While the US military is being sent overseas in search of monsters to destroy, ignoring the good advice of the Founders, closer to home another war is brewing – right on the US-Mexican border. Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry, killed on Dec. 21 near Rio Rico, Arizona, was murdered by drug cartel gunmen – using weapons smuggled across the US-Mexican border under the auspices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).
While the cartels shoot up half of Mexico, and terrorize the other half, it seems they’ve been getting a helping hand from those geniuses in Washington, whose “law enforcement” agencies knowingly allowed sophisticated firearms to be smuggled across the border, into Mexico. As BATF special agent John Dodson told the House Oversight Committee:
“This is not a matter of some weapons that had gotten away from us or allowing a few to walk so that we could follow them to a much larger significant target. Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals was the plan. This was the mandate.
“ATF is supposed to be the guardians – the sheep dogs that protect against the wolves that prey upon us – especially along our southern border. But rather than meet the wolf head on, we sharpened his teeth, added number to his claws, all the while we sat idly by watching, tracking, and noting as he became a more efficient and effective predator.”
This goes way beyond mere “blowback” – the CIA’s terminology for actions that produce unintended and unpleasant consequences. Because it’s hard to fathom exactly what was intended – unless it was the desire to sow chaos in Mexico and create a new threat to US citizens in the border states.
I’ve heard the official explanation – this was supposedly a plan to somehow entrap drug cartel chieftains – but it rings false when one realizes that this “mandate” involved the smuggling of thousands of guns, including assault rifles. Enough to equip a small army.
Now, armies exist for one purpose only: to fight and kill. Did the government officials behind “Fast and Furious” have anyone in mind when they imagined who the future targets of this army might be?
Certainly they never expected it would be agent Terry, and of course this is why the issue has become such a big deal in the US, where at least one congressional committee, chaired by Daryl Issa, is digging into this metastasizing scandal. The acting BATF director has been forced out, along with the US attorney for Arizona, and the resignations may not stop there: there are indications of involvement by other agencies, such as Homeland Security. Who knew what is now a hot issue, but what I want to know at this point is: what kind of chaos did they expect “Fast and Furious” to cause in Mexico – and to what purpose?
The US government has a horrific record in Latin America, and this history is well-known: during the cold war era, Washington armed and trained “death squads” throughout South and Central America, whose well-documented massacres must turn the stomach of any civilized human being. The “contras,” the Salvadoran rightist gangs, as well as our favored caudillos – all received shipments of arms, as well as other assistance, from their US patrons. How is “Operation Fast and Furious” any different?
Governments don’t allow such large weapons shipments to pass over their borders to foreign customers without having some foreign policy objective in mind – and, when it comes to the empire-builders in Washington, what other purpose could it be than the expansion of the imperial frontiers?
Brushing aside the official explanations and excuses, when you look at what Operation Fast and Furious actually accomplished – the arming and consolidation of a military force currently fighting Mexico’s armed forces – the conclusion that we are actively involved in destabilizing the Mexican government is hard to avoid. It is a simple statement of fact.
It turns out that the arms benefited the Sinaloa cartel, led by a chap known as “El Chapo,” another indication that the “entrapment” explanation is a cover story, and a not very believable one at that. If the idea was to entrap Mexican drug lords in a “sting” operation, then why focus on the Sinaloa gang to the exclusion of all others?
A more plausible explanation, given what we know now, is that the BATF and other US government agencies charged with protecting our borders decided to make an alliance with the Sinaloa cartel, to cultivate them, and perhaps turn them – and use them. You’ll recall how the CIA made good use of our own Mafia chieftains, who hated Castro because he kicked them out of Cuba and were deeply involved in the numerous plots to kill him. It’s only natural for governments to recruit criminals to do their dirty work, since both are parasites who live off the productive efforts of others. Their chief operating principle – might makes right – is practically identical. Their chief purpose – to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area – is also the same.
The only difference is that the criminal doesn’t have an ideological rationale, like “the common good,” or “the war on terrorism,” to justify his actions. He’s in it for the loot, and the lust for domination.
Strip away all the bull about “democracy” and “humanitarian interventionism,” and one has to ask: How is this different from the prime objectives of US foreign policy?
This sinister similarity is more than enough, it seems to me, to ensure a good working relationship between the US government and the Mexican Mafia, and that is precisely what is being revealed in this “Fast and Furious” scandal. Yet the question remains: what, exactly, did the US government have in mind when it armed what amounts to a regiment of professional killers?
The embattled Mexican government has barely been able to keep order, as the cartels rampage through the country, slaughtering thousands and dominating entire provinces: dead bodies keep turning up in droves, and it seems like a day hardly passes without some spectacular display of violence in a major Mexican city. Whole police forces are deserting, not out of disloyalty but out of fear – fear that the government is losing its grip and the drug cartels are about to take over.
In this context, to put thousands of weapons in the hands of highly-organized criminals is inconceivable – unless the plan is to bring the Mexican government down and create chaos. Have those geniuses in Washington decided that, since the Mexican government is finished anyway, it’s best to hurry the process along? Given that, why not make a few friends among the new power-brokers? “El Chapo” might come in handy some day.
For years, our elites have been trying to forge links among the three nations that make up North America: “free trade” zones that aren’t free, coordination of military and law enforcement agencies, etc. Some are even proposing a somewhat loopy-sounding “North American Union,” supposedly with its own currency – the “Amero” [.pdf] – although officials (and the mainstream media) deny it, claiming it’s a rumor started by the hated “conspiracists.” In the face of this criminal conspiracy carried out with the collaboration of several US government agencies, however, one has to wonder about the real purpose of Operation Fast and Furious.
With Mexico at the mercy of US-armed drug gangs, and the central government in Mexico City about to lose control, the introduction of US troops to “keep order” is entirely within the realm of possibility. In that case, the North American Union will become a reality, in fact if not in the formal sense – and the latter can be arranged quickly enough.
Call me a “conspiracist,” if it makes you feel better, but when it comes to the crack-brained schemes of our wise rulers, it seems to me there’s no limit to their ability to sow tragedy and terror wherever they tread. They did it in Iraq, they’re doing it in Afghanistan, and they’ve been doing it for decades throughout the world – why should Mexico be immune?
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I see we’re getting somewhere, finally, with our fundraising drive, and I guess I have the FBI to thank for that, and so I will thank them:
Thanks, guys, for that incredibly dumb memo claiming that we at Antiwar.com are “agents of a foreign power” and a “threat to National Security” (caps in the original). By demonstrating a principle we’ve long insisted on here in our little spy nest – that the phrase “government work” is a contradiction in terms – you’ve energized our supporters and increased contributions to the site – thus answering the question posed in your memo, which was “How does Antiwar.com raise money – who are its donors?” The answer should now be obvious, even to the tax-eating Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons over at FBI headquarters.
Yet we haven’t reached our goal quite yet – and if we don’t, we’ll have to start making cutbacks, most of which our regular readers will notice immediately. So please – put us over this one last hurdle. We need to match the $30,000 in matching funds pledged by generous donors, and we need to do it by this Friday – before the rest of the world goes off on Labor Day holidays, leaving our never-take-a-break staff to contemplate an uncertain future. Your tax-deductible donation is needed today.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013
- The Price of Peace – May 12th, 2013
- Boycott Israel? – May 9th, 2013
- Carla del Ponte’s Faux Pas – May 7th, 2013





Steve H.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
The point of the drug war is not to win, but to keep fighting it endlessly. There are simply too many parasites dependent on this absurd 40 year war of futility. Once you understand that simple concept, the rest falls into place.
RickR30
August 30th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
There has been some talk lately about the establishment taking a liking to the Sinaloa Cartel. Hence, the close focus of the establishment media on the barbarities committed by Los Zetas at the exclusion of the ones committed by other cartels. Looks like this is another one of those 'weapons for some really bad guys scandals' that we get in every other administration. For some reason we just love to send weapons to other countries to be used in some nasty internal strife, as if any of that had something to do with us or could benefit us in any way. Were our geniuses really thinking that these guys would use the weapons only to shoot at Los Zetas? And yet we don't see the media particularly concerned or interested. No one looking into Fastandfuriousgate? Other than Issa, is no one interested in what Holder and Justice knew about the Sinaloa Cartel Affair? Who bears ultimate responsibility for approving the dumbest of the dumb government operations ever? Government clearly never learns from history and its own mistakes. Every new batch of idiots who get to "think" about world affairs comes up with the same braindead plans and they can't fathom that it will backfire and eventually they or someone will be held responsible for the mess they created. This is an imperial mindset, it's not new, but this time it is dangerously close to the US. And they needed to look no further than the Iraq debacle to see how chaos crosses borders quickly, did it occur to no one that inflaming a deadly situation in Mejico could possibly have an impact in the US? The whole idea is so stupid that only a neocon could have come up with it.
guest
August 30th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Mexico has untapped oil reserves that can not be accessed without a change in the in the Federal Constitution to allow foreign ownership of It's oil fields.Mexico has resisted and continues to resist this Constitutional change.The vast oil reserves of Canada,put into play in the 1980's,the days of Dome Petroleum, have been mostly used up.The oil coming out of Canada is mostly from tar sands now.The vast oil fields of Iraq that the U.S. bet so much on,have been exploited for close to 100 years now and are no better than the depleted Saudi fields.That which many people think will occur in twenty,thirty or fifty years is going to occur in three to five years,ten at the most,when there won't be enough fuel available to supply all of the big rigs that deliver the food to the supermarkets in the metropolitan areas of America,let alone gas up the family car.There isn't enough taxable wealth left in America to finance a nation wide grid of renewable energy sources and even if there were,renewable energy is not "'on demand" energy.If the wind isn't blowing the wind turbines don't turn and the solar panels don't work at night.The people at the top of the "heap" all know this and so do the people at the top of China's "heap".The whole world ruling class understands the problem.There are no solutions.And so,if it means running guns,even lots of guns,to get at the oil that is left,so be it.
mickperry
August 31st, 2011 at 12:28 am
Charles Bowden claims that what we're seeing in Mexico is not a break down in social order, but rather the new social order. Coming closer to home all the time?
Raashid
August 31st, 2011 at 12:44 am
I wonder, whether the US establishment are really dumb, incompetetent, or in actual fact, far smarter then we give them credit for but are just exceptionally evil. Take for example the enormous sectarian death toll in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime fell. Was it incompetence, or was it by design? The Zionist strategists have long dreamt of turning Arab against Arab, to create breathing space for them to complete their own ethnic cleansing unopposed and Iraq was the biggest, wealthiest and most developed Arab state in the Middle East proper. With Iraq now ruined, they need only destroy Iran to have the free hand they have so long craved.
Raashid
August 31st, 2011 at 12:45 am
Now apply the same principles to Mexico. As the US disintegrates financially, that could cause unrest amongst its own Mexican population, indeed, whilst so-called Conservatives inveigh against the imaginary threat of "Islamization", they ignore the very real "Hispanization" of the US that is taking place. Already the La Raza movement talks of creating El Norte, the eventual secession of the Hispanic populated areas of the US. Could Washington be looking to curtail their Hispanic demographic problem by stoking the sort of mass slaughter they facilitated in Iraq, in Mexico?
Strider55
August 31st, 2011 at 1:20 am
C'mon, Justin, the Obama regime's primary goal in this whole sordid affair should be obvious, especially after they circulated the false charge (echoed by the Mexican govt.) that the weapons were coming from regular US gun dealers. It was to further restrict Americans' gun rights on the pretext of curbing violence in Mexico — a false-flag op against the 2nd Amendment.
Then there was the secondary objective — gin up another mass invasion of illegal aliens, all of whom would become instant Democrat voters. Note Obama's recent order stopping nearly all deportations of illegals — a de facto amnesty.
Still, Justin gives the feds excessive credit for the murder & mayhem in Mexico. As anyone who has lived on the border will attest, Mexico has been a cesspool of violence & corruption for centuries. (We are, after all, talking about people whose Aztec ancestors made daily human sacrifices to placate their sun god.) The Spanish word mordida ("bite") is also Mexican slang for the entrenched system of bribes and kickbacks, without which the entire economy would instantly grind to a halt. Some folks thought conditions would change when the PAN finally ousted the PRI from power; talk about naive! And they will only get worse if the Marxist PRD ever takes over.
tadzio
August 31st, 2011 at 4:02 am
Trying conjure up a rationale for an erasure of the US-Mex border via anarchy on the Southern side is not as hard as Justin imagines. The Marxist hatred for White Europeans is well known. Open borders has been the goal of the rootless cosmopolitans since at least the twenties. In 1965 so-called immigration reform put the displacement of America's White Christian founders into high gear. Some states now have Whites in a minority.
But the people are catching on. The agenda of White countries, and only White countries having open borders, is gaining recognition. Of course, there is an exception for the racist state of Israel. That, too, is coming to be understood. The single most explosive issue in the US today is immigration and the people are pitched against the Wall Street elites.
A chaotic Northern Mexico occupied by gringo troops would present an ideal opportunity to bring millions, no, tens of millions, of Mexicans to the US and provide the anti-White Democrat party with a working majority to destroy the greatest experiment with liberty the world has ever know, the Republic founded by White Christians in 1789.
[cont.]
tadzio
August 31st, 2011 at 4:02 am
The ultimate goal is to exterminate the White race whose penchant for liberty is so inimical to the Marxist agenda. The destabilization of Mexico fits into the template. Judge the imputed policy by its results. They say they are anti-racist, but anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. Blurring the border means more non-White voters and that is Obama's and the Democrat Party's only hope for change.
Just think of those who are taught to hate you if you are a White Christian American. The goal is to increase their power. It fits the Obama BATF program neatly.
Ron J
August 31st, 2011 at 5:01 am
You seem to have a persecution complex about being white.
David Lynn
August 31st, 2011 at 6:45 am
Asks Richard Maybury: Is this a Continuation of the internal, Mexican Civil War?
I've been reading him for years, until I went broke recently, and I'm not committed to the following point of view, but I find it interesting and possible correct:
Maybury, if you don't know, is highly respected among the financial newsletter industry as a historian, Austrian economist and social commentator as well as successful financial advisory, and according to many people he's more right about more things than most people on things like geopolitics. And apparently, his readers have made a LOT of money investing according to him, which lends credence to the accuracy of his various analyses. The downside, for some, is much of that money is made from investing in military stocks and some people find that immoral. So some people discount him on that account. His response to that is interesting and makes some sense, but I'll leave that for another time.
Anyway, for about a year he's been suggesting in his newsletter the Mexican drug war is an attempt at reviving an old push toward an internal civil war in Mexico. He says they used to finance themselves by bank robberies and small time crime, but moved into the bigger game of drug money years ago. Now, they are building up a war chest and training their "troops" for the real objective when the time is right. They certainly do seem to be militarizing in training and tactics.
If at all true, one question would be what percentage of these guys, including the kingpins, are really in it just for the money, and how many are into the civil war idea??? Of course, both goals could work together, too.
Again, I don't know much about this, and there is very little corroborating information I can find, and a good friend of mine who is VERY into and informed about geopolitics has lived in Mexico on and off for years is skeptical. But I would not discount Maybury's ideas without serious consideration. And it might be that most of those "troops" have no idea there's a bigger game plan at hand. They might just think they are regular old drug runners. But that would make it easier to keep it all a secret, as difficult as that might seem.
San Fernando Curt
August 31st, 2011 at 7:38 am
With Mexican transport vehicles allowed to run all over the U.S., and an all-but open border, what is entailed in this "unification" of North America? If we install murderous drug thugs as de facto government in Mexico, won't they be defacto enforcers north of the border, as well? There won't be any old-fashioned nonsense like borders or national identitiy, after all. The media is softening us up to the idea this is an Hispanic nation. Maybe our elites identify with caudillos and plantation dandies more than with Jefferson and Paine. Maybe our little experiment in democracy is just about over.
The European Union is a farce and a failure – now pitching into outright bankruptcy. How will this one end? In Dark Age tyranny and feudal war lords high on cocaine and bristling with tributary weapons?
Wootie Berster
August 31st, 2011 at 8:04 am
"Conspiracy theorist"? Non. "Conspircist"? Non. Conspiritologist? Si. But I prefer "leaning to the Italianate school of socio-political analysis". Or perhaps "having a Mediterranean outlook on political arrangements". Any ideology which does not center on canny men plotting is just naive and stupid. Therefore whenever the words "conspiracy theorist" or the like leaves a person's mouth I stop listening to them because they are obviously too stupid or perhaps too corrupt to bother with.
As to Mexico, it's too simple. When the sicarios start skinning faces and dismembering random citizens north of the border the people will demand an intervention. A nice war close to home. The generals could commute. We'd "need" the troops to subdue the "insurgents" in Mexico therefore we'd "have to" pull out of Dagnabitstan etc. And with a little luck we'd be on the road to Venezuela before you know it. As you well note, there's (black) gold in them thar hills.. or jungles as the case may be.
MvGuy
August 31st, 2011 at 8:07 am
Before you dear reades strain your brains trying to make sense of Fast and Furious…. check out these pieces of puzzle MEXICO. http://www.madcowprod.com/knight_ridder_washingto…
Maybe the cartells din''t have enough guns to guard the [see I A] drug shipments…… Also maybe wanna see: http://www.infowars.com/insider-cia-orchestrated-… or the Wapo version: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/11/w… or way better peruse http://madcowprod.com
Knight Ridder Washington Bureau
September 28, 2007 Friday
Drugs on crashed plane belonged to Mexico's biggest dealer
BYLINE: By Jay Root and Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers
DATELINE: MEXICO CITY
MEXICO CITY _ The four tons of cocaine found aboard a U.S.-registered business jet that crashed in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula on Monday belonged to Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, this country's most notorious drug trafficker, Mexican authorities said Friday.
The business jet that was transporting the dope to Mexico from Colombia was purchased just a week before the crash by a U.S. pilot with a history of legal and financial problems in Florida, interviews and official records indicate, but whether the pilot still owned the plane at the time of its crash is unknown.
The complex sale of the Gulfstream II jet and its end in the Mexican jungle highlight the increasingly complicated illicit drug trade. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said the trade generates as much as $23 billion a year for Mexico-based drug cartels.
U.S. authorities say as much as 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the U.S. is shipped through Mexico.
At least three suspects, including a Mexican pilot, are in Mexican custody. Mexican authorities say two of the men offered them money if they would give back the cocaine and release any crewmembers.
The Gulfstream II departed Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Sept. 18. In the days between then and the plane's crash, it apparently flew to Mexico, then to Colombia and was on its way back to Mexico when Mexican anti-drug aircraft intercepted it.
"The cocaine was to be delivered to El Chapo," said an official in the Mexican attorney general's office, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We do know it was from Colombia."
Guzman has acquired an almost mythic status in Mexico. After breaking out of jail in 2001, he has repeatedly eluded capture and is revered in some parts of this impoverished nation as a Robin Hood figure who distributes some of his ill-gotten gains to the poor.
How the U.S.-registered Gulfstream ended up in the hands of Guzman's violent Sinaloa Cartel isn't clear.
A bill of sale obtained by McClatchy Newspapers indicates that Florida pilot Clyde O'Connor bought the plane on Sept. 16 _ eight days before it went down in the Yucatan jungle. Another Florida pilot, identified by his license number and signature as Greg Smith, also signed the document, but his relationship to O'Connor isn't detailed." See: http://www.madcowprod.com/08242011.htm and: http://www.madcowprod.com/knight_ridder_washingto…
MvGuy
August 31st, 2011 at 8:13 am
P.S. "Back in April, Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for the Sinaloa drug-trafficking gang that was responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007 told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he had been working as a U.S. government asset for years."http://madcowprod.com/07062011.htm
Generalissimo X
August 31st, 2011 at 8:33 am
sounds a lot like the wars in iraq and afghanistan. go figure.
Generalissimo X
August 31st, 2011 at 8:36 am
just another attempt by obama and holder to undermine the 2nd amendment and further destroy our constitutional liberties. there's a reason the founding fathers made the right to bear arms 2nd,,,right behind free speech. gov't can't deprive you of free speech, and when it does grab your gun and do something about it. it's what they did to the british tyrants and they'd expect no less of us now facing these tyrants who rule washington dc.
Generalissimo X
August 31st, 2011 at 8:41 am
disagree if you will, but i would argument this entire thing is entirely manufactured and part of a larger design. this is a hallmark black op with sinister implications on many levels. the main thrust is the classic manufacture (or further escalate in this case) a crisis. add more guns to the mexican drug wars…of course it gets out of hand and destabilizes the border…then the gov't stooges come in posing as our saviors..meanwhile it's not the criminals its the guns so all good americans will give up their weapons. moreover, we need to pass more gun laws to protect you from guns. as for drug war, the cia is the main drug runner into this country and has been for decades. i'm sure they are fomenting this cartel battle in mexico for a myriad of reasons.
RickR30
August 31st, 2011 at 9:50 am
No doubt the original intent was always to use this to curtail American's freedom to bear arms. It's just astonishing that they are willing to go to such lengths and deal with the consequences for that.
While I do believe that the world "leaders" do have a grand plan for all of us, the individual actors are just too dumb for it all to go well.
RickR30
August 31st, 2011 at 10:04 am
So much for the idea that we have to stop fighting the war on drugs. We never started, or if we are fighting it, we are on the side of the drug dealers- which should make the pro-drug crowd very happy.
JLS
August 31st, 2011 at 10:05 am
Boy I bet the New York Times, ABC News, CNN, Huffington Post, Foxnews and MSNBC will be all over this story for weeks, not resting until this outrage is dealt with!
Hahahaha, nah I'm just joking of course. There's the Casey Anthony story and Sarah Palin's red, white and blue bus tour and many other more important stories to cover.
Terrance&Philip
August 31st, 2011 at 10:06 am
That there might be a treasonous conspiracy to force political and economic union among the United States, Canada and Mexico is perfectly logical. (How else to explain the happy rush by our "leaders" to push America into 3rd world economic status?)
While many "serious" thinkers still dismiss out of hand even the suggestion that a conspiracy might be afoot, today's students of Western civilization unquestioningly accept the existence of the first triumvirate, the SECRET cabal formed by Julius Caesar, Crassus and Pompey to shape politics in mid-first century BC Rome.
If we now know that cabals, secret agreements and conspiracies occured in the past, isn't itnaive to assume that they don't happen today?
musings
August 31st, 2011 at 10:26 am
What drug war? Cash flow to banks from the user community, money laundering for all manner of purposes, the need to create gangs one can use – many reasons all those books about the crack epidemic and the Contras were not too far off. It isn't communism they were afraid of, it was the loss of profits. Communism was only going to cut into the bottom line, but whether they are selling bananas from banana republics or cocaine and heroin from Latin America and Afghanistan, the game is on. Does anyone remember the ugly stories on 60 Minutes about the Taliban, pre-911, cutting off the limbs of drug addicts and dealers? No? And Tony Blair lying to his party about how the war in Afghanistan was going to interdict all that heroin?
For the big money to be interested and make a profit, as with the price of oil, it has to be kept high. But as with all drugs, the highs don't last and warfare is needed to make the cheap thing scarce enough to be profitable. Ugly truths which are never understood.
To see things right, you have to have a little sympathy for the devil. And then, by walking in his shoes (say Cheney's) you will experience his perspective. It's about power over people (even if you are the most miserable specimen of the human race and the most likely to be soon on nature's chopping block).
So have a little sympathy for the devil.
JLS
August 31st, 2011 at 10:42 am
To be fair though, Cheny was pretty good as a Walmart greeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxFc1RMbko4&fe…
andy
August 31st, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I would say whites are well justified in feeling this way.
andy
August 31st, 2011 at 2:14 pm
We should end the "war on drugs". Such an awful waste and mistake.
El Tonno
August 31st, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Isn't that idea from the beginning of the 90s when Narcoempires were supposed to take over?
So long ago already.
But yeah, the US' own "southern border", a reflection of the Russian Caucasus.
jon
September 1st, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I too read Maybury's newsletter and can confirm that he does see Mexico as being in a civil war. A lot of what he writes seems to come true.
Bastiat's Ghost
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Directive #1: Control the subject population through reactionary response.
Directive #2: Terrorize the subject population through never-ending conflict and violence.
Directive #3: Depopulate the subject population.
Bind, Torture, and Kill.
More On Government Gunrunners | Liberty RoundTable
May 7th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08/30/fast-and-furious/ [...]
House Panel Holds Holder in Contempt -- News from Antiwar.com
June 20th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
[...] The operation facilitated the sale of weaponry to Mexican drug cartels in a flawed effort to locate criminals. Over 2,000 guns went virtually unaccounted for and the guns ended up at deadly crime scenes on both sides of the border. [...]
Knot Gullable
July 18th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Apparently the author prefers to write without doing any research. Most would call that fiction. What a tool