their Government. Trying to keep things sovereign and all, right?

    12. Re:Drug Cartels by cosm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get that. But we let the Cartels get away with it. We send them guns. We keep the region unstable. Sound familiar? Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. Otherwise I believe we would be working with their government in a different way. Not that there are not good border patrol agents and good people working to fight the corruption and drugs and all that, but doesn't it seem like we should be doing more at the border to stabilize that region in our own country? Our border counties in the US are not the safest places in the world. There are safer provinces in Afghanistan. We are letting Mexico turn into new Afghanistan. Yes it is shameful. Sure it sounds condescending. But can you honestly say that we are sending more money to stabilize Mexico than we are the middle east? Where's the priorities? It is a damn sad shame what is happening to their government, and no I do not think we should impinge on their sovereignty or their people, no more than we should middle eastern nations, but the fact of the matter is immediate borders are important. I'm not talking about just rounding up all Mexicans and shooting them back across the border. I'm talking about smarter border policies and less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place.

      The second drugs are legalized across the board in the US, you can bet your bottom dollar that the value of all those illegal runs will drop to zero. But the political circus would never do that, nor anything else productive other than stay in gridlock lockstep to protect the old guard and keep things the way they are.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    13. Re:Drug Cartels by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      but unless our plans involve a shooting war with Mexico

      Extending your argument, can you imagine how stupid a shooting war with Mexico would be? I'm not saying that Mexico could "win" (everyone would lose), but look at the negative impact on the economy if the people who hail from Mexico suddenly went home. What if instead of going home they decided to take out a few neighborhoods.

      No, I'm not saying that Mexicans are inherently violent. I am saying that if the United States were stupid enough to start a shooting war with Mexico, some portion of the population that is currently here would not choose the American side.

      When all the cost is counted, the Mexican people have paid a far higher price for the "war on drugs" than the Americans have. It would also appear that the Mexican government is more committed to the war on drugs than American politicians are.

    14. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      nah- youd just declare mission accomplised after a few weeks and still be losing the war 2 years later.

    15. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

      Religion, still the best way to control the masses.

    16. Re:Drug Cartels by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up.":

      During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

      -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29

      Of course in October 2001 the US and allied forces invaded Afghanistan.

      Despite the [2009] decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium. (...) In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008 (...) In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008.

      -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/02/us-afghanistan-drugs-factbox-sb-idUSTRE58144M20090902

      Except, under the Taliban, if you got caught growing opium during the ban, they would kill you. Now, at worst you get a prison sentence. At best, they burn your opium crop and give you money and help to switch to cultivating something other than opium. The risk/reward ratio is much higher now than when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    17. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because money talks more often than any religion's godhead does.

    18. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think sovereignty has much to do with anything. The US does what it pleases with little regard for the rest of the world...as does nearly every country with in the means of their power and influence.

    19. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you would think they could develop a biological agent that effects the poppies... if they were serious...

    20. Re:Drug Cartels by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Mexico is borderline failed state by now. Sovereignty is a nice concept and all, but national security has always trumped and will always trump sovereignty of another state, for obvious reasons. And, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya, the situation in Mexico is a very real, direct and serious national security threat for U.S.

    21. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has been illegally supplying guns to the Cartels, in exchange for drugs, so as to have an excuse to pass unconstitutional gun laws. Had a federal agent not gone public (who was punished by the administration for doing so), it likely would have resulted is far more egregious unconstitutional anti-gun laws being passed. At this time Obama literally has the blood of over 200 civilians on his hands for his federal crimes. The sad things is, most media, save almost exclusively CBS, have bent over backwards to either minimize their coverage or spin it such that Obama is magically not responsible for the federal crimes his Cabinet directed.

      This is literally Obama's Water Gate and under federal law she should not only be impeached but in federal prison. The fact he's still in office is a wonderful testament of just how lazy, ignorant, and generally stupid the general public is. Its sad and disgusting.

      And if you have no clue what I'm talking about, go read about the Fast And Furious as well as the Gun Walker program as well as the anti-gun, unconstitutional laws which literally mirror those put in place in Nazi Germany. In fact, the massive number of literal parallels to Nazi Germany is scary as shit and yet the dumb fucking public insist on ignoring the pro-totalitarian government gun by Obama and his criminals.

      The only thing dumber than someone who voted for Obama is someone who still wants him in office. Period.

    22. Re:Drug Cartels by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Wait, so it's OK to invade a country on the other side of the world, but attacking on drug cartels just below the border isn't? Those countries are also sovereign and US has nothing to do with them (except the love of oil), so what's the big f*cking difference?

      Look, I wasn't a fan of the invasion of Iraq, but - when, exactly, did Saddam's country hold elections that featured more than one presidential candidate?

      Despite all the ways they currently fall short, Mexico is at least attempting to be a democracy.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Background:
      The U.S. has never treated any country south of its borders as sovereign. Look, up the Monroe doctrine, if unfamiliar. Also, look at who trained _every_ bloody dictator in Latin America, all the death squads, and who was behind every right-wing coop in Latin America-- always "El Norte" aka U.S.A.

      I lived in Guatemala as a small child. The U.S. completely fucked up that country just for cheap bananas. Right wing dictatorship displaced democratically elected government. Death squads. U.S. led Nazi-esq experiments on the local population (injection with Syphilis, etc. and catalog the symptoms leading to deaths-- look it up, the U.S. just admitted to it this year). Torture with CIA (or at least Americans) present. Summary executions. They did this to every country in Latin America that currently has a right-wing oppressive dictatorship (look up School of the Americas aka School of the Assassins aka Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). The U.S. fucked with many others who eventually threw off their chains. The U.S. is the greatest threat to peace in the region, and the world.

      Zetas:
      Zetas are a paramilitary force trained and equipped by the U.S. and Israel-- really. Folks in the Zetas realized where the real money was, and immediately turned on their masters. No one thought, as they were equipping the force like a military, and providing the best instruction in warfare and torture techniques, "what could possibly go wrong." Now these folks just mass kill folks for fun (U.S and Israeli training apparently really took-- they act just like them) like the couple hundred migrants that were recently ruthlessly and horrendously murdered by Zetas.

    24. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      Seeing as the Mexican army is already fighting the cartels, there doesn't seem to be a problem of finding someone to fight. Especially since the Mexican army soldiers sometimes defect to the cartels, so training more of a Mexican army isn't such a great solution. IIRC one of the cartels were founded by a group of Mexican army special forces.

    25. Re:Drug Cartels by starmonkey · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the safety of the hundreds of thousands of Americans living in Mexico.

    26. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything?"

      Hahahha... you're so funny. Iraq was a sovereign nation, so was Afghanistan. So is Pakistan. Uhh, like any of that stopped us from either sending in troops or drones? Or in the case of all three, both? Remember that part where we flew into Pakistan in the middle of the night, shot some people in the head, and abducted a woman?

      Further, Mexico is within the U.S. "protectorate" of sorts. We effectively own Mexico and Canada, and it would be nice if we could take better care of the slave labor camp to the south, and our friendly oil-producing neighbor to the north.

    27. Re:Drug Cartels by pla · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything?

      "+5 Funny"

      Mexico exists as a failed state with a weak central government allowed to exist at the whim of the cartels because it facilitates exporting their real "product", hidden in shipments of their semi-legit American-job-eliminating exports. The Mexican government explicitly educates its citizens on how to abuse their bullshit "rights" when they get busted as illegals in the US - Rights that US citizens do not have when they get set up by the local corrupt police while spending tourism dollars in Mexico.

      And you think we should care it "sounds" to decide whether or not we should let - Yes, "let" - Mexico continue on its present course?


      Fuck 'em. I totally oppose the war on (some) drugs, but Mexico has all but declared war on us by deliberately feeding the worst aspects of it.

    28. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up.":

      During the Taliban rule, Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,500 metric tons in 1999. However, in July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.

      -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29

      Of course in October 2001 the US and allied forces invaded Afghanistan.

      Despite the [2009] decrease, Afghanistan is still the world's leading producer of opium. (...) In 2009, Afghanistan cultivated 123,000 hectares of opium compared to 157,000 hectares in 2008 (...) In 2009, 6,900 tons of opium were produced compared to 7,700 tons in 2008.

      -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/02/us-afghanistan-drugs-factbox-sb-idUSTRE58144M20090902

      Except, under the Taliban, if you got caught growing opium during the ban, they would kill you. Now, at worst you get a prison sentence. At best, they burn your opium crop and give you money and help to switch to cultivating something other than opium. The risk/reward ratio is much higher now than when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

      lol don't you mean risk/reward ratio is much lower or the reward/risk ratio is much higher now

      ^^^idiot trying to sound all educated and shit

    29. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the US has shown it's willingness to step in to other countries that he used the word let. US 'lets' it go on because they have the power to act and they aren't. Yeah, Mexico is a sovereign state and yes the US Government probably has a sordid past of giving guns to cartels (I guess, I have no idea) but that doesn't mean the US government can't do something to help Mexico, and that Mexico could probably use that help.

      So yes. The US 'lets' this go on. They can send military forces there to help police and work with the Mexican government to stamp out corruption. That is a thing that can happen.

    30. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there isn't anything our military can do.

      We can't invade to stop them as cartel members because Calderon doesn't want us in his country, less it make him look weak (even though he is.)

      And we can't call them terrorists and invade under the GWOT flag because calling them terrorists (even though they are) legally makes any illicit drug user a supporter of terrorism, we would have to jail every pothead, gang member, and junkie in the country; and that's just not feasible.

      The only thing we could really do is either A: have congress pass immunity to american drug users, then call them terrorists; or B: pass a 90 day "trial period" of legalized drugs in the US, making purchasing them legal, then kill them.

      Or we could just do as more than half of the citizens of this country support and legalize pot... That would immediately shut down the cartels. Profits from marijuana pay for all the other aspects of their illegal trades be it guns, drugs, or human trafficking. It wasn't long ago that the head of one of the cartels released an open letter to the US government saying that exact thing. "Thanks for the war on drugs, it's made me rich..."

    31. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: [citation needed]

      B: Your math skills suck.

    32. Re:Drug Cartels by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Being "soft on drugs" is political suicide. The blame is shared by the way the media does largely superficial and partisan reporting and the voters who seem to think on that level.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... Only because the US has never wanted them once we take over. There are bad feelings historically between the countries for a reason. We have fought quite a bit and taken them over before. Invading and going after people whether it involved their government (corrupt or not) has never been an issue for the US before.

    34. Re:Drug Cartels by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Pretty much, the Mexican government would have to grant permission for the US to send forces down there. Not politically popular, despite the violence. The US has been providing surveillance. As long as the NRA is fighting to defend the rights of people to buy firearms with little or no documentation it's going to be hard to prevent or slow the flow of weapons to Mexico which would have a significant impact on the cartels.

      Same goes for all the drug users that insist that it's a personal decision, despite them funding the cartels.

    35. Re:Drug Cartels by darkonc · · Score: 1
      (former) poppy trafficers were among the warlords who (happily) signed on to help the US oust the Taliban. Once the Taliban were out, they were free to return to they opium-making ways, and the US-backed government (which included many opium traffickers was pretty much bound to turn a blind eye.\

      Then, of course, there's the fact that we need to keep the war on drugs going domesically. If that war stops, then a lot of the excuses for infringing our rights dissapear in a puff of logi

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    36. Re:Drug Cartels by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was the second last time. The US sent a small contingent into Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa in 1916 or 1917.

    37. Re:Drug Cartels by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Mexicans are too proud to submit to Yanquis. They are too divided to man up and liquidate the cartels. That will never be different.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    38. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded "Insightful"? I think moderators misclicked. They meant "Retarded"

    39. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have an interesting definition of "let the Cartels get away with it". A more accurate definition might be "actively aid and abet these activities via material support and large quantities of funding".

      A truly ridiculous aspect of the drug traffic issue is that the United States hasn't managed to control the infiltration of people across the border; the illegal immigrant problem has apparently reached epic proportions! Can the US actually expect to be able to control the movements of much smaller packages that drugs and money can be smuggled back and forth in?

      As for your "less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place" plan, I agree wholeheartedly. Legalizing marijuana would be a phenomenal step in social management, as well as reducing the financial support we give to entities we can nearly all agree should not be profiting from us. I don't think it will "drop the value of all those illegal [drug] runs to zero", since we have pharmaceuticals crossing both the Mexican and the Canadian borders on a daily basis - apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.

      Marijuana has been clinically proven to be less physically damaging than either tobacco or alcohol (both of which are legal, albeit age-restricted), even with long-term usage. It keeps the (consuming) population docile, and it's incredibly cheap. Taxing it sounds like a great idea, but even just decriminalizing it would hit the drug cartels harder than sending 100,000 troops down to shoot at them, and it would hurt them where it matters: in the wallet. Why import it from Mexico, when it's so much less expensive to get it (literally, even) from your own back yard?

      Marijuana grows in just about any conditions, that's part of the reason for the nickname "weed". Outlawing it is akin to outlawing carbon dioxide; how do you stop it? It has taken decades of strenuous effort to get rid of most of the "naturally occurring" cannabis growing alongside our nation's highways, never mind in a planter on someone's back porch. Criminalizing marijuana has simply given the cartels a (in effect, government-granted) monopoly on its production and distribution.

      Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place, because it was an economic threat - it's cheaper to make paper from marijuana than from trees. An acre of cannabis produces more paper than an acre of trees, because you can harvest every month instead of every few years. An acre of cannabis also produces more oxygen per year than an acre of trees - and it grows faster than the trees, with much less maintenance required, making it a much more renewable resource with a smaller carbon footprint. Add in the fact that you can grow hemp in a field with other plants, whereas trees pretty much exclude anything except grass, and the hemp seems (from an objective view) to become much more economically viable and environmentally friendly than many other products.

      Hemp fiber is extremely versatile, and can be used to make all kinds of things that are currently made from less renewable resources - paper, clothing, rope, and even plastics and bio-fuels have been made from hemp. For example, replacing cotton with hemp would increase production by several orders of magnitude - cotton requires an entire growing season to become usable, whereas hemp is mature and ready for harvest in a much shorter time, allowing multiple "growing seasons" in the same amount of time; in addition, the cotton is confined to boles, whereas nearly the entire hemp plant is useful for its fibers.

      As for its use in "self-medicating", it is interesting to note that "industrial" hemp has so little THC in it that it's barely measurable - you could smoke an e

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    40. Re:Drug Cartels by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      40,000 Mexicans are slain and many folks like myself refuse to visit it now costing jobs, which in return encourages unemployed Mexicans to take bribes or work for the cartel to feed their family. Wouldn't they want our help?

      True many have misgivings with history but if the Mexican government needs help I think 50,000 marines could come in and solve the problem and work with their existing military to solve the problem. ... last it is in America's interest. What if these cartel members do a Columbian style rebel movement and take over the government who is weaker than they are? What if the lords start the killings in Texas and California too and bring the war to us?

      We need to take them out as they pose a much greater risk than Iraq and would benefit the Mexican people. I do agree not to invade and respect the country's sovereignity but if I were Obama I would be in talks with the goverment about a partnership to remove them and cooperate peacefully. Both nations would benefit and the risk of a Zeta takoever is real with 40,000 members who are armed. Probably more of them than the whole rebel Libyan Army.

    41. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same goes for all the drug users that insist that it's a personal decision, despite them funding the cartels.

      How about a government decision to legalize it?

      The cartels are kept alive by the policies of the US government.

    42. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military could easily take over Mexico. Then we could enslave the population and force them to work for free. We could then set up a kill-zone around the mexico-usa border where anyone caught sneaking in is instantly destroyed. It would boost our economy and cut out the majority of all drugs entering the US.

    43. Re:Drug Cartels by cosm · · Score: 1

      Well thought out, thank you for the reply.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    44. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 1

      What an odd mix of exaggerations and outright falsehoods.

      The U.S. has never treated any country south of its borders as sovereign. Look, up the Monroe doctrine, if unfamiliar. Also, look at who trained _every_ bloody dictator in Latin America, all the death squads, and who was behind every right-wing coop in Latin America-- always "El Norte" aka U.S.A.

      First of all, you might want to look up the Monroe doctrine yourself. It wasn't about interfering with states in central and south America. It was about preventing European powers from creating or expanding colonies in those regions. It was also almost 190 years ago.

      Secondly, you grossly exaggerate US involvement in those governments. Yes, we certainly did topple a few governments to advance our interests. But to say every dictator in Latin America was trained by the US is laughably ahistorical.

      Zetas are a paramilitary force trained and equipped by the U.S. and Israel-- really.

      This is wrong. To start with they were not a "paramilitary" force at all. Some of the original members of Los Zetas were former members of Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales, which is a uniformed Mexican military unit. A handful of those original members received counter-insurgency training at Ft. Benning as members of the Mexican military, but not all of them, and GAFE was never equipped by the US or Israel. In fact, I would like to see you substantiate any connection between GAFE and Israel whatsoever.

      No one thought, as they were equipping the force like a military, and providing the best instruction in warfare and torture techniques, "what could possibly go wrong." Now these folks just mass kill folks for fun (U.S and Israeli training apparently really took-- they act just like them) like the couple hundred migrants that were recently ruthlessly and horrendously murdered by Zetas.

      What a bunch of twisted bullshit. GAFE is equipped "like a military" because it's part of the Mexican army - you could at least get the most basic facts down before you presume to lecture other people. Furthermore, soldiers are not trained to "kill folks for fun". In fact quite the opposite: they are trained to kill only when ordered to kill. It's frankly ridiculous to blame the US for Los Zetas using this kind of triple bank shot, unless your argument is drug users in the US provided the money to tempt the deserters.

    45. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. Otherwise I believe we would be working with their government in a different way.

      Really? How?

    46. Re:Drug Cartels by JustAClam · · Score: 1

      Don't you think this is a just *slightly* distorted historical account? Sure the Taliban might have eliminated opium poppy cultivation. But Knuckles, the also were putting any male WITHOUT A BEARD IN JAIL until his beard grew out. And other minor things like eliminating school for females and beating any woman not wearing a BURKA. You should try wearing a burka for a day, Knuckles...preferably in Arizona in July...like Kandahar in July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar#Climate)

      Suggesting that the Taliban were a good government for Afghanistan is little like any one of the following. You pick:

      • Mussolini brought civilization to Ethiopia (using mustard gas even....)
      • Hitler prevented people from being taken advantage of by Jewish business people...(A tour of Auschwitz might be in order)
      • Stalin made everyone equal....(Look up the word Kulak....)
    47. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. They can legalize drug production and export tomorrow morning if they want. Voila, new landscape. Of course, they haven't been able to create a police force that wasn't corrupt no matter what was going on. Kind of like Italy. I don't know how that's our fault.

    48. Re:Drug Cartels by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The Mexican government turns over records of all guns that follow US serial number convention(which not only the US uses) weapons collected by police. Of the total number of weapons collected, 20% hve US convention serial numbers. 70%(originally 90% but when dupe numbers[caused either by crap record keeping or corrupt cops letting guns back out onto the streets] are removed from the totals it drops to 70) of those weapons are US serial numbers. Greater than half of those are weapons either sold directly by the US government to the Mexican government or by US government approved private sources. And yes, I realized my 2% mistake after I posted, but was too lazy to write a correction post.

    49. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 1

      True many have misgivings with history but if the Mexican government needs help I think 50,000 marines could come in and solve the problem and work with their existing military to solve the problem.

      By which you imply two things, neither of which is true.

      1. The Mexican government wants US marines on Mexican soil. This is really what gets to the heart of the sovereignty point. Even if the US marines can solve the problem, and even if we're willing to provide them, it isn't our call. US forces on Mexican soil need to have the express permission of the Mexican government unless Congress has authorized hostilities against Mexico. I realize Pershing went chasing after Pancho Villa, but that was a long time ago and "we did it before without asking" isn't a very powerful argument.

      2. The Mexican military isn't powerful enough to take on the cartels in battle. This is certainly not true. As always with criminal organizations the problem isn't that they fight well, the problem is they don't wear uniforms and they won't come out to fight. 50,000 US marines wouldn't solve the problem for the same reason the 45,000 deployed Mexican soldiers can't solve the problem: the cartels aren't armies, they don't hold territory, and they don't have political goals that don't relate to the drug trade. They just want to conduct business.

    50. Re:Drug Cartels by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      The mantras of those in power are:

      Do noting.
      Stay the course.

      Passive aggression comes in many forms. We're witnessing one of them now.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    51. Re:Drug Cartels by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything? We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      The US government sold the cartels thousands of guns, which have been used to kill hundreds of people including police officers and politicians. I'm sure the Mexicans would be just as happy not to have much more "help" from the US.

      Isn't that exactly what we are doing in the middle east?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    52. Re:Drug Cartels by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Well said. This is why I believe that the drug war is a proxy war for big pharma.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    53. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Well said. This is why I believe that the drug war is a proxy war for big pharma.

      Luckily, several states have moved to decriminalize it. More information is available with this Legal history of cannabis in the United States and this list of Places that have decriminalized cannabis in the United States

      It's still a federal crime to possess it, but there's a growing claim of "state's rights" that is challenging the constitutionality of that law.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    54. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 1

      No, not really. Mostly we went into Iraq an A-stan to break things. We're not actually mad at the Mexicans.

    55. Re:Drug Cartels by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      "Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. "

      A prosperous Mexico = no more illegal aliens willing to risk their lives to go North = no more resources drained by illegal aliens = financially beneficial to the United States.

    56. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Unless we have on the order of 100-150,000 troops, agents, or personnel tasked JUST to combat the cartels, it's a joke.

      What would make much more sense is to pinpoint the location of the leadership cadre, and take them out with "precision" strikes - something small enough to only destroy, say, 3 city blocks. For each and every leadership-capable enemy combatant. Oh, and don't forget to napalm and agent orange the fields, destroying all the product. Poof, no more cartel - and if the new tenants decide to fire up a similar production, they're going to be a bit unhappy with the crops' growth rates.

      What do you mean, we can't do that? We've done all that and more in the Persian Gulf, with more precision and less "collateral damage" - in this case, the excessive force would even be intentional, to inform the local populace that there's somebody bigger and badder than the cartels, with less interest in keeping a local labor force alive.

      This also has the benefit of only needing a few hundred personnel, rather than the tens of thousands you specify.

      If/When the Mexican government complains, tell them "You're welcome."

      --
      "No, I'm not a very nice person. What of it?"

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    57. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Safer provinces in Afghanistan" where? And for who? Cause as it stands people can still take a vacation to Mexico and not have to worry about suicide bombers and IED's. Unless you have been there don't try to say that one place is safer/better than another, because frankly you don't know. I have some friends who just got back from a trip to Mexico. I also have some friends who got back from Afghanistan. Except these friends didn't come back in fancy clothes with smiles on their face. They came back in body bags.

    58. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq is a sovereign nation. Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Iraq do anything? We've already flooded northern Iraq with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      The US government sold the Guard thousands of guns, which have been used to kill hundreds of people including police officers and civilians. I'm sure the Iraqis would be just as happy not to have much more "help" from the US.

      FTFY?

    59. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself, pothead.

    60. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Side note: There is an entire domain directed at the difference between affect and effect; please educate yourself.

      To respond to your comment: biological agents are extremely problematic. Aside from the obvious issues involved with targeting an herbicide (biological or other) at a specific plant, there are numerous environmental disasters that were caused explicitly by introducing a new species into an area as a biological control method. The National Invasive Species Information Center has information on a large number of critters imported to areas as a control for other pests which then took over and dramatically altered the biodiversity of the area. For a specific example, try a Google search for the Cane Toad, or look to the Wikipedia article for an idea of how quickly and badly things can go wrong. For example, the following excerpt from that article:

      Around 150 cane toads were introduced to Oahu in Hawaii in 1932, and the population swelled to 105,517 after 17 months.

      You see, the cane toad had plenty of food and no natural predators in its new environment, so in less than a year and a half it rapidly took over the entire region, expanding its population literally a thousandfold. This was an unexpected "side effect" of attempting to control a beetle infestation in the crops by importing the toads. Another unanticipated issue was the toads' defense mechanism:

      The adult cane toad has enlarged parotoid glands behind the eyes, and other glands across their back. When the toads are threatened, their glands secrete a milky-white fluid known as bufotoxin. Components of bufotoxin are toxic to many animals; there have even been human deaths due to the consumption of cane toads.
      Bufotenin, one of the chemicals excreted by the cane toad, is classified as a Class 1 drug under Australian law, alongside heroin and cannabis. It is thought that the effects of bufotenin are similar to that of mild poisoning; the stimulation, which includes mild hallucinations, lasts for less than an hour. As the cane toad excretes bufotenin in small amounts, and other toxins in relatively large quantities, toad licking could result in serious illness or death.

      In other words, the damn things are extremely poisonous. The fact that one of the toxins they excrete induces hallucinations actually made the problem worse, as people would seek them out for a cheap thrill, and then end up in the hospital (or even the morgue) because they licked a toad to get high. Making the toxin a controlled substance didn't really help, and may have actually made the issue worse due to the Streisand Effect ("That's weird... why would they make it illegal to lick a toad? Oh, hey...")

      In short, "biological agents" are generally considered to be a Bad Thing (tm).

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    61. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though I agree with your sentiment regarding the inherent condescension of "let", my reading of "let Mexico turn into New Afghanistan" was more to the effect that while we've been sacrificing our own sons and brothers in far off lands under questionable-at-best pretenses, a country with whom we share almost 2000 miles of borderland has deteriorated from 'kinda bad' to 'downright 3rd world'. At least in the border towns controlled by the cartels. I hear from Mexican natives that further south it's not so much of a problem. But not *too* far south, because then you get into the territory of the South American cartels. All because of *our* (assuming from your syntax that you are also American) demand for drugs. Not that our selling cartels (the ones we're friendly with, today at least) assault weapons was helping things in the least.

      It's not a problem that can be solved militarily, or even via police. It's an economic problem plain and simple. There exists such a great profit margin in trafficking drugs to the US that even airplanes are considered disposable in pursuit of profit. The markup is that good. We can't win this battle with a greater show of force, because every time we confiscate a drug shipment, or arrest a dealer, the street price simply rises, and the cartels continue unabated. And experience suggests that Americans' demand won't diminish any time soon. Sure, some low-level proles get sent to prison now and again, but thanks to the drug war, that's the criminal's equivalent of university. Anyone who's anyone in that world has done a stint at some point or another. It's nothing more than a networking opportunity (how many of us have gone to an industry trade group event that had *terrible* food? Prison is like that, just you can't leave for a while, and you might get stabbed) to the hardened criminal.

      Our only hope is to fight the cartels economically. Legalize drugs. *All* drugs, immediately. Pass a moderate tariff on anything labelled an 'intoxicant' (and be prepared to fight the alcohol and tobacco lobbies) and use even just a fraction of the money to pay for medical treatment for addicts, who would finally be treated as having a medical problem, rather than a criminal one. Slowly but surely, the cartels would whither away, even faster if you legalized -- and thus opened to regulation -- prostitution, thus undercutting another cartel revenue stream. The only downside is that the CIA would throw a fit at having its black ops budget destroyed overnight, but I think I'm okay with that.

      The real question is, in the country that has spawned the most aggressive of multinational corporations, how have they all overlooked this potential revenue stream? They seem to be able to lobby effectively for themselves in virtually all other aspects of their business; don't tell me that the mentality that spawned Union Carbide, Monsanto, or Altria has suddenly grown a social conscience? I'm no friend of corporations, but I'd love nothing more than to see Marlboro brand cannabis compete with locally-sourced, organic strains for marketshare. And for a person with a drug problem to be offered a chance at rehabilitation, rather than imprisonment and a recidivism rate no better than random chance.

      But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

    62. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Go fuck yourself, pothead.

      Wow, what an eloquent and insightful response. Unfortunately, your conclusion is completely wrong. I haven't smoked marijuana in many years, although I will freely admit to having done so in my youth. Experimentation is key, you see, to understanding whether one likes something. Despite my appreciation for "the herb", I found the cost/benefit analysis to come up lacking in my particular circumstances. Going to jail is a rather serious detrimental (albeit only potential, not necessarily actual) side effect, and balanced against the career decisions I was making at the time, I didn't wish to risk it.

      The psychological effects of marijuana use and/or abuse have been thoroughly documented, and the research has pretty much completely destroyed any credibility that government-sponsored propaganda such as Reefer Madness may have once had. As my above essay states, the physical effects are less damaging than other substances that are currently controlled, but only by age discrimination.*

      It would appear to have helped me become a "mellower" and less aggressively ignorant individual, perhaps by expanding my tolerance zone. It also doesn't appear to have seriously impacted my ability to impart information in a clear and meaningful way, or caused me to become exceedingly asinine in my dealings with others... perhaps you should try some?

      * Footnote: As a matter of fact, I think it's ridiculous that the drinking age is higher than the age at which you can be required to fight (and consequently die) for your political leaders' views. Either a person is an adult, or they are not, and it seems to me that at the point where you can be required to give your life for your country, any other age discrimination should cease. My preferred method would be to set the age of adulthood (and thus drinking, smoking, and the draft) to 25 years; children tend to stay home longer now than they used to be, thanks to college and other factors. Of course, we could always go the other direction and assume personal responsibility as penultimate, and eliminate age discrimination entirely.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    63. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama has been illegally supplying guns to the Cartels, in exchange for drugs, so as to...

      LOL!!! Yep, we get all sorts here on /. Although the post does have a lot of that freeper flavor.

    64. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico is a sovereign nation.

      On paper.

      Did you stop to think how condescending it sounds to say we "let" Mexico do anything?

      Do you stop to think how utterly detached from reality it sounds when you pretend this is not the case?

      What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      Well, we could start by closing the border. We could also legalize pot and cocaine and eliminate most of their funds.
      And yes, we could send in our military if we really wanted to. Who to fight? Well, most of the police, army, and politicians have been in the pocket of the cartels for some time, we could start with them. Besides, there is a difference between attacking a country and occupying a country, in this case it would end up being more of an occupation.

      The US government sold the cartels thousands of guns

      No we have not. We sell guns to the military and police, who then sell them to the cartels. There IS a difference.

    65. Re:Drug Cartels by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I haven't said one word about the Taliban being "good". Of course not. I am not even in favor of prohibition, by Taliban or otherwise, and I think the "war on drugs" is a war the US state leads against its own citizens, which has given "justification" for many unconstitutional practices, and that the US state wants drug production and trafficking to happen in order to be able to lead this "war".

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    66. Re:Drug Cartels by amorsen · · Score: 1

      A prosperous Mexico = no more illegal aliens willing to risk their lives to go North = no more resources drained by illegal aliens = financially beneficial to the United States.

      I find it highly unlikely that illegal aliens coming from Mexico consume more than they produce in the United States.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    67. Re:Drug Cartels by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      "Stability in Mexico apparently is not financially beneficial to the United States. "

      A prosperous Mexico = no more illegal aliens willing to risk their lives to go North = no more resources drained by illegal aliens = financially beneficial to the United States.

      Uh, you went off the tracks here: "no more resources drained by illegal aliens". Aliens do more work for less money, therefore are beneficial to the parts of the US that count. (Hint: you don't count).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    68. Re:Drug Cartels by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Mexico is borderline failed state by now. Sovereignty is a nice concept and all, but national security has always trumped and will always trump sovereignty of another state, for obvious reasons. And, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya, the situation in Mexico is a very real, direct and serious national security threat for U.S.

      Ah, that explains the US occupation of Mexico.

      Oh, there is no US occupation of Mexico?

      So maybe your understanding of the problem is not generally accepted by the people in charge of national security?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    69. Re:Drug Cartels by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      That is one area where I heartily agree with the states rights movement. I think it's only a matter of time before states realize that federal jurisdiction is not a requirement, it's invited by each state:

      http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    70. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the countries in the middle east are sovereign too. and we "let" iraq get away with a lot of shit before we turned on them. the army will fight the same type of ppl the army fought in afghanistan after 9/11.

      the point stands that mexico isn't really a concern to us. the situation there doesn't hurt us. when it is, we'll take care of it.

    71. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.

      I agree with essentially all of the rest of your comment, but I believe you're mistaken about the pharma-tourism to Canada. I believe it's not some off-brand generics, but actually the exact same products, made in the same factories, sold under the same brands and names people buy in Canada, just cheaper.

    72. Re:Drug Cartels by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Mexico is a sovereign nation. They can legalize drug production and export tomorrow morning if they want. Voila, new landscape.

      With craters where their politicians used to be.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    73. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil.

      Mexico who? If drug cartels have taken over there, then sure, of course the drug cartels would be offended by any intervention. Or does Mexico still have non-corrupted government, speaking for the people and not for the cartels?

      Who exactly would get offended?

    74. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @tsotha, do you read the news? Mexico is a sovereign nation that has ASKED REPEATEDLY for our help in combating its drug crime, most of which is due to the vast demand here in the US for drugs. We have repeatedly provided little or no help, and less money goes to drug education, rehabilitation, and prevention than ever before. It's in everyone's best interest to help our neighbor take care of this asap.

    75. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, from where I sit those government agencies only send those people over to protect the cartels and their transporters from the Border Patrol and any other law enforcement. It's all about funneling money and drugs. Money to the politicians, drugs to the users.

    76. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be an event that causes us to blow the shit out of mexico. It is just a matter of when. That drug cartel assasination in Washington DC of a foreign diplomat would have been a nice stepping stone. First step, tell Mexico's gov't that enough is enough. They will do nothing. Then we destroy the cartels with our army.

      Simple.

    77. Re:Drug Cartels by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place

      When she wasn't out robbing banks, of course.

    78. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies. What's your plan? Shall we send in the army, too? Who will we fight?

      The US State Department would be a good first target, since they're using Alliance Airport in Ft. Worth to bring in drugs under diplomatic seal.

    79. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Should create 20 mile wide war zone, stationing an evolving number of troops to the south of our border and if there is ANY movement there then everyone should know they could be fired upon because they are in the war zone. Because the illegal movement of mexican nationals has been well-known for decades across US borders, the Mexican government will have to shut up and get out of the way.

    80. Re:Drug Cartels by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Mexico is a sovereign nation.

      On paper.

      No, not just on paper. The cartels are not an existential threat to the Mexican government, and there's no part of Mexico the government doesn't control. But for some reason people think it makes them look sophisticated to say this. It doesn't. It just makes you look wrong.

      Well, we could start by closing the border. We could also legalize pot and cocaine and eliminate most of their funds.

      Well, on this point we agree. On the other hand, the political situation in the US is such that neither of these things are even being discussed seriously.

      And yes, we could send in our military if we really wanted to. Who to fight? Well, most of the police, army, and politicians have been in the pocket of the cartels for some time, we could start with them. Besides, there is a difference between attacking a country and occupying a country, in this case it would end up being more of an occupation.

      We're going to occupy all of Mexico, kill hundreds of thousands of people, make enemies of our neighbors for generations, and all to save them from a few thousand criminals? Really? I can't imagine why you aren't Secretary of State!

      No we have not. We sell guns to the military and police, who then sell them to the cartels. There IS a difference.

      This is wrong. You can google "Operation Fast & Furious" yourself. The US BATF deliberately sold thousands of guns to cartel buyers, and nobody will own up to the reason. It appears as if the idea was to trace all these guns back to the US and then use the body count as a way to build pressure for gun control domestically. You can imagine how the Mexicans would feel about that.

    81. Re:Drug Cartels by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      Fuck you.

      We have a stupid drunken moron for President because our oligarchs and the USA imposed him. This is documented. We held mass demonstrations far bigger than the ones in the Arab spring against him but you never saw us in CNN. Calderón, to hide his weakness, started his government with a show - I use show in the sense of spectacle- of force against the drug cartels in his birth state, Michoacán, but instead of running away the cartels held their ground. The conservative policies that protected the oligarchs and made the large corps pay ridiculously low amounts of income taxes and get large tax breaks to them ruined small family business, NAFTA ruined small farmers and the USA's collapse in 2008 stopped the flow of mexican immigrants money that kept the small towns economy working. Without the relief valve of immigration to USA, the unemployed youth turned to the illegal economy to earn a living.

      We need a mexican government working for mexicans, not for the USA's and oligarchs sake, that is what we had in the last 30 years, but your politicians and our oligarchs are so dumb that they can't see the dire need for this change.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    82. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the best pitch i have ever read for 'weed' clearly you have done this several times before..lol

    83. Re:Drug Cartels by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Can I just say that I think it is fucking ridiculous that we send troops all over the world, even just lately to Uganda, but yet we let fucking Mexico turn into New Afghanistan before our eyes

      It's not ridiculous if you assume that the US government intends to collapse Mexico and annex it in the near future.

      Watch out, Canada.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    84. Re:Drug Cartels by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So maybe your understanding of the problem is not generally accepted by the people in charge of national security?

      Probably. But, given the sheer number of epic fails those same people have perpetrated over the last decade, I don't think that's a ringing endorsement.

    85. Re:Drug Cartels by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I recognize an attempt at cynicism; but the answer is really "both".

      The relevant faces of the Nation-State of Mexico, however corrupt some of their departments are, would definitely take issue with American troops. They are quite clear on that point, which is one of the reasons that we do not use the same level of overt force in Mexico that we do in other parts of Latin America.

      The drug cartels are a slightly more complex matter: they have an overwhelming interest in moving product and making money, and are willing to do pretty much anything that advances those goals. Sometimes that leads to conflict with US forces(the occasional border patrol guy, suspected DEA narcs, Americans caught up in gang violence, and so on); but, on the whole, it isn't good business to pick fights that you don't need to. At present, the vast bulk of the direct violence and more subtle corruption and subversion are being borne by the Mexican people and state; because they are the ones who are in the way. If we were to march in, we would be the ones in the way, and it would be expected that the cartels would start fighting and/or corrupting us as efficiently as possible. Given how unpleasant a time Mexico is having in dealing with the problem, we'd be pretty stupid to voluntarily walk in and take that on for ourselves...

    86. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best reason for the state to keep weed illegal is that it would cut deep into the alcohol and tobacco markets, which directly means it will cut into the taxes collected from them. These two are already insanely taxed and the state gets a big chunk out of them. Same with the gas you put in your car: if you replace it, all the taxes coming from it would be gone. They'd have to introduce excessive taxation on weed, hydrogen, bio-diesel, etc. to compensate.

    87. Re:Drug Cartels by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      A very well thought out comment. Have you done any research on Heroin?

      "We cannot find any medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or the mind of its users, Nor can we find any trace of our government or the American government or any other ever presenting or referring to any credible version of any such research. On the contrary, all of the available research agrees that, so far as harm is concerned, heroin is likely to cause some nausea and possibly severe constipation and that is all.

      The above quote was from a 60 minute type show in the UK. Sorry I am not sure which one. There have been studies that have claimed that Heroin is the least harmful ORGANICALLY than all of the other illegal drugs. The problem with Heroin is the lifestyle which is due to the cost of the drug. There are many high functioning addicts in the world including one of the USA's most famous doctors.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    88. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    89. Re:Drug Cartels by pla · · Score: 1

      We have a stupid drunken moron for President because our oligarchs and the USA imposed him.

      Make no mistake, the people of Mexico have my sympathy in the present situation. But no one but them can do anything about those problems both you and I described - The corrupt politicians (on both side of the Rio) have no interest in changing things, the cartels have no interest in changing things, so the burden rests on the one group that needs things to change.


      The conservative policies that protected the oligarchs and made the large corps pay ridiculously low amounts of income taxes and get large tax breaks to them ruined small family business, NAFTA ruined small farmers

      Now, that I have to admit I did not realize. So basically we all hate NAFTA, except the huge industrial players who use the locals as little more than slaves. Interesting...

    90. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are disconnected from reality. Did you bother to look at CBS for source material? Or are you saying that CBS is nut job crazy too? In this exchange between the two of us, only one of us is wearing tin foil and its not me. Sad thing is, delusion and stupidity such as yours is typical of the American people. The government is now able to get away with such insanely crazy things simply because so many people are as stupid and as disconnected as you.

    91. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already flooded northern Mexico with people from various US government agencies.

      Excuse me; who has been flooding whom with what? I don't think our people in Mexico can be called the flood here pal.

    92. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are votes guaranteed by the War on Drugs? You are making it sound as if it were all called off tomorrow, no one would vote!

      Precisely whose vote is it to lose if both parties support the War on Drugs?

    93. Re:Drug Cartels by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      I'm really sorry for my previous rudeness, having the problems so close, it gets on my nerves. We want to change things, but is hard when the US supplies weapons to both sides and insist in keeping our oligarchs in place. Or best shots at democracy in 1988, 2000 and 2006 ended in failure, in 1988 and 2006 because the election had been stolen; in 2000 because the new president and his party instead of acting with responsibility strengthening the fragile mexican democracy they used their new position in power to enrich themselves. The previous regime was corrupt, but the mexican conservatives resulted corrupt and stupid beyond belief.

      The best help that the USA can offer now is to let us be and let us choose freely our rulers, even if they are not 100% US friendly. A truly democratic Mexico would be a boom for US business and citizens, all our troubles come from the lack of democracy and accountability, I would love to see Mexico and the end of my life like South Korea is now, is in our best interest too to be a good, reliable ally of USA, not a backyard.

      Best Regards

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    94. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem with Heroin (as I understand it) is that it's insanely addictive and eventually kills its users due to an overdose caused by its massive tolerance curve. It also has severe withdrawal symptoms, which can include death.

      As for your claim that 60 Minutes said heroin was ok... you're gonna need a citation on that. Especially since a single google search gave me over a million hits for "heroin addiction withdrawal", the first of which is this study by the National Institute on Drug Addiction - admittedly not an unbiased source. However, the Wiki article on heroin seems to agree with those facts.

      My main issue with heroin is not what it does to the user, though. It's what the users due in order to achieve their next score. Users of exceedingly addictive drugs will do anything to get "just one more hit". Knock over a liquor store, prostitute themselves, pawn anything and everything they can, even kill people.

      Sorry, heroin stays on the list with cocaine and PCP, in my book - it's not safe.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    95. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right, it was her father. Thanks for catching my mistake.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    96. Re:Drug Cartels by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem with Heroin (as I understand it) is that it's insanely addictive and eventually kills its users due to an overdose caused by its massive tolerance curve. It also has severe withdrawal symptoms, which can include death.

      The symptoms of heroin withdrawal are analogous to that of a bad flu. So if you (like most people) can survive a bad flu, you can survive that. Pain is temporary.

      Alcohol withdrawal, however, can be much much worse. And it is legal.

      I'm not saying heroin is harmless*, but it's nowhere as bad as you make it out to be. Many people in the past have used heroin on a usual basis without it killing them. Nat King Cole springs to mind.

      * I wouldn't suggest its use to anyone. In an interview John Lydon described it is as the one drug that nullifies all creativity.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    97. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I just say that I think it is fucking ridiculous that we send troops all over the world, even just lately to Uganda, but yet we let fucking Mexico turn into New Afghanistan before our eyes. Oh wait. I know. Keep the drug flow up, keep the police state up. More drugs more problems more need for daddy DoD to swell and swell and enforce and strip rights way.

      Nevermind Mexico. As you were. We'll come knocking when you actually threaten our financial interest. Until then, keep up the good show. We won't bother.

      You don't "let" Mexico do anything, nor should you "let" or "stop" Afghanistan from doing anything. How many Americans are left that know the definition of "sovereign"?

    98. Re:Drug Cartels by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't credit John Lydon with very much creativity even without drugs.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    99. Re:Drug Cartels by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I am sorry I cannot find the quote and as I think I said (error on page cannot expand previous comment so going by memory) it might have been sixty minutes. Anyway, here's some food for thought. I hope you read them they are of interest. The surprising truth about heroin and addiction., Heroin is harmless, and if you only read one of these links please read the last, Chapter 5. Some eminent narcotics addicts

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    100. Re:Drug Cartels by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      sorry to double reply (I believe it's a sin) Here's one of interest too http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu4.html

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    101. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      The symptoms of heroin withdrawal are analogous to that of a bad flu.

      According to the CDC, seasonal flu kills somewhere between 3,000 and 49,000 people each year. I wouldn't call that an unremarkable number, even if the truth is on the low end of that estimate.

      Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I would like to reiterate that my argument against heroin is less about the effects on the user than about the effect the user has on society-at-large when they run out of money to support their habit. Robbing, killing, and other violent and antisocial tendencies work against this particular drug's fight for legality.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    102. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      Heroin users are dangerous. They become violent when deprived of their chosen substance, and have no inhibitions against robbing and killing people to acquire funds to procure more of the drug.

      The withdrawal symptoms are the majority of the reason for this. Show me a version of heroin that doesn't have life-threatening withdrawal symptoms (whether to the user or to those around him/her), and I will reconsider my position.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    103. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ?!?! Who else has a better position to end the war on drugs?

    104. Re:Drug Cartels by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      ...I would like to reiterate that my argument against heroin is less about the effects on the user than about the effect the user has on society-at-large when they run out of money to support their habit. Robbing, killing, and other violent and antisocial tendencies work against this particular drug's fight for legality.

      It's hard to be very violent when your drug of choice is something that makes you feel very mellow and then go to sleep. But even the violence you're imagining this causing is a piddly little nothing when compared to the violence caused by the War on Drugs.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    105. Re:Drug Cartels by znerk · · Score: 1

      I agree wholeheartedly about the War on Drugs being violent and ill-advised, but I think you missed my point about heroin.

      The drug itself may cause the user to feel very mellow, but the withdrawal is mentally, emotionally, and physically painful. The user who is looking for a fix has very few qualms about being violent, as a quick Google search can show. I'm not imagining this violence, I'm using it to justify my feelings related to this specific drug.

      If you choose to use or abuse heroin, that is your choice - but I don't feel that it would be a good idea to legalize that particular drug. Sorry.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    106. Re:Drug Cartels by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You are actually talking about a very small subset of Heroin users. If you disagree please cite your source for the belief. Please don't assume that I want the world to start to taking Heroin either. What I do know is that the numbers of deaths, crimes, and addicts are always reduced by making cheap clean Heroin available to the addict.
      Knowing several very high functioning addicts (and a few lowlifes too) through previous employment I assure you that the stereotypes are all wrong and nearly all propagandic in nature.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    107. Re:Drug Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more problems, the more liberties they can take away. There is something bigger going on behind the spiritual scenes. Read the Bible. satan is a thief and liar, just like the bad guy in Disney's the "Incredibles"; he causes the problems in order to fix them (through his agent, antichrist) and look like the hero. Jesus Christ is the REAL King.

  7. /b/ takes no prisoners by flanders_down · · Score: 1

    They're behind seven proxies. The Zetas are phucked.

    1. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Surt · · Score: 1

      The Zetas are not constrained by secrecy, they are constrained by a lack of resources and will on the part of the government.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The Zetas are behind fully automatic AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of dollars. I would say Anonymous is fucked.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The Zetas are behind fully automatic AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of dollars. I would say Anonymous is fucked.

      And those AK-47s, armored plating, and millions of bucks is useless against a target you can't even target who threatens to out all your crooked connections, like the identities of the cops and politicians on your payroll.

    4. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason this XKCD comes to mind

      http://xkcd.com/538/

      Some people seem to think because they are 'anonymous' on the internet that they really are anonymous...

      Gangs like the Zetas back up their vendettas with the butt of a gun and reign of bullets...
      Gangs like Anonymous back up their vendettas with putting dirty laundry out for all to see and DOS attacks.

      In many ways Anonymous brought a twig to a machine gun fight.

    5. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      And who knows what Anonymous has is the armoury, if pushed? One evening a load of Predators might go on an independent mission into Mexico. Sounds far-fetched but the US armed forces have admitted to trojans/viruses getting as far as the control stations for these kind of weapons...

    6. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      And who knows what Anonymous has is the armoury, if pushed? One evening a load of Predators might go on an independent mission into Mexico. Sounds far-fetched but the US armed forces have admitted to trojans/viruses getting as far as the control stations for these kind of weapons...

      You mean a keylogger that couldn't even send out the information it captured? Those systems are completely isolated. There is no way that information can get out, and no way that commands could be transmitted in, especially in real time. Only possible way would be a repeat of how it got in in the first place, and you know that vulnerability is closed.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by znerk · · Score: 1

      For some reason this XKCD comes to mind

      http://xkcd.com/538/

      Some people seem to think because they are 'anonymous' on the internet that they really are anonymous...

      Gangs like the Zetas back up their vendettas with the butt of a gun and reign of bullets...
      Gangs like Anonymous back up their vendettas with putting dirty laundry out for all to see and DOS attacks.

      In many ways Anonymous brought a twig to a machine gun fight.

      Actually, it seems to me that this method of "warfare" could be extremely useful in eliminating your enemy without ever actually becoming personally involved. Anonymous doesn't ever need to point a weapon or pull a trigger, they're just showing the cartel's local enemies where to point their guns...

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    8. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people seem to think because they are 'anonymous' on the internet that they really are anonymous..

        Gangs like the Zetas back up their vendettas with the butt of a gun and reign of bullets...
      Gangs like Anonymous back up their vendettas with putting dirty laundry out for all to see and DOS attacks.

      In many ways Anonymous brought a twig to a machine gun fight.

      Lol... that's a very ignorant perspective on the state of nerddom.

      I am very much a computer nerd... but I neither live in a basement nor am I pasty white. In fact, I cast a decently ominous
      shadow, work out with weights daily and have an 11% body fat, (working toward 9%).

      Not only that, I'm practiced in 4 fighting styles, did MMA, [got out before I got cauliflower ear..., that's not for me, lol]
      and I fucking looooove guns.

      When I went thru a divorce recently, my ex, the bitch she is... told the cops about my guns... and that she was "scared".
      [Found out later, this was all ruse from her cocksucking lawyer]. Cops came to get my guns. They claimed I had "an arsenal".
      I'm not familiar with a definition of arsenal that puts a quantity on what qualifies... but I don't feel that 10 guns is extreme for a
      collector, when over half are more than 20 years old, with two @ 60+ years old.

      Maybe they were concerned with the amount of ammunition I had. Of course, 600 rounds in an AK-47 is only 20 magazines.
      And I have two AKs. I can blast a magazine much faster than 30 seconds, that means, 600 rounds = 10 minutes of "fun" at an open
      range. By myself. Bring a friend and that's gone in 5 minutes. Plus I frequently buy in 500 round boxes to save money, with easily
      1000+ rounds per caliber sitting around at a time. Times 6 calibers, So what if I have nearing 10k rounds of ammo laying around?

      I don't call that an arsenal. Just a hobby.

      But here's the thing. Nerds love to immerse themselves in their hobbies. And what nerd doesn't know how to build things
      that go boom, from things you can buy at a store? Are we just assuming that Anon couldn't put up a front against a cartel?
      I feel, given particular circumstances... they wouldn't be as flaccid as you presume them to be.

      God help the mutha fucka that kidnaps one of MY FRIENDS. Especially if they are in a despot of a 3rd world country,
      cause when I kill them, I won't lose my American citizenship.

      Comprende' Puntas?

    9. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have the satellites.

    10. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      10,000 rounds is chump change to plenty of shooters.

    11. Re:/b/ takes no prisoners by znerk · · Score: 1

      WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

      Predator drones use less encryption than your TV, DVDs

      Cybersecurity Issues with Predators, Reapers, and Unmanned Aerial Systems

      Not Just Drones: Militants Can Snoop on Most U.S. Warplanes

      U.S. was Warned of Predator Drone Hacking contains information indicating that the US knew their UAVs had insufficient security as early as 1996.

      On the bright side, the command and control systems are not the same as the video output stream... but I still wouldn't rule out some enterprising hacker deciding to fling a few Predators south of the border and see what happens.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  8. One way to try to get in the US Gov's good books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These Cartels are a big thorn in the side of the US and especially the FDA.
    If Anonymous succeeds here can the US Gov really continue its witch hunt of them?

    Sadly the answer is yes. Anonymous has done far too much 'bad stuff' to get the US Gov to say, 'all is forgiven'.

  9. Ooooh.... snap! by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

    I will BUY TICKETS to that EVENT!

    Wonder if Vegas is taking bets?

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  10. Well, THIS should be entertaining by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by Kindgott · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Zetas will have to worry about the other cartels coming for them and their allies if the names are released.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
    2. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please keep in mind that Anonymous fails far more frequently than it succeeds.

    3. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Oh, believe me, I'm taking that into account here, it's just that in this case "EPIC FAIL" may make work for the local coroner's office.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Zetas will have to worry about the other cartels coming for them and their allies if the names are released.

      Provided the list is accurate ...

      How fun will that be if innocent people are listed there ? Actually how fun will that be if 10, 20, 100 different lists show up on November 5 as an ultimate trolling attempt ?

    5. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by znerk · · Score: 1

      I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.

      Emphasis added to illustrate the whole point of "anonymous".

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    6. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by kheldan · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like to believe it's not true, if you have enough money and/or connections, you can find just about anybody, and I doubt that anyone involved with Anonymous at any level has enough money and/or connections of their own to avoid detection 100%. The law is (ostensibly, at least) limited by law itself (no torturing people to get information out of them, killing as a means of persuading others, etc). The cartels? Not so much. The FBI Party Van would, I think, literally be a party in comparison to what these sorts of animals would do to someone.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coroners and funeral directors gotta eat too, ya know. Why are you anti-business? Why do you hate Amer^H^H^H^H Mexico?

    8. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by znerk · · Score: 1

      I can understand the rational thinking behind this argument for anyone located in the US, or even Canada - those places are easily accessible via ground transport, assuming you know where you're going.

      However, do you think the "long arm of the Mexican Drug Cartel" will reach to Europe? Asia? Australia? "Anonymous" is a fairly large crowd, and not very well connected to each other. I would assume the majority of the damaging information will be put out from some place less accessible to these wanna-be dictators.

      Also, at the point these little gangsters decide to hop a pond, they have a whole new policing agency to deal with - not even counting the one at their destination. To further complicate matters, how well do you think a border crossing in Europe would go, when the dogs go berserk at the smell of cordite in and around the vehicle these Mexican assassins are traveling in? Most jurisdictions outside of the Americas don't react well to bullets, let alone guns.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    9. Re:Well, THIS should be entertaining by Zomalaja · · Score: 1

      Apparently the cartel definition of "hacking" differs from the Anonymous.

  11. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heads will literally roll over this.

    At best, any Anonymous outing would create a vacuum that will be quickly filled.

    Americans want their drugs, pay for their drugs and our own government can't stop it, let alone some third worlders with much less resources.

    Why any government or 3rd party institutions would put themselves between Americans and our drugs is beyond me.

  12. Anonymous is screwed now by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Holder will be sending the cartels even more guns.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Anonymous is screwed now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would Anonymous be screwed? Anyone can be completely anonymous online with a little know-how, and it is very difficult to kill someone when you know nothing about them.

  13. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also the fact that they won't take down the drug cartels by revealing a few people on their pay, that Anonymous is not a single person or group that can be legally dealt with, or that being in Anonymous is not a crime. Basically, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  14. This is all well and good but... by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not exactly the first online community that has been victimized by the Mexican drug cartels lately. ...So if Anonymous has the muy macho cajones, and it seems they do... I wish them well in their endeavors. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/23/140745739/mexican-drug-cartels-now-menace-social-media

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    1. Re:This is all well and good but... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      The thing is Anonymous are not 'idealistic' bloggers. This is where they have the advantage. The hard core Anonymous that is.

    2. Re:This is all well and good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't just name the names of the corrupt politicians, police, and members. Name their family members names too.

    3. Re:This is all well and good but... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Don't just name the names of the corrupt politicians

      Unless Mexico has one of the least corrupt political systems on the planet the number of non-corrupt politicians is likely to be close to zero anyway...

  15. Re:News For Nerds by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 2

    Please, how in the fuck is this news for nerds?

        Please stay in your lane, editors.

    Oh, so just cause you're not interested means you must deprive the rest?

    Interesting... tell me more about your childhood. No sibs, or youngest child?

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  16. Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by LordKaT · · Score: 1

    The drug cartels are not playing Anon's little kids game of doxing people. :(

    1. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who can the cartels retaliate against? Isn't that the whole principle of anonymous, the anonymity?

    2. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      But who can the cartels retaliate against? Isn't that the whole principle of anonymous, the anonymity?

      They have one guy already, right? They kill him. They kill his family. They kill his dog. They kill his neighbors. Then, just in case, they give his old high school buddies the same treatment.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many do you think are technical enough to track them down? When the victims are not related to you, it's alot easier to 'fight for the cause.'

    4. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After beating the living hell out of all of them to found out if they are part of it...

    5. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead doxing people vs. electronic doxing. Really just a shift in the medium. Both knock you off the grid. Perhaps we will finally get the answer to that question of whether the website is mightier than the sword...

    6. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Information is power, so I'm pretty sure all the best ones do. They just use detectives or black hats.

    7. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      If they aren't technical enough, you better believe they have enough money to hire the brainpower.

    8. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      But who can the cartels retaliate against?

      Anybody they like.

      Doesn't necessarily have to be the responsible parties.

      After all, who can say who's really a member of Anonymous?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The drug cartels are not playing Anon's little kids game of doxing people. :(

      Gonna throw on my tinfoil hat for this one... ...but I think Anonymous has been co-opted.

      What happened to "Doin' it for the lulz?"
      The last year or so, it seems like they're a super-leftist borderline anarchist group hell-bent on shining a light on corruption around the world.

      I'm not morally against anything the groups have done while flying the Anon flag, though. I can't say I wouldn't do the same, given the ability to affect the world at large by calling attention to damning information that would otherwise go unknown. I just think anyone calling Anonymous a bunch of kids at this point is seriously fooling themselves.

    10. Re:Anon is about to learn a hard life lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you get arrested then.

  17. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Anonymous" isn't a single group, it's whatever the fuck people want it to be. "Anonymous" has been responsible for hacking kiddie porn sites, yet at the same time trolling sites for people with epilepsy by putting flashing images on them. Those two "anonymous" groups are clearly not the same. Anyone can do whatever and say it's anonymous, there are even groups that don't frequent /b/, it's just a free for all and an excuse to do whatever.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  18. Re:News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    An online group wants to take on a real-life drug cartel. This is definitely news for nerds you dumb fuck.

  19. won't help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one goes down another takes its place, with a little bloody war in between to sort things out.
    Just drop the freaking war on drugs and it will all go away over night, no more gangsters with
    enough money to corrupt whole countries

    but the police prison system etc. etc. all make too much money to do that

    1. Re:won't help by znerk · · Score: 1

      one goes down another takes its place...

      Sorry, were you talking about the drug cartels, or members of Anonymous?

      If you were talking about the drug cartels, then I think you missed the point - it'll be much more personal to the cartel that goes down.
      If you were talking about Anonymous, then you might have been more accurate than you realize. The Streisand Effect is a powerful force.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  20. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

    For the love of all sanity mod this insightful/informative!

    --
    RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
  21. Hard to Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While these online hooligans are often nothing more, they seem to trend towards social justice....but my question is, if they could have all this info, when did they have it, and could they have done this sooner?
    Are they responding in kind (having recently acquired the information in response to the situation)
    are they bluffing (have faint leads but essentially have revealed all they know so far)
    Did they have this info all along and could have published it, but did not for fear of reprisal?

    Some of this we may find out on nov 5.

    what I'm really wondering though, is if they could have done this all along ?years ago? , or if they only began to gather the information when they "needed" it.

    1. Re:Hard to Hate by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The answer to all those questions is "for the lulz." (And that's especially true for the questions for which that answer makes no sense.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  22. remember remember by verdent · · Score: 1

    the fifth of november...just sayin.

  23. Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by RobinEggs · · Score: 3

    The person reportedly kidnapped is not named...

    So your organization is called Anonymous and when one of you goes missing you threaten the suspected culprit while still not naming the missing guy?

    It's not like the Zetas only 'disappear' a couple guys a year; they're a massive paramilitary threatening the public safety of entire states. How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return? Furthermore, this splinter of Anonymous is already at war with the Zetas. If they believe they can damage the Zetas so heavily with their supposed cache of information why didn't they do so weeks ago?

    It all seems like weird internet posturing, although of course hacker groups and drug runners aren't exactly paragons of transparency. There may be so much back story missing that it's pointless to comment on.

    1. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

      The anonymous one, of course. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only to generate publicity prior to the release. The info's probably going to be released anyways unless the zetas return every single person they have kidnapped.

    3. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't members of anonymous wear Guy Fawkes masks or something? I would think it would be easy, just go for the guy in the mask, probably solved!

    4. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

      Easy - it's the one who was wearing the goofy mask when they grabbed him.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

      Obviously all of them.

      > Furthermore, this splinter of Anonymous is already at war with the Zetas. If they believe they can damage the Zetas so heavily with their supposed cache of information why didn't they do so weeks ago?

      It seems to me anon's releases and threats are never just for the targeted party. This is as much a message to the Zetas as a general call to arms for anon worldwide. It brings the issue to the front and gathers recruits for the upcoming action.

    6. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person reportedly kidnapped is not named...

      So your organization is called Anonymous and when one of you goes missing you threaten the suspected culprit while still not naming the missing guy?

      they release the Anonymous member by releasing everyone they kidnapped. People in drug cartels are stupid anyways (there is a good chance their death will be painful).

    7. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? You're saying that the demand for a gang of street thugs to release a kidnap victim is posturing because they didn't POLITELY CLARIFY WHICH of their victims should be released?

    8. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

      The Anonymous guy! They just don't "guynapp" people randomly.

    9. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, not naming the guy could be more effective. The cartels aren't run by morons, and the Zeta leaders know what will happen if Anon publishes the info they claim to have. But if Anonymous doesn't name the victim, the Zetas have to let everyone go that might be the Anonymous member, or risk an inter-cartel war.

      This is almost surreal. A handful of anonymous anarchistic hackers is threatening one of the most powerful drug cartels in the world more effectively than the combined forces of the U.S. and Mexican army, navy and law enforcement machines ever could hope for.

    10. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: IF they are scared, they will release all their prisoners. However, this is unlikely to happen. They will not blink, and they will get fucked for it. And I just hope its very unpleasant.

    11. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. The Zetas have to return *everyone* that they have kidnapped. One of them must be the Anonymous.

      Alternatively, release people one at a time until Anonymous says stop.

      I don't really have a lot of pity for the record-keeping requirements of criminal organizations.

    12. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person reportedly kidnapped is not named...

      It's not like the Zetas only 'disappear' a couple guys a year; they're a massive paramilitary threatening the public safety of entire states. How the fuck are they supposed to know which guy to return?

      Release them all? Maybe the paramilitary group shouldn't be kidnapping people, yes? You make it sound like kidnapping and possible homicide is the cost of business in Mexico.

    13. Re:Brilliant Plan, Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get such a chuckle out of people who think Anonymous can do nothing. Lets see, who would want the info on these Zeta's and allies?.....Hmmmm perhaps the Zeta Killers? Well that would be my guess anyways. Hmmm...I do believe they killed 35 of the Zeta's in October. This is so far beyond posturing that you wouldn't believe it. The Zeta's have a lot of enemies.

  24. Re:News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how is it not?

    Information wars, my friend.
    Information is Knowledge.
    Knowledge is the tool of the nerd.

    Please, go back to wherever you came from. You don't know what /. is.

  25. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

    Maybe we should hack some random server and leave a file behind saying "Anonymous 2.0". That'll scare the hell out of them ;-)

  26. Not real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fake. It's not Anonymous. The bad thing about the Anonymous collective is that their very nature makes it very easy for anyone to masquerade as them.

    The top most voted comments in the Youtube video confirm this.

    And yeah, I live in México.

    1. Re:Not real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as "Anonymous Collective". It is a blanket label that refers to hundreds of sub-groups that follow the same basic mentality: anonymity.

      Many of these groups constantly in-fight, sometimes they come together for a single cause greater than their own disagreements with each other.

      There is no, and never was an "original Anonymous", I know, I have been on the site where the whole mentality evolved from the very first post.
      There was just a bunch of people throwing around stuff, which eventually evolved completely separate multiple roots of groups doing their own thing, be it taking on Scientology, spamming sites, hacking Myspaces, raiding that kids game Habbo, or attacking not particularly nice people like Hal Turner.
      And none of those groups really knew of this existence either, until after a while where the whole "script kiddy" nonsense became very apparent that it wasn't at all script kiddy nonsense and was in fact actual custom tools and scripts. (For the idiots who don't know this, a script user isn't a script kiddy)
      The only ones who are the script kiddies are the people recruited on those particular sites, the generic people who think they are part of a bigger cause, they are sheep following the trail of people higher up.

      There, hopefully now this will dismiss some retarded myths about Anonymous. Shits annoying to read every god damn time an Anonymous article is posted.

    2. Re:Not real. by znerk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because comments with up-mods are inherently more truthful than those that have been down-rated.

      Are you seriously using thumbs-up counters on YouTube videos as a yardstick for truth, accuracy, or anything at all connected with reality?

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    3. Re:Not real. by znerk · · Score: 1

      (For the idiots who don't know this, a script user isn't a script kiddy)

      Script kiddie, from the Wikipedia entry:

      A script kiddie or skiddie, occasionally skid, script bunny, script kitty, script-running juvenile (SRJ) or similar, is a derogatory term used to describe those who use scripts or programs developed by others to attack computer systems and networks and deface websites.

      Emphasis added to rebut your assertion.

      At second glance, it appears this is actually the point you were attempting to make... unfortunately, your condescending attitude and poor communication skills make that difficult to decipher.

      Also, your assertion ignores that most "script users" didn't personally create the script they're using.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    4. Re:Not real. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I have been on the site where the whole mentality evolved from the very first post.

      Really? You were from Ayashii World BBS network that grew out of Japanese Usenet back in the 90's that spawned a long list of *ch(an(nel)) sites of variable note? Wow, you truly are an oldfag.

  27. You're not Listening by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think you're reading his statement correctly. I'm not sure you can read any justification for sovereign manipulation into his statements. He's simply saying that if we insist on putting troops in other countries to suit our interests (which includes nations we like, by the way, such as Japan, Germany, and Turkey) why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?

    Asking why we're pursuing the imperial option stupidly and inconsistently doesn't mean he's justifying the imperial option itself.

    1. Re:You're not Listening by cosm · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. I'm not encouraging thin red line imperialism, just questioning the inconsistency in the rhetoric of it and its application across the globe. Perhaps I should have been less inflammatory and used less polarizing language, but the whole quagmire is just disgusting.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:You're not Listening by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Interesting
      An imperialist adventure in the middle east has no real consequences "at home". It really doesn't. There's no bombings, killings, or invasions on the US mainland that remind people that there's a war going on (token overhyped "terrorist attacks" notwithstanding). The cost of the wars are abstract numbers that most people don't "feel" personally. The human costs on soldiers and invasion victims are sanitized and buried in nationalist rhetoric about the Land of the Free and its Destiny.

      Mexico is different. Firstly, it's close to America, so a real war would spill over into the southern US straightaway. Secondly, America is full of Mexican-Americans and illegals, who would take sides immediately. The result is that an imperialist adventure in Mexico would cause actual, real attacks on American soil everywhere, with actual, real consequences to people, actual real economic damage, and actual, real social upheaval and political crises.

      Basically, the war in the Middle East is not a "real" war. The Second World War was a real war, and Vietnam was a semi-real war. Mexico would be a real war, and nobody wants that.

    3. Re:You're not Listening by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      why do we ignore that option when an immediate neighbor has paramilitary uprisings in border territories?

      Because we have a wall and a heavy military presence to keep it from getting out of hand, and as long as we keep supplying arms to keep the balance of power between the cartels even, they won't become a threat to us. That's how MOST countries deal with this problem in countries they share borders with.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:You're not Listening by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Because we have a wall and a heavy military presence to keep it from getting out of hand

      Not true on either count.

    5. Re:You're not Listening by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The Second World War was a real war,

      By your criteria:

      actual, real attacks on American soil

      the last real war America was in was the civil war.

      Which, to many Europeans, explains your lack of understanding of just how fucking awful war is.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:You're not Listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how MOST countries deal with this problem in countries they share borders with.

      Most means that the majority does that. The majority doesn't even need to and hasnt the resources either. America isn't most of the world.

    7. Re:You're not Listening by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the usa-mexican border is a joke, don't call it a wall.

      sincerely, some guy from Finland.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:You're not Listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently there is nothing in Mexico in the way of needed resources, just sink holes and pot, cocaine and muscatel.. US makes this look obvious that it is unwarranted to spend a lot of funds invading Mexico. Let there be some oil, natural gas, coal or uranium be found in large quantities though and watch what happens. Of course this is close to home for many Americans. Remember the Alamo!

    9. Re:You're not Listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, Pearl Harbor wasn't an actual, real attack on American soil?

    10. Re:You're not Listening by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      In war only other countries non-combatants are allowed to die not US citizens (unless we are bombing them ourselves).

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    11. Re:You're not Listening by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Basically, the war in the Middle East is not a "real" war. The Second World War was a real war, and Vietnam was a semi-real war. Mexico would be a real war, and nobody wants that.

      Talk about a fucking reality distortion field. America and the West's little jollies in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly seem like a real war to the poor bastards who live there.

      Maybe a taste of what war is actually like would be a wake up call to the US public.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:You're not Listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US presence in Japan and Germany is mostly a hold-over from WW2.

      Loosing a major war and being forced to disarm afterwards isn't really the same thing as being bullied into being a satellite by a super power which is what happened to the Middle East, and South America.

    13. Re:You're not Listening by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Vietnam was the result of one group stepping on another groups Opium business.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  28. Blood on their hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because there is no way that a multi-million dollar cartel, who kills thousands of people, bribes thousands more, and controls a large stake in the drug running business could possibly have someone(s) from Anon on their payroll. Or people that are extremely proficient with computers and the such to find these people making the demands. I know Anon is careful. I know they have their systems and their secrets. But really, they are a small group of people, and the cartel is more than capable of dealing with them. The only ones they threaten with this list is the people they would expose (maybe a journalist is working for the Cartel because if they don't the Cartel would kill their family) and themselves. I certainly hope that they aren't foolish enough to actually go through with this. There will be blood on their hands.

  29. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by houghi · · Score: 1

    Anonymous. It used to be I'm Spartacus.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  30. Unreliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous could be releasing a list of people they "think" are involved with the cartels. But, realistically, the cartels rarely leave traces specially online. You need to be an insider to know their names, and actually be one of the cartel workers. Anomymous could have a lot of innocent people killed by releasing names like that. Also, the guy in the video does not look Mexican to me.

  31. Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-14/world/mexico.violence_1_zetas-cartel-social-media-users-nuevo-laredo?_s=PM:WORLD

    I'm glad Anonymous is messing with these assholes, but they better do it carefully. The drug cartels work by fear and intimidation.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-14/world/mexico.violence_1_zetas-cartel-social-media-users-nuevo-laredo?_s=PM:WORLD

      I'm glad Anonymous is messing with these assholes, but they better do it carefully. The drug cartels work by fear and intimidation.

      And political connections. And horribly violent murder.

      Because, I mean, Anonymous themselves work by fear and intimidation (just because you agree with them doesn't make it NOT fear and intimidation), and that's it. They have yet to kill anyone, or actually do any lasting damage whatsoever.

    2. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by znerk · · Score: 1

      The drug cartels work by fear and intimidation.

      Seems to me that Anonymous is attempting to use the same weapons.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    3. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Anonymous style fear and intimidation is to drug cartel style fear and intimidation, like shooting a rubber band is to a howitzer.

      That you compare the tactics of Anonymous to the Zetas is stupid or ridiculous, take your pick.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AFAIK, the bodies were never identified. No one is quite sure if they actually were bloggers or if they were merely used to create fear among bloggers. If they were bloggers, there's no way to know what kind of precautions they took, if any. Given the large numbers of bloggers still criticizing the cartels, it doesn't appear that the cartels truly have the ability to identify and kill anyone who posts things they don't like. For people outside of Mexico, which I assume is most of Anonymous, the risk seems to be minimal to nonexistent.

    5. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychopathaths REALLY get unstable when you do that to them.

    6. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could make a movie about intimidating zombies. That would be great.

    7. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous style fear and intimidation is to drug cartel style fear and intimidation, like shooting a rubber band is to a howitzer.

      That you compare the tactics of Anonymous to the Zetas is stupid or ridiculous, take your pick.

      No, that Anonymous is doing the same when a human life (and the lives of that human life's family, friends, etc) hangs in the balance is the stupid and ridiculous part, dumbass.

    8. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could make a movie about drug zombies. That would be great.

    9. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you don't get it. you really don't understand the first thing about what you are talking about and who we are dealing with here in the form of the zetas

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      keep saying that, as they spread their tentacles into the usa

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      That's the only reason why this might actually work. The Zetas as a group are sociopaths who don't care that lives are going to be lost. And at least part of Anonymous is going to consist of borderline sociopaths who don't care that lives are going to be lost. They have little motivation to back down, since for many of 'em it'll just be a few clickety-clicks.

      "We'll kill these random people if you post this."
      "Okay, we're still going to post this."
      "Well shit."

      If deaththreats do not have a noticeable effect, one might hope they'll eventually stop.

    12. Re:Dead bloggers hanging from a bridge in Mexico: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way to remove the cartels' funding.

  32. A side note to the reporter who wrote the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reporter responsible for the article takes pain to mention that the mask worn by the Anonymous member is like the one used in the movie Vendetta. I would like to point out to him that the mask from the movie Vendetta represents Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes day in England is celebrated on November 5th, the same day that the group Anonymous have threatened to expose the Cartel members. I would suggest to the reporter that perhaps Anonymous isn't so much influenced by some Hollywood movie, but more by an actual attempt to bring down the British government on November 5th, 1605 by a committed group fighting for their beliefs. To highlight the fact that the mask Anonymous members wear is taken from a movie and not in honor of a real movement in history somehow cheapens what Anonymous stands for. It is either a subtle editorial comment by the reporter, a lack of historical knowledge, or an example of some who cannot connect the dots.

  33. Re:frist poast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sauce plz.

  34. Zeta Response by starmonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish Anonymous the best of luck. At best, they can release a few names and cut some heads off the Hydra. They will be replaced by equally corrupted politicians, policemen, journalists, etc. They might even be replaced by people that will refuse to be corrupted, at first, until they are offered the choice of plata o plomo (silver or lead = become corrupted or die). Most likely, though, they will find out which kidnap victim is being referred-to, torture him until he names names, then follow the chain of names, torturing them and their families, and leave them all hanging from bridges. Honestly, I can't see how this could possibly be a good move. The best move is to pay the ransom or forget about your friend, instead of getting him tortured to death.

    1. Re:Zeta Response by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Actually it's a sweet move. Let me explain. This is a drug cartel that is camped right on our border. They make tons of money, and chances are they are infected with the "need for high tech toys" that comes with that pile of easy money. Being that these are drug cartel people and not rocket scientists, this means they are probably exposed to the same technology holes in security that the rest of us are. These guys aren't Sony, and Sony got their ass handed to them in the tech security department. I doubt these cartels even have an "IT security" afterthought, let alone a department.

      Unless they are operating with military grade encryption with everyone in their operation, they are just as vulnerable as the next organization. When you operate in such a high risk environment, even "script kiddies" can dig up dirt on you that can prove lethal. It could be a crumb of information that can put the "blood hounds" on your trail. Most people have no clue what an intelligence operation can come up with out of just the right tiny little morsel of information. Imagine handing them a platter of information?

      Not to mention, these cartels have attracted the attention of people who can effectively send them back to the stone age of technology use. Meaning if they want to their operations to be secure, they will have to go back to basic "pen and paper" days. Until they can get their entire staff of thugs trained on proper security protocols and equipped right, they are setting ducks to intelligence operations that have them in their sights. Now American Government Intel Operations aren't the thing to worry about, because they can't release what they know to your competitors. But a rogue intelligence operation can, and by all means will if you don't pay the piper.

      They seem to just want their friend or friends back. This is a cheap price to pay and should be capitalized on. Of course they will not. My money is on the stupid move being played, and this will escalate. Of course if I was a US Gov Agency, I would be eating popcorn, watching this and laughing my ass off. This is full of win for them. Two birds and you don't even have to throw the stone.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    2. Re:Zeta Response by starmonkey · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, the only accurate thing you said is that it's win-win for the US. Zetas absolutely won't cave in to anyone's threat. They will use rubber-hose techniques to get to the originators. Corrupt officials are revealed all the time. They're only replaced some of the time. I don't doubt that at least some Zetas use smartphones or own a computer, but they're generally a SMS and cellphone-call organization. Most members are poor and uneducated. I doubt they have a sophisticated infrastructure using IT. Actually, everyone here seems pretty ignorant of the situation in Mexico. They think that Anon has some advantage because they can release information about one cartel and not care about the consequences. In fact, the Calderon administration has been pursuing exactly this (failed) strategy of destabilization. They have been selectively hitting one cartel after the other. Sorry, this isn't a Hollywood movie where hackers have power. They're just going to get killed by real bullets. PS I am writing from Mexico

    3. Re:Zeta Response by lexsird · · Score: 2

      My question is, why aren't you people hunting these fuckers down? Just how fucked up is it there that you haven't just collectively cut their throats in the night? Is your entire society too scared or afraid or just apathetic and stay away from the entire area? Without doubt I am sure we have something to do with it. We seem to have no problem burning our own society down with a different kind of ruthless cartel. Ours is on Wall Street and Washington DC though and play for higher stakes.

      What policies have we created that have fucked you guys over into this situation? Mexico is like a black hole of information. It simply doesn't exist to us, save for the fact that we have lots of your people here illegally. Sad, I know, but that is the facts of the matter. I am curious though what is the problem? I know NAFTA had to have something to do with it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and I know we subsidize our corn production, that alone has probably put the crunch to you.

      I have a gut feeling that Mexico is a little model of where we are heading. Vast amounts of poor and exploited people, fucked over by a higher class who have it all.

      What I find fucking hysterically ironic is in spite of our fascist government and all their bullshit to "keep us free of terrorists", the Mexican Cartels have managed to move freely into our country and are in every major city and starting on the smaller towns. The fuckers are in a town about 50 miles from me, thanks to the fact they can blend in with all of the illegals working the meat plants. They have been putting the "mom and pop" meth shops out of business with their cheaper, better product. We are getting a lot of their weed too, you can always tell it's from there. We call it "chunk" because it's been hydraulically compressed, and you about need a pair of pliers to break it up. It's seedy which means its grown by people who are sloppy growers dealing with bulk amounts. This screams Mexico, no offense, it's just the logic of it. Growers here are more careful with what little they have to let it get pollinated.

      We have serious issues dealing with this. We have cops who are a. stupid, b. crooked, c. both. Our system is controlled by politicians who will whore themselves out AND are too gutless to deal with "politically correct" issues. Let's not forget American nativity and stupidity. We are talking the Jenny McCarthy types that are everywhere and have been allowed to breed and multiply unchecked. It's down right comical. If you moved against these Mexican gangs, these idiots would be out protesting it as "racist".

      It appears as we have been mucking around overseas, some serious weeds (no pun) have grown up in our backyard. I have to wonder if this is by design or stupidity? Either way, it really burns my ass. We grope old women at the airport to "make us secure", but our Southern Border and our Southern neighbor is seriously fucked. It would be so easy to move Middle East Operatives across that border into our infrastructure. But crooked Wall Street fucks want the cheap labor they can exploit in factories that they can't relocate overseas. Things that require fast processing and quick to market, like produce and meats need labor HERE and this is where they want to labor to exploit. If you think I am wrong, go check out any meat processing plant or any food processing plant in this country now.

      So my Mexican friend, this looks like a seriously fucked situation for both you and I. I am assuming you are correct in your assessment of the situation because you are there, boots on the ground, so to speak. The one solution to this would be to legalize it here, tax it, regulate it and make it available cheap. But our politicians are far too stupid and corrupt to even consider it. It's been explained repeatedly to them how it would solve this problem, but again Wall Street interests override common sense, not to mention we have the "stupid people" factor here that would resist it out of some moronic sense of false morality that has been installed in the

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:Zeta Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't give you any news from the "front" because where I live (2nd largest city, Guadalajara) things have been relatively calm. We had our share of violence, but this is nothing compared to the poor souls living in northern Mexico. There are a few things I'd like to say in order to clarify a few things on your mental model:

      why aren't you people hunting these fuckers down?

      For starters, neither I or any of my friends know of any cartel members. And if I had that information, i' d have to be extra careful...

      What policies have we created that have fucked you guys over into this situation?

      Basically the policies that hurt us more is the combination of the 2nd amendment and the failed war on drugs. If the flow of guns into Mexico stopped OR it wasn't profitable for the cartels to sell their stuff in the US, (lowering their profit or volume), it would be a far easier problem to handle. NAFTA has nothing to do with the cartel problem.

      I have a gut feeling that Mexico is a little model of where we are heading.

      I think I should start by clarifying that Mexico is one thing, and what you have on your mind as Mexico is another. You are right when you say that right now Mexico is "Vast amounts of poor and exploited people, fucked over by a higher class who have it all." But, the macro economic reality and the social trends are pointing to a different place. If you check wikipedia's entry on the economy of Mexico you will learn that it is the 13th largest economy of the world, that it has a sane set of macro economic indicators, and more importantly, has (or had until recently, depending who you ask) a growing middle class. And before the images of a sombrero wearing guy sleeping under a cactus comes to mind, Mexico is very large, and you have different economic realities depending on the state. As in the states, NY and Alabama are very different, same thing applies here.

      The one solution to this would be to legalize it here, tax it, regulate it and make it available cheap. But our politicians are far too stupid and corrupt to even consider it

      I can see another solution, but you won't like it. Could you stop using it for a while till we get our... situation... sorted out down here? Stop empowering those murderous animals till we get them and after that I'll be on your side shouting for legalization. And when we win we can even have a joint together.

    5. Re:Zeta Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite happy not to use it (drugs) -- have never desired to, in fact; unfortuntely, I suspect that the people most interested in using are those least likely to stop. That's about as likely to be effective as asking the TSA nicely to stop groping people.

    6. Re:Zeta Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torture them to give up "Jeebo" and "TuneyMan" and then what are the Zeta's supposed to do? Log into IRC and ask for their addresses? The best part of Anonymous is that they are anonymous. If they are sharing personal information with each other then I hope they do all go to jail because they are idiots.

    7. Re:Zeta Response by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      A US boycott of drugs, yes. That would be difficult to envision for the meth heads but plain ol' MJ smokers ought to be able to manage it. If only there were some way to capture their hearts and minds.

  35. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by znerk · · Score: 1

    To be fair, I feel it necessary to point out that any video display is already "flashing images" - that's how video displays work.

    I don't know why I'm risking my karma by pointing this out, but there it is.

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  36. Re:A side note to the reporter who wrote the artic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would also like to point out that most peoples knowledge of the November 5th plot comes from the movie and so is highly idealized. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people that go by the title Anonymous actually use the graphic novel or the movie as their inspiration for wearing the Guy Fawkes mask.

  37. They haven't "taken on" anyone yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They simply made a threat. Anyone can make a threat, because talk is cheap. Release the names, THAT will be a real action.

    As of right now, we simply have a bluff.

  38. Since when do the Zetas control the Silk Road? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

    Why would they care about the Silk Road at all? Even if the Zetas are behind it, which seems incredibly unlikely, it can't be more than a drop in the bucket of their total operations. More likely, it's run by some nerd in a basement who has more in common with Anonymous than the Zetas.

    The Zetas may indeed use the Internet for other purposes, but I doubt they're so brazen as to start a website openly selling drugs direct to users.

  39. Re:News For Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell me more about your childhood. No sibs, or youngest child?

    In the developed world that would be about just under 3 in 4 people.

  40. Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not sure what Anonymous is trying to achieve. They certainly might want to be more specific about their guy... On the other hand, I don't know what they are going to achieve by publishing a list of people's names and addresses. Those are sold in Tepito (black market in Mx City) for 12 000 dollars .
      And who will be in the list? The previous governor of Veracruz? Everyone knows where he lives. The ones with power will just deny everything and "swear for the bible" (by which i mean, pay their way out of it IF they get in trouble), since being on a list is no proof of anything.
    As for the drug lords being smart, they don't have to be smart, they just have to be smarter than the authorities (or at least the non-corrupted, "good" authorities, which are fewer), which is totally unlikely. Just look for the use of GT 200 in the Mexican war. And the have to have enough money to buy or kill those who are smarter than them... They are like what becomes of a big evil corporation: not smart people, just a good system (one that has evolved to become better and better). And just like in the US there is lobbying, in Mx there is probably lobbying (from them) to not legalize drugs.
    That said, maybe it will be harder to recruit new adepts to the cartels, maybe anonymous will actually eventually cause some economical damage to them (together with a few more deaths). But the drug dealing is a far too complex problem :( to be taken down just from the digital front...

  41. Re:frist poast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sage

  42. List without trust = ineffective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cartels are not trembling at this "list". We have a group who simply has a "list". What trust in their veracity is there? None. Big deal, I can fire up Notepad too. This "list" has about as much pull as a playground clique.

    1. Re:List without trust = ineffective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But I would bet that he is being investigated as we post. In fact, I would not be surprised if evidence was not dropped off with police or others.

  43. Above Reuters article has lies and proaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the late 90s there were several bumper crops of poppies in Afghanistan, and the market was glutted. The Taliban put a huge amount of processed poppy essence in storage for future years. THEN they cooperated in the 'successful drug war', with US support, to weaken their enemies. This was a staged event, because all parties involved KNEW that Mullah Mohammed Omar and his allies had big stores (several years of production) in storage. It was 100% hypocrisy from the start, for all parties.

    The Reuters article quoted above has a distorted version of the story, consistent with the 'official story' but not with what actually occurred. It leaves out the bit that the US knew that Mullah Mohammed Omar's allies had vast stores of concentrated poppy to sell after production was suppressed. It leaves out how the USA turned a blind eye when its allies in the region grew and sold heroin, but cracked down hard on groups that were hostile to US interests.

    1. Re:Above Reuters article has lies and proaganda by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      In the late 90s there were several bumper crops of poppies in Afghanistan, and the market was glutted. The Taliban put a huge amount of processed poppy essence in storage for future years. THEN they cooperated in the 'successful drug war', with US support, to weaken their enemies. This was a staged event, because all parties involved KNEW that Mullah Mohammed Omar and his allies had big stores (several years of production) in storage. It was 100% hypocrisy from the start, for all parties.

      The Reuters article quoted above has a distorted version of the story, consistent with the 'official story' but not with what actually occurred. It leaves out the bit that the US knew that Mullah Mohammed Omar's allies had vast stores of concentrated poppy to sell after production was suppressed. It leaves out how the USA turned a blind eye when its allies in the region grew and sold heroin, but cracked down hard on groups that were hostile to US interests.

      Interesting, but doesn't change that one way or the other, under US rule in Afghanistan opium production was raised to unprecedented levels.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:Above Reuters article has lies and proaganda by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  44. This will only end in tears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like some Anon members are about to make appearances in the /b/ gore threads...

  45. Re: Afghanistan Drug Increase by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Only because the Western Powers had to employ western police procedure and judicial processes when dealing with them. No taking the owner of the field, when the poppies are discovered, lining him up against the wall a shooting him on the spot.

  46. Mex Army invaded USA durring Hurrican Katrina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find in odd that you reason as though Mexico doesn't think it owns any of El Estados Unidos since the Mexican-American War. Durring Hurrican Katrina, if I remember correctly, several ARMED APC's outwardly showing their firepower invaded parts of Texas and towards Louisianna when Hurrican Katrina swamped much of the area. Their intent wasn't neutral and they setup stations in various places without permition from the Sheriff, yet they were mostly ignored for the short time as though they were tempting their antagonism against the civil unrest to demonstrate how far they would be tolerated.

    Similarly, I find it digusting that Police and Sheriff Deputies don't tolerate The People to open-carry side-arms yet the same Police and Sheriff having no ties to the Constitution demand that The People tolerate their carry and so-called "courthouse justified" use of the same against various individuals they pre-judged them as being CRIMINAL or FELONIOUS. When The People pop, they're taking down the drug companies and the law enforcement and the judiciary and the army, but it seems today The People is more of a abandoned child or endangered animal because everyone is too busy hurting eachother in various unconstitional professions and activities.

    Are you unfamiliar with the "Mérida Initiative"("Plan Mexico" to skeptics)? For reasons, um, wholly unrelated to that incident where the border between Mexico and the US shifted abruptly some time back, Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil. We've settled for rolling out just about all the various instruments of policy-by-proxy we have available there and elsewhere in Latin America(Plan Columbia, Central American Regional Security Initiative, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, likely the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in some capacity)

    1. Re:Mex Army invaded USA durring Hurrican Katrina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny.

    2. Re:Mex Army invaded USA durring Hurrican Katrina by znerk · · Score: 1

      I find in odd that you reason as though Mexico doesn't think it owns any of El Estados Unidos since the Mexican-American War. Durring Hurrican Katrina, if I remember correctly, several ARMED APC's outwardly showing their firepower invaded parts of Texas and towards Louisianna when Hurrican Katrina swamped much of the area. Their intent wasn't neutral and they setup stations in various places without permition from the Sheriff, yet they were mostly ignored for the short time as though they were tempting their antagonism against the civil unrest to demonstrate how far they would be tolerated.

      Similarly, I find it digusting that Police and Sheriff Deputies don't tolerate The People to open-carry side-arms yet the same Police and Sheriff having no ties to the Constitution demand that The People tolerate their carry and so-called "courthouse justified" use of the same against various individuals they pre-judged them as being CRIMINAL or FELONIOUS. When The People pop, they're taking down the drug companies and the law enforcement and the judiciary and the army, but it seems today The People is more of a abandoned child or endangered animal because everyone is too busy hurting eachother in various unconstitional professions and activities.

      Are you unfamiliar with the "Mérida Initiative"("Plan Mexico" to skeptics)? For reasons, um, wholly unrelated to that incident where the border between Mexico and the US shifted abruptly some time back, Mexico takes considerable offense at the idea of US troops on its soil. We've settled for rolling out just about all the various instruments of policy-by-proxy we have available there and elsewhere in Latin America(Plan Columbia, Central American Regional Security Initiative, Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, likely the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in some capacity)

      Yes, the Mexican Army did send armed convoys to deliver aid to victims of hurricane Katrina. Doing a little research before you comment will not only allow you to impart accurate information, but allow you to give the URL of supporting information to strengthen your position, like this link to a Wikipedia article explaining the situation.

      Also, it is fairly difficult to treat information with any amount of respect when the deliverer of that information (that would be you, Mr. Anonymous Coward) has serious issues with spelling, grammar, and (worst of all) capitalization.

      Capitalizing random words, or worse yet, capitalizing entire words, presumably for emphasis, is simply ignorant. There are tags such as italics (<i>) and bold (<b>) that should be used for that, instead. Don't forget your closing tags.

      Spell-check is a good thing to use, and most modern browsers actually have it built-in for text input fields (I know Firefox does, at least, and Microsoft products tend to have it available by pressing F7). That red squiggle under the word means it is not in the spell-checker's dictionary, so you may want to double-check the spelling before hitting "submit". This Taylor Mali video, entitled "The the Impotence of Proofreading"drives home the point that a spellchecker should not be your only guide, a point made even clearer when you read the text-only version, and realize just how badly mangled that poor student's paper is.

      The grammar issues I can't give you a quick fix for; those require knowing how to properly formulate a sentence in the first place (a skill you obviously lack - no offense).

      As for any factual information you may be attempting to convey, learn how to use an anchor tag to create a link - this page will show you how.

      On a sep

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    3. Re:Mex Army invaded USA durring Hurrican Katrina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: I'm a different coward.

      Wow. You are like ... Grammar Hitler. Hat's off to you!

  47. After December, this is a self solving problem. by lexsird · · Score: 2

    After December the wolves come home. Meaning this, our Military will be home, and there aren't a lot of jobs. But across the border are cartels, loaded with money and generally being a pain in the ass to the world.

    This is where you take finely honed soldiers fresh from the combat zone, and start up some "private Black Ops". The combination of possibilities one can play here are limitless. You can make quick fast scores to finance bigger operations. Dig in, set up intel operations until you map out the players. Then it's a matter of figuring out the most elegant and effective low footprint means of eliminating them. Of course you capture their cache of money, dope, weapons, etc, but more importantly, you establish your own replacement system. You grease the right palms, don't abuse the locals, and bring everything back down under the radar, out of the news and everything becomes a ghost.

    Too much attention has been brought to this region, and it's really bad for "the trade". It's sloppy management, as everything is a "management problem" if there is a problem. This is low hanging fruit for young mercenaries home from the dried up tit called Iraq. Any "mercenary operations brain" will recognize this as a golden opportunity. I don't think it's a matter if it will happen, but a matter of who will get the prize.

    Personally, if I were conducting these ops, I would eliminate the meth production there and keep it eliminated. Frankly, it's rat poison for people, and America has been dosed enough with it. You would even put the squeeze on and shut down the sex slave traffic. Just focus on making money with weed. It's a cash crop that will make everyone more than enough money, giving you enough muscle in the region to keep things civilized. To make it really easy, you get the locals to farm it for you, and give them a taste of the pie. This keeps them at home, and from swarming across the border. It's a win/win/win situation except for assholes.

    Of course this is very illegal and full of wet work, and it has to be done intelligently. Which makes it perfect for Americans. Well, the right kind of Americans that is. Usually this means the kind that not only survive, but thrive in war. Many of the dear gentle readers here have no clue what I mean or think I'm insane or creative. That's fine with me, they are right.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course this is very illegal and full of wet work, and it has to be done intelligently. Which makes it perfect for Americans.

      I just hope it isn't an American that has the stereotypical American intelligence (like George Bush) that does this, or it may backfire on the U.S.

    2. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much Tom Clancy you had.

    3. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but those guns and bombs that are needed from the start don't buy themselves until after you take over. Not only that, but the soldiers are used to having air superiority and can call in backup if need be. You aren't going to get 20 billion dollars worth of planes and choppers without the budget of the DoD or a huge manufacturing infrastructure to make (inferior knock-offs) it for you. You can't exactly buy a Predator drone at Radio Shack.

      Second the very real problem of budget, is logistics. All the transfers would need to be secret, especially in the infancy of the organization. Fifty thousand Americans showing up in combat gear, getting ready for something is going to draw some attention, and make an preemptive strike imminent, so you better be ready.

      In short, I don't think that anything like that could be done without a bigger actor running it. Perhaps it could be operated by a State, or the Russians, or the evil JEWS that I hear so much about, but no upstart is just going to take over. Everything starts very small and secures it's piece by initial cooperation followed by subsequent ruthlessness that either simply overshadows its mother, or exterminating them when the time is right. There was a time when every warlord was just a street level thug (unless he was born into a crime family already, but the right succession doesn't often hold in positions held through violence or without some notion of Divine Authority). The exception is when there is already a power vacuum that is waiting to be filled, which is not the case with Mexco.

    4. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't disagree with the opportunity, but I'm not sure the financials make sense. If there's a potential influx of mercenaries into the region, it seems like the cartels would have the money/resources/etc such that a given soldier at this caliber is likely better off (survival rate, financially, etc) by going to work for a cartel.

      To put it in more techie terms, a bunch of potential mercenaries for hire is akin to Microsoft/Google/Apple/etc recruiting at a college fair. Both sides (or, really, all sides) likely have the ability to compensate well, so do you want to be part of the team being brought fresh into a new region to face an entrenched enemy, or would you rather just hop across the fence and get paid to help consult the cartels?

      Yes, the cartels have a management problem and would love for things to get back under the global radar, but they both 1) know that and 2) have deep pockets and available resources to throw at the problem.

      They're not idiots. Remember, drug cartels are just capitalists leveraging the creation of a black market. Assuming a set of mercenaries (American or otherwise) are going to fight against them instead of with them seems a tad silly given the nature of 'mercenary' :)

    5. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After December the wolves come home.

      Seriously, your whole post sounds like a third rate military novel - you're not insane or creative, just a posturing idiot who's read too much Tom Clancy.

    6. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom Clancy, you are a genius!!!

    7. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is precisely the arrogance the rest of the world hates. Good luck taking out the cartels with a bunch of kids back from Iraq; an achievement the whole Mexican Army, Navy and Federal Police, with orders of magnitude more resources than you could ever hope on having, have yet to achieve. And adding to your arrogance, you are assuming "the locals" would be glad to serve you. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on...

      Sincerely, "the locals".

    8. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, there's no 'fresh from the combat zone' here. Your finely honed soldiers are exhausted. Most of them have had multiple tours of duty. Even those never injured in combat may come back with low-level brain damage and hearing loss caused by their own weaponry. Not to mention grief for fallen comrades and survivor guilt. And not to mention the women soldiers raped by their comrades -- it's an "epidemic" I hear.

      Some veterans will sleep with a rifle in the bed so they can feel safe when they wake up in the night. Some will choose to pay a daily tithe to the very cartels you are talking about eliminating. Many will not only be unemployed, they will be unemployable while they spend most of their time unraveling their post traumatic stress syndrome symptoms. All those 40-50-something National Guard guys who never wanted to be in Iraq? --They just wanna go home (and, thanks to the lesser Bush, that's probably pretty much the end of a National Guard.)

      Younger military? I'm betting they will be re-assessing their career options in droves.

    9. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      I understand, you are looking at it from a conventional mindset. Of course that would never work. Did you not read what I wrote? Consider this, a decade of modern warfare. What do you think comes home from that? Not all of them, but what do you think are in those numbers? It's easy to take the soldier out of the war, but not so easy to take the war out of the soldier.

      Look what we have waiting for them when they get home. We have plenty of jobs for them all, right? Of course they will not notice the meth epidemic that has sprang up over this last decade or so. Nothing like spending a decade on the other side of the world, to come home and see your country has turned to shit. Your streets and roads have fallen apart. Jobs are nowhere to be found. We live in a police state and there are drug gangs galore from Mexico in your home town. This is one big recipe for "pissed off".

      Then there we have this fat cartel setting on the other side of the border. You know they are loaded with cash. Buckets of it. Ruthless? That's nothing new. We are talking about coming home from the war with the fuckers that will cut your heads off for giggles. Can you say "intimidation factor: nil"? I am just saying look at this big batch of ingredients we have coming together here shortly.

      Get the popcorn ready, 2012 is going to be down right interesting to say the least.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    10. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Consider the crime element of it all. Domestic versus Mexican. We are about to get an influx of American elements that really aren't going to appreciate the invading competition. The meth situation is a real wild card here.

      You have to look at American history, after each war, you end up with an influx of American gangs. It happened even after WW2, and the Nam. This era of them will be interesting. They are coming home to one seriously fucked up country, so I think the "gang factor" is naturally going to increase. I don't see them throwing their lot in with part of the problem. I see a more tribal reaction to this than a mercenary one.

      Check down this thread. Did you notice the "fuck you" one from "the locals"? I was curious if they were paying attention. This is an unspoken war that we are balls deep in here at home. It's not only in our backyard but it's in our cities and even smaller towns as well. This is an embolden enemy that is pissed off, and feels entitled to fucking us over. Hell, some of them feel the entitlement to California and Texas back and by force. That's probably to say the least because it was obvious enough to make world radar.

      What war is this? It's the "fuck you gringos, we will pump meth into all of you and your kids, take your money and watch you die". Now this sounds grim to some people, but there is that percentage that is crazy enough that this is a bountiful opportunity. I predict it will start with the Cartels getting rolled here in the States and rolled hard. That taste of blood and money isn't going to be enough, they will go looking for more. Say hi to American savagery when it shows up on your door step Mr "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    11. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      I think you have been playing too much modern warfare, that's what I think.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    12. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Requiem18th · · Score: 2

      I feel like I owe you a deep explanations.

      Mexico is nothing like Iraq, and the cartels are nothing like organised militia. The situation has been greatly exaggerated over the border. They talk about paramilitary groups and insurrection and it's really nothing like that. These are gangs. They are surprisingly well armed gangs. But they are nothing but small fry. They like to be flashy, with beheadings and other scare tactics, but they lack staying power.

      Their disproportional arsenal means that internal frictions get resolved much more violently, and with much more casualties than you would expect from gangs their size. Besides their own skirmishes they don't use their weapons much except for occasional displays of power. They have enough grenades and assault weapons to harass the local police departments, but immediately flee afterwards. They run and hide like roaches from La Armada and La Marina. The main thing that keeps them around is their ability to blend in with the population.

      If you are as much of a war nut as I expect, I'm sure a different image is forming in your head: this is not militia, its guerilla! Except, no. Think smaller, yet smaller.

      I've said it already. These are gangs. Large gangs, but just gangs. Think Al Capone with AK-47s and cell phones. During prohibition. It's not much of a metaphoric exercise, really.

      Wanna deal with them? Drop the machete, put away the scalpel, we are talking chemo here. Part of the reason the police has been incapable of infiltrating these groups is that the average sicario is a 17yo punk living on 10 dollars a day. You can't fake being that dispossessed! How do you think you are going to get the jump on them? You know a gringo dolled up like G.I. won't make it past Laredo unnoticed, I don't have to tell you that, But unless you speak Mexicano and look Mexicano you won't be able to deviate from the tourist zones without sticking out like a pimple.

      That burrito seller you just met in the street? That's the average cartel informant/pusher. Consider yourself located.

      Your game is fire power, and good training, stick with it. Except you can't out-gun the cartels in the city without finding yourself in the receiving end of the Mexican Armada. And YOU cannot blend into the population. Enjoy becoming a puppet in the theatre of international drama. Kinda like the kids of Charlie Sheen.

      I'm not saying, there is no piece of cake for your boys, but not in the urban scene. where the blackmailing and kidnapping occurs. The *mountain ranges* on the other hand, are an option. Plenty of underdeveloped and underpopulated space for your boys to roam around, taking names, harassing the crops of the drug cartels, and their distribution lines. But believe me, it's not going to be easy. Our army finds them by chopper, are you going to use a chopper? Good bye stealth. With good luck you can go undetected for months. Although it is possible to make your own luck, I'd have to see it getting done to believe it.

      And of course there is the desert. More human trafficking than drugs but you don't have scruples do you? And with you I mean, the boyz, not you you. The battle hardened heroes who fought under the scorching sun of Afghanistan. Except this time no A/C for you, and no budget. Hell. You might as well join the border patrol and do this as a side job. Mind you, this happens already.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    13. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they say video games don't disconnect people from reality...

    14. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the dear gentle readers here have no clue what I mean or think I'm naive or retarded. That's fine with me, they are right.

      There, fixed that for ya

    15. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

      You've been playing too many first person shooters.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    16. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Sweet Jesus, if you are going to put that much effort into a troll, do it anon. Entertaining though.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    17. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Now, now, GW as a fine puppet. He did as he was told.

      Stereotypical American intelligence, you have a point there. Stereotypes do have their uses, camouflage for example. Backfire? You imply the U.S. and I presume you mean the Government's involvement. They couldn't get involved if they wanted to, nor would you want them. Just American opportunists, adrenalin junkies, perhaps some with an ax to grind, some that just have a need "get it on" and of course, the allure of money.

      What I find interesting though is the topic of the original thread. Just WTF are some geeks like Anon doing getting involved in something like this? Did some idealistic Mexican geek step on his dick? I am wondering what Anon has to work with for any sort of leverage, or are they really just twisting in the wind? I just posted my original post because I think the landscape in those regards are due for some upheaval soon.

      Here's a thought, if it's something they, Anon might have on them, the Cartel, it might actually be interesting. The case has been made that finding out information on them down there is kind of moot, but they do have operatives here. Exposure here isn't something to take so lightly. This is where the cash flows from.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    18. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how they think. But people are always after proof. People defended Bush's Iraq decision in 2003, right upto 2007 when he officially called it a mistake. Since we live in a world full of hypocrites, you will typically be called a paranoid conspiracy nut.

      Till Wikileaks comes along and confirms it. Then your "I told you so" voice is too small to be heard in the din of lazy realization of shocking facts.

    19. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be a writer for direct-to-video releases. Everything you just said screams B-movie. And switching from "we'll go there and take over the drug trade, but we'll be kind to the locals" to "OMG THEY ARE POISONING OUR CHILDREN AND I HEARD SOME OF THEM WANT THEIR FORMER STATES BACK" to "we'll go anyway and you should be scared" just shows you are an ignorant person with an active imagination and probably have a small penis.

      What war is this? It's the "fuck you gringos, we will pump meth into all of you and your kids, take your money and watch you die".

      How dare you say this? more than 30,000 Mexicans are dead and millions living in fear because we don't go for the safest route: legalize it here and make it entirely YOUR effing problem.

      You are a liability for the thinking Americans.

      Sincerely,
      Mr. fuck you and the horse you rode in on

    20. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, if I were conducting these ops, I would eliminate the meth production there and keep it eliminated. Frankly, it's rat poison for people, and America has been dosed enough with it. You would even put the squeeze on and shut down the sex slave traffic. Just focus on making money with weed. It's a cash crop that will make everyone more than enough money, giving you enough muscle in the region to keep things civilized. To make it really easy, you get the locals to farm it for you, and give them a taste of the pie. This keeps them at home, and from swarming across the border. It's a win/win/win situation except for assholes.

      You don't get rich with weed fast, and everyone at the top wants to get super rich super fast.
      I agree one one point though if i would be a criminal, this thing is way too public.
      But establishing a mexican/american mafia on weed smuggling and sale alone does not cut it !
      Your asking battle-hardened and desensitized soldiers to be ethical with their 'big payday' criminal opportunity.
      The middle-east hasn't really gotten more peaceful since blackwater arrived now has it ?

    21. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and just who do you think the Zetas are?

    22. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please stop believing hollywoods ideas of US exceptionalism. It has been bogus from the western to the modern action movie.

      A group of private ex-US soldiers, even ex-special ops forces, without the intelligence and technology backing of the US government will end up dead in less than a couple of weeks of starting up any sort of operation in the gang lands of Mexico. The soldier of america have only 2 things on their side, the sheer number of them, and the huge range of high-tech equipment to back them up by providing; intelligence (everything from CIA/NSA ops to use of unmanned drones), combat support (air strikes, close air support, artillery, tanks etc.), logistical support, and individually high quality equipment.

      What you propose will take those pretty ordinary soldiers and strip them of the thing that make them effective, the US military. What's worse is that having been trained in the US military, they will find it hard to be effective within a resource limited paramilitary type operation.

    23. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put the Tom Clancy books and Soldier of Fortune magazines down and go back to answering the question "Why?"

      More specifically, if all these jobless soldiers are going to drift south and be mercenaries, why be mercenaries only for the "Good Guys?"

    24. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been watching way too many movies.

      A more likely scenario: America has tens of thousands of demobilized trained soldiers; Mexico has rich drug cartels whose primary need is for an edge in the form of tougher/better trained soldiers. Looks like a natural fit to me.

    25. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goats are mesmerised...good job!

      Actually, all them traumatised trained killers coming home and all that gold and corruption north and south of the border are probably not a recipe for good times in the USA.

    26. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Who's trolling?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    27. Re:After December, this is a self solving problem. by subl33t · · Score: 1

      Not a troll. You got pwned.

  48. Re: Afghanistan Drug Increase by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    Does this include the CIA support for Afghan opium production during the Soviet occupation?

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  49. Previous Slashdot Story from Sept. 16th by Guppy · · Score: 1

    Remember this previous Slashdot Story from 9/16? "Anonymous Kills Websites, Cartels Kill Bloggers". The header opened with the following statement:

    "While drug cartels in Mexico are disemboweling people they accuse of blogging about drug violence, Anonymous busies itself taking down Mexican government websites. With all the problems facing people in Mexico right now, including drug cartels extorting teachers for 50% of their pay and killing schoolchildren (thus shutting down the school system), Mexico's biggest oil field in terminal decline and drug cartels kidnapping busloads of people and forcing them into gladiator-style contests to the death, Anonymous' actions appear particularly petty."

    There have been plenty of posts along similar lines -- that if Anonymous had any guts they'd be going after the real bad guys. Kind of makes Soulskill's story the one that looks petty, doesn't it?

    1. Re:Previous Slashdot Story from Sept. 16th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it makes it sound slightly influential.

      Can we just accept soulskill already? Yes, he's the new guy and not the old guy...leave him be. The hazing time is over.

  50. Re:News For Nerds by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

    I KNOW!

    Doing Psych work is like throwing water balloons at the ground!

    Really should have finished up the degree sooner. Gotten myself
    lined up for the recession.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  51. Merge! by Commontwist · · Score: 1

    So what do you get if you merge V with Zorro?

    1. Re:Merge! by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Vorro, the Fawkes of Cunning and Free!
      Vorro, he makes the sign of the "V"!

      *swish, swish!*

  52. Thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you need further proof Anons are thugs and not heroes, here ya go, gang wars.

  53. Re:A side note to the reporter who wrote the artic by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Depends which country you're from. In the UK every child aged 5 and above knows about the plot, because we hold a celebration every year - huge bonfires, massive firework displays and toffee apples.

  54. Re:A side note to the reporter who wrote the artic by coredog64 · · Score: 1

    It's a Guy Fawkes mask? I guess that explains my confusion at why people were dressed as Jack White.

  55. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by Raenex · · Score: 1

    I don't know why I'm risking my karma by pointing this out

    I don't know either: -1 Pedantic

    There's nothing "fair" about your statement. The images were designed to induce epilepsy. Your average video isn't. Your reply comes off as some kind of excuse for true trollish behavior (some people think "I disagree" in an argument means the other side is trolling).

  56. I guess it doesn't matter by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you're in another country. Especially a rich one. The reason we tolerate the Mexican drug lords is they mostly keep to their own little piece of hell, plus a few boarder towns full of people who don't matter. If they start acting like terrorists their liable to get 'liberated'.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I guess it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I do not like the U.S. If you do not follow their beliefs, you get "liberated" aka "ruthlessly bombed whether you are a civilian or not", like they did in Afghanistan; or they just threaten your entire nations economy, like they did to Canada when the issue of legalizing marijuana was going through parliament. America should stop trying to conform other countries to their beliefs or their white house may get burned down again, only this time I doubt only Canada will be in on it.

    2. Re:I guess it doesn't matter by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      if you're in another country. Especially a rich one. The reason we tolerate the Mexican drug lords is they mostly keep to their own little piece of hell, plus a few boarder towns full of people who don't matter. If they start acting like terrorists their liable to get 'liberated'.

      So, now you've declared victory in Iraq how long before Afghanistan is "won"?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  57. Hackers need to stick to the computer world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think anonymous is biting off more than they can chew considering they are trying to threaten people that cut peoples heads off with a chainsaw then post the video's and laugh and gloat about it, while these anon. guys do geeky computer stuff. Won' be surprising if the cartel send anonymous the guys head in a gift wrapped box to show them why computer skills doesn't always equate to the upper hand.

  58. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by znerk · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was referring to the fact that any "flashing image" can cause an epileptic episode - computer screens, televisions, even a flickering candle have been known to induce seizures in patients.

    I'm not condoning the behavior of a group of asinine adolescents who thought it would be funny to imagine the users of a website dedicated to the study of epilepsy suddenly having apoplectic fits, I'm pointing out that anyone with diagnosed (and hopefully, treated and manageable) epilepsy knows to avoid "flashing images" already, and is aware that a computer's video output qualifies as a potential source of danger.

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  59. Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Petty rivalry like this will only keep the machine rolling...it will not change anything.

    The most effective way to defeat the Mexican drug cartels is very, very simple.

    Take away their money.

    No money, no power base, and that's that.

    The most effective way to take away their money is equally simple:

    Legalize their product. Put it under proper federal quality regulation and have legitimate taxpaying law-abiding businesses sell it.

    In one action you simultaneously create millions of legitimate and sorely-needed jobs, and also instantly dis empower the strongest criminal segment of our society.

    The war on drugs has empowered the worst of humans, and has utterly failed to restrict the supply of drugs available to our children in their schools. This approach to keeping our kids safe is thoughtless and does far, far more harm than good (which is no good at all). This is always the *inescapable* consequence of making highly-desired commodities illegal. More money wasted on law enforcement will only add fuel to the flames.

    Keep kids off drugs by educating them about the dangers, not by ensuring that they must share a world full of extremely wealthy and powerful criminal drug lords who have no qualms about lacing food with drugs to get children addicted, or kidnapping and murdering them to get their own way.

    Of course, the two biggest opponents of the clear-and-obvious-right-thing-to-do are:

    1) conservative religious types who utterly lack the capacity for basic critical thinking
    2) The drug lords themselves, who profit greatly from the fact that drugs are illegal

    Honestly, I am not sure which is worse....the evil...or the stupid.

    1. Re:Agree by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Nice in theory. And I think there are civil-liberties reasons to legalize drugs. But don't think it will defeat the Mexican drug cartels. They are a highly coordinated group of well-armed, funded and virtually sociopathic men. They will become something-else cartels pretty quickly: extortion, kidnapping, sexual slavery, etc.

    2. Re:Agree by El+Torico · · Score: 2

      Legalization would go a long way towards defeating the cartels. Granting Phillip Morris, British American Tobacco, and the other major tobacco companies licenses provided they take care of the cartels would finish the job and provide employment for a lot of returning OIF and OEF veterans, Mexican police, and marijuana growers in the US and Mexico.

      Is it a perfect solution? No.
      Is it entirely moral? No.
      Does it drastically improve the situation? Yes.
      Does it provide needed tax revenue for both Mexico and the US? Yes.
      Does it provide legitimate employment for up to millions of people? Yes.

      Looks like the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since the minuses are abstract and not concrete, practical considerations.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    3. Re:Agree by couchslug · · Score: 0

      Alcohol Prohibition was a disaster for the same reasons Other Drug Prohibition is a disaster, and the laws against drugs were both the product of superstitionists. The Harrison Act was signed in the heyday of the Prohibitionist movement.

      Until we attack religion we will live under the oppression of its insane followers who insist on banning pleasures not got from suffering for their (oops, "their imaginary friends") amusement.

      The drug lords are merely capitalists, no different from the owners of "legal" businesses. The religious are much worse. The drug lords kill for business, but the insane kill for something that doesn't exist at all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Agree by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Blood diamonds are completely legal, yet they have also caused enormous problems in the third world. Not to mention what the perfectly legal tobacco industry have done and is doing. You are deluded if you think legalizing a ruthless business will make that business less ruthless. It doesn't work that way.

    5. Re:Agree by garaged · · Score: 0

      They already do that,and a lot of other legal activities

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    6. Re:Agree by gplus · · Score: 1

      If the illegal drugs were legalized, you could grow cocain, opium and weed in your garden or greenhouse. And you could probably hire some redneck wizzkid to make meth-amphetamine for you. My point is that the drugs would be extremely cheap to produce in bulk (and users could make their own), and therefore there wouldn't be much money in trading them. Your ruthless drug lords would go bankrupt.

    7. Re:Agree by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Yes, clearly does work that way. I can't remember the last time there was a shootout between Philip Morris and BAT over who gets the right to sell cigarettes in JuÃrez. You are arguing that prohibition is better then regulation, which is clearly bullshit, as we saw with the US in the 30s. Prohibition drives a market underground, away from the law, and empowers the most vicious people with wealth and influence beyond compare. The products they sell, due to their illegality, are often low-quality, and can be dangerous due to said quality. Does that sound familiar? If you are complaining about the effects of the drugs being sold, then that is a matter of public education. Again, you just have to look to the Netherlands or Portugal for great demonstrations on how that is clearly a matter for healthcare providers (oh, we're talking about the US, so forget that - there's no money in preventing abuse), information campaigns, and improvements in the quality of life for the poorer people (as happy people tend not to be addicts).

      Comparing the regulated drug market in the west to blood diamonds in poor Africa is fucking ridiculous.

      But yeah, it's just easier to say "Fucking brown bastards! Let them kill each other!" and be done with it.

    8. Re:Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the illegal drugs were legalized, you could grow cocain, opium and weed in your garden or greenhouse. And you could probably hire some redneck wizzkid to make meth-amphetamine for you. My point is that the drugs would be extremely cheap to produce in bulk (and users could make their own), and therefore there wouldn't be much money in trading them. Your ruthless drug lords would go bankrupt.

    9. Re:Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamonds = not so easy to find domestically

      Pot = pretty much grows anywhere

  60. Re:One way to try to get in the US Gov's good book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think LulzSec proved you can be a twat and hack for the greater good. Sometimes those two groups are the same.

  61. ok 90% , happy by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    Well, if those retard christians mother fuckers didnt make drugs illegal, lots of people would be happier and safer and crime reduced by 90%.

    End result, christians (and all religious believer) are DUMB MOTHER FUCKERS, period.

    let me destabalize your beliefs, all history came from aliens and their control of earth, all your beliefs are copies of their planets stories.

    Now go fuck off and pray like a mentaly ill patient :)
    (yes your daughters has sex with boys)

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  62. option 3 by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    It would take 1000 pissed of dedicated people to join the mexican airforce.

    Then one day, go rogue.

    And launch 5000 missiles on all the rich families homes/hotels/assets/offices and drug cartels assets.

    Or just hire some muslim saudies to crash a few planes on mexican rich family assets.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  63. Unjust killing? by Haxagon · · Score: 0

    Right, because no innocents will wrongfully enter the list, ever. No need for fair trials.

    Hey, might as well let what goes on in the US happen in México!

  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  67. Patenting Cannabis by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    The reason cannabis can't be patented, is because the US Government already OWNS the patent!

    6630507 is the patent number!

    --
    -Myke
  68. So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a couple people posting some data that authorities already know. These individuals say "We're Anonymous" and somehow Anonymous gets the credit? So if the same "hacktivists" said "We're Mormon", would it make sense to attribute this action to the LDS? My point is that no matter what allegiance they claim, we can't really associate that group to these actions.

    Probably they said they're Anonymous because they wanted to seem bigger and badder than real life.

    I don't see why an individual would hesitate to post this intel anyways. Without all this fanfair (sp?)

  69. easy target for zeta - kill all the nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't think that this approach is a good idea for the involved nerds. they just might start shooting citizens with the wrong kind of glasses.

    these drug gangs hire kids for the terror work on the streets, only the core is/was sf people. there could there for be brutal retaliation against civilians in this move.

    if i would believe, i'd pray for the mexican people suffering under this kind of crime. reminds me of sub-saharan civil war tactics.

  70. Presumed Guilty (Dcocumentary from Mexico) by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

    Here is your due process: Presumed Guilty

    Two young Mexican attorneys attempt to exonerate a wrongly convicted man by making a documentary. In the process, they expose the contradictions of a judicial system that presumes suspects guilty until proven innocent. -- IMDb

    --
    Artix
    Your Linux, your init.
    1. Re:Presumed Guilty (Dcocumentary from Mexico) by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      I'm perfectly aware of that documentary, a coworker's brother was unjustly jailed because he had a difference with a investor and the guy used his friends in the police and courts to jail him. He spend 18 months inside jail, but he didn't had a chance to thank his lawyer because the lawyer was murdered a few days before his liberation. We don't know if the murder was related to this case or not, but this was really shocking. Laws to the letter are good, a lawyer here will say that our laws are more sane than the US code, but the court system is simply useless, they will invent loopholes if necessary and find you guilty if they feel so. I said in a previous comment that the impunity rate here goes around 98-99%, but criminals, oligarchs and government are so intertwined that impunity is a necessity for the political system to work. We need to fix the court system, among many, many other things, but, you know what? The current state of USA reminds me of Mexico 30 years ago, but it appears that government and society there wants to be in the same place we are now. In a sick way, we are in the future.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  71. Transcription from the video of Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZL0E1J7wOg
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/29/1644256/anonymous-takes-on-a-mexican-drug-cartel
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Online-hackers-threaten-to-expose-cartel-secrets-2242068.php

    Anonymous de Veracruz, México y el Mundo. Queremos que sepan que han secuestrado a un miembro mientras realizaba #OpPaperstorm en nuestra ciudad. Exigimos su liberación.

    Queremos que la marina y el ejercito sepan que estamos cansados del grupo delictivo de los Zetas, que se han dedicado a secuestrar, robar y extorsionar en diversas formas. Una de ellas el derecho de piso a todo veracruzano honesto y trabajador, que se rompe la madre dia a dia para alimentar a su familia. Estamos cansados de los periodistas y periodicos de Xalapa, Cordoba y Orizaba, ya que siempre tiran mierda a las autoridades honestas como los militares y marinos.

    Estamos cansados de los taxistas, comandantes y polizetas municipales de Xalapa, Cordoba, Orizaba, Nogales, Rio Blanco y Camerino, Zeta Mendoza que se han dedicado a ser los halcones y mas fieles servidores de estos pendejos. Por el momento no colocaremos fotografías ni nombres de los taxistas, periodistas o de los periódicos. Tampoco de los policías, pero en caso de ser necesario los publicaremos y hasta con su dirección para ver si así el gobierno los detiene.

    Nosotros no podemos defendernos con un arma pero si podemos hacer esto con sus carros, casas, antros, bares, prostíbulos y todo cuanto posean, no sera difícil. Todos sabemos quienes son y donde se encuentran.

    Cometieron un gran error al llevarse a uno de nosotros. Liberenlo, y si algo le pasa, ustedes hijos de puta recordaran este 5 de Noviembre.

    El conocimiento es libre
    Somos Anónimos
    Somos Legión
    No perdonamos
    No olvidamos
    Esperenos

  72. This ought to be fun to watch... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    assuming there isn't too much collateral damage.

    As powerful and fearsome as the Zetas are in Mexico and the surrounding countries, they would have a harder time carrying out revenge operations in, say, Europe or Asia. So there is a decent sized group of Anonymous members that might be willing to take this on.

    And if Anonymous carries out their threat, and the other cartels respond as expected, the Zetas could be seriously weakened.

    What would really screw anonymous is if the cartels decide to collude to wipe them out before they even get the chance to do the data dump.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  73. Bloodshed is good here by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    If we're taking about gangs fighting each other.

    I've always said that the best way to solve the gang issue would be to round up all suspected members of gangs and place them om a deserted island. On that island there's insane amounts of weapons and ammo all over the place, clearly marked. Now let them fight it out until nobody is left standing. Problem solved and everybody can say they went down fighting for the gang. No innocent bystanders are affected and the gangs won't take up space in the prisons. There won't be any left to recruit new members so the gang rebuild will be dead slow. You could even televise the whole thing using automated cameras and make money selling the footage.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  74. Cartels Muslim radicals? by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't go that far.

    I don't know of any cartels that have bombed airplanes, flown them into buildings, attacked the Pentagon (9/11), attacked U.S. military bases, attacked a U.S. Navy warship, or gone toe to toe with U.S. Marines. Moreover, cartel thugs like to kill and make it back home alive. Radical Muslims don't care.

    The cartels have killed tens of thousands because no one has stood up to them. The Muslim radicals have killed hundreds of thousands including 4,000 U.S. troops. Radical Muslims have gone toe to toe against far worse than any cartel has.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  75. Why Wait? by realsilly · · Score: 1

    I don't want to see anyone killed, but wouldn't this one Anon kidnap victim be aware enough to realize that he may be captured or killed for exercising his right to protest against corruption?

    What is the purpose for setting a date like November 5th as the date? That provides the Cartel 6+ days to torture the hell out of the kidnapped victim. Does Anon really believe that this threat holds water to the cartel?

    Why not go public right away? Why the delay? If their teeth are that sharp and their bite that bad, do already. Release the names, finish the threat, put the info out in the open for the world to see. The longer this takes the more the one will suffer for all Anon.

    I have no love for the cartels, I believe them to be ruthless SOB's. And I believe sadly, that US politics has played a major role in the rising of the cartels to such power. And I would like to see everyone knocked down a peg.

    But as for the one Anon kidnap victim, I suspect he is already dead.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  76. Then the only defense may be offence. by reiisi · · Score: 1

    If you know you and people close to you are going to be dying anyway, the best chance someone important to you survives is to become the barking chihuahua. And start learning to bite.

    That's the reality that hasn't really hit home yet in the pampered big country to the north. You're never free until you are willing to fight for your freedom yourself.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  77. Good luck by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I hope they do take those cartels down, because not even the "federales" have been successful at this

  78. about damn time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hope the cartel gets screwed over, more and more recently, I've seen the more positive side of ANONYMOUS and I'm liking it

  79. This is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government of the State of Veracruz headed by @Javier_Duarte has 9 offices trhoughout the state dedicated to corrupting and monitoring social networks. This is probably his idea of having the Zetas deal with the "huge problem" of having people expressing themselves on Twitter.