Silk Road forums

Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: warr10r on April 17, 2012, 01:10 am

Title: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: warr10r on April 17, 2012, 01:10 am
How many of us will be arrested before we actually start to fight back? Wars require defensive and offensive tactics. Purely defensive tactics only delay inevitable defeat, you must destroy those who attack you or your defenses will over time be systematically compromised up to the point that you are. I think we can all agree that as long as drug laws are enforced, the federal and state agents who enforce them are our enemies. They are not merely men with jobs, they are men whose job it is to violate our rights. They do not deserve to be seen as anything other than enemy soldiers engaging in a war that they themselves have instigated against us. It is time to stop being apologists for those who wish to viciously attack us and start treating them as what they willfully choose to be, enemy combatants. There are such things as mutually exclusive ideologies, and the ideologies of freedom and slavery are mutually exclusive. Through out history when mutually exclusive ideologies arise, with people willing to fight to enforce one, the followers of the other must war or those who are willing to will prevail. You can be scared and a slave or you can be brave and fight against those who wish for you to be a slave, there is no middle ground. Some of us will go to prison, but some of us are going to go to prison anyway so why not at least be as effective as possible before we do? These are rhetorical questions for you to think on yourself, obviously any organization or grouped participation in such matters should be avoided at all costs.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: Bamann on April 17, 2012, 01:22 am
Who says we aren't fighting?  For everything that is ordered, shipped, used, grown and sold it's another dollar that is spent trying to prevent it.  They can only keep up for so long.   ;)
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 17, 2012, 01:31 am
Who says we aren't fighting?  For everything that is ordered, shipped, used, grown and sold it's another dollar that is spent trying to prevent it.  They can only keep up for so long.   ;)

Until they run out of prison space and need to build some new ones?
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: raven92 on April 17, 2012, 01:35 am
Who says we aren't fighting?  For everything that is ordered, shipped, used, grown and sold it's another dollar that is spent trying to prevent it.  They can only keep up for so long.   ;)

Until they run out of prison space and need to build some new ones?

New prisons equal new jobs, new jobs equals more money for drugs, more money for drugs equals more arrests, more arrests back to step 1

Economy fixed!  ;D
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 17, 2012, 01:38 am
New prisons equals new jobs for government employees and contractors. They spend our money on it. The government is equal to the modern day slave owners as far as I am concerned. Protecting our freedom from them is important, but it is not the answer to defeating them unless the protection is perfect for everyone. And that is not possible. The real goal should be to make it so we don't need to protect our freedom from them anymore, because they are rendered powerless by whatever means necessary.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: raven92 on April 17, 2012, 01:43 am
Yea kmfkewm, I agree 100%, was just being sarcastic. The powers that be have gotten out of control at this point. We honestly need a revolution to fix it though :(
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: lilith2u on April 17, 2012, 01:43 am
Well sure! Of course. In the eyes of the LE that are reading everyone of our forums. See us as "The Bad Guy" so it just is natural for it to be an us against them scenario.  Whether or not you want to use the word "War" or not? Because that's their language! The War on ....well whatever it is their against at that certain moment in  time, throw in Fear in a post 911 world that pretty much says the cards are off the table!
A country where torture, assassinations, mass murder, and being jailed and hooded and treated like an animal!
The LE is in a military mindset. Have you seen the Occupy video's? People getting sprayed in the face with mace less than a foot away! Kids my kids age! tear gas canisters shot at their heads! Whatever form it takes it must be a non violent movement IMHO. But yes the War is already been going on! Welcome to the Machine
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 17, 2012, 01:45 am
If the Jews (and allied forces) held a non violent protest against the holocaust they would all have been exterminated.

"Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass." - Mike Vanderboegh.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: lilith2u on April 17, 2012, 01:54 am
If the Jews (and allied forces) held a non violent protest against the holocaust they would all have been exterminated.

"Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass." - Mike Vanderboegh.
   I'm talking America! not Germany 1941! I'm talking inner struggle Amerika, where corporations are the Masters!
How do you battle that?
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: lilith2u on April 17, 2012, 02:06 am
How many of us will be arrested before we actually start to fight back? Wars require defensive and offensive tactics. Purely defensive tactics only delay inevitable defeat, you must destroy those who attack you or your defenses will over time be systematically compromised up to the point that you are. I think we can all agree that as long as drug laws are enforced, the federal and state agents who enforce them are our enemies. They are not merely men with jobs, they are men whose job it is to violate our rights. They do not deserve to be seen as anything other than enemy soldiers engaging in a war that they themselves have instigated against us. It is time to stop being apologists for those who wish to viciously attack us and start treating them as what they willfully choose to be, enemy combatants. There are such things as mutually exclusive ideologies, and the ideologies of freedom and slavery are mutually exclusive. Through out history when mutually exclusive ideologies arise, with people willing to fight to enforce one, the followers of the other must war or those who are willing to will prevail. You can be scared and a slave or you can be brave and fight against those who wish for you to be a slave, there is no middle ground. Some of us will go to prison, but some of us are going to go to prison anyway so why not at least be as effective as possible before we do? These are rhetorical questions for you to think on yourself, obviously any organization or grouped participation in such matters should be avoided at all costs.
    Are you talking "War on Drug? If so? there's a summit going on this very moment and the US is out of step with all the countries there except for Canada I believe. They want to legalize drugs! There the ones most effected by OUR War On Drugs and OUR Lax gun laws....the bodies arnt  piling up on our streets?
Its really quite embarrassing watching the man that the world thought would change the world for the better and he turns out to be same ole same ole Going against the very thing he said he would change if elected........what a disappointment. Its not like I'm shocked or anything though
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: philter3 on April 17, 2012, 09:00 am
If the Jews (and allied forces) held a non violent protest against the holocaust they would all have been exterminated.

"Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass." - Mike Vanderboegh.
   I'm talking America! not Germany 1941! I'm talking inner struggle Amerika, where corporations are the Masters!
How do you battle that?
America in 2019 is Germany 2041. 9/11 was a Reichstag. Just because you switch the Fuehrer out every 4-8 years for a new and improved model vetted by the (2 Wings of) WAR PARTY, doesn't meant you aren't sitting in the midst of a Nazi Hell.

 It's time and past time to start acting like it.

 The only thing I can say is hopefully if we survive our "Shoah" we won't become the genocidal Zionists in turn.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: squidShepherd on April 17, 2012, 12:21 pm
Violence is a question that can only be answered with violence. There is no sense in fighting a losing battle. I think it obvious in this case which faction has the more effective violence. This "war" has a great many casualties as it is. Moving the fight to their turf is asking for swift defeat. The internet is OUR territory and our home and it is the only place from which we can hope to gain any ground. Even though the internet is our home and we do everything we can to stay safe, we still run the very real risk of becoming one of the Drug War's victims. To move this to the street would make that possibility into a certainty. We ARE moving forward, we ARE fighting, and we ARE making more progress than has ever before been made in this absurd "War on Drugs". And we are doing it on our terms. If that isn't plain to see, then something painfully plain is being ignored. The progress is slow, and understandably so, we all know how powerful the enemy is, but that is no reason to be impatient. A good work is being done here and now, and like all good work, it takes time, effort and diligence.

-sSh-
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: lilith2u on April 17, 2012, 02:20 pm
Yes! +1  stay safe all!
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: clixor on April 17, 2012, 03:37 pm
Although i often bash the prime-directive watching Star Trek and curse that Janeway hippie for not fighting back with the 'we shouldn't lower ourselves to their standards mentality' i think there is no need for violence (anymore).

The US 'war' on drugs is lost. South/mid America are slowly but steadily realizing that there is no other solution than to legalize if they want to stop the, basically, civil wars in their society (and yes, we're talking about real drug wars, gangs taking out choppers, tanks kinda shit).

It will take a generation, but there simply isn't any other solution except the US killing all demand internally which will happen like.. never.

Imagine a continent where all drugs are legal, what choice do the US have then?
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: maynardJK032 on April 17, 2012, 05:25 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-column-debusmann-drugs-idUSBRE83F0ZR20120416


(Reuters) - Long before he was in a position to change his country's policies, Barack Obama had firm views on a complex problem: "The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. We need to rethink how we're operating the drug war."

That was in January 2004, during a debate at Northwestern University, when he was running for a seat in the U.S. Senate. To make sure his student audience understood his position on the controversial issue, Obama added: "Currently, we are not doing a good job."

To look at a classic flip-flop, forward to April 2012 and a summit of Latin American leaders, several of whom have become vocal critics of the U.S.-driven war on drugs, in the Colombian city of Cartagena. More than three years into his presidency, Obama made clear that he is not in favor of legalizing drugs or of ending policies that treat drug users as criminals.

"I don't mind a debate around issues like decriminalization," he said at the Cartagena summit. "I personally don't agree that's a solution to the problem." Decriminalization means scrapping criminal penalties for the use of drugs. It falls short of legalization which, in its purest form, means the abolition of all forms of government control of drugs. Obama is against that, too. "I don't think that legalization of drugs is going to be the answer," he said.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: davebowman on April 17, 2012, 06:35 pm
Some drug war task force should organize planned prison breaks at facilities which exclusively house drug offenders. The inmates could then be recruited! Like the Nat Turner slave revolt!
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: BE HERE NOW on April 18, 2012, 12:55 am
We are ALL products of the system we are part of and support.

Mainly political and monetary systems which have us all to some extent indoctrinated, domesticated, selfish, competitive on the notion that we live in scarcity.

Cops and other LE's are same as anyone else who exerts authority over another, causes dis-ease or detriment to another, the planet, animals etc... products of the system. I'm sure many don't believe in what they do. Or some for sure. Most of us can say we've met decent people who also happened to be LE.
 
As long as we insist on believing everything government and status quo tells us, we'll be stuck here as it all collapses.

SR IS FIGHTING BACK. In a fantastic way. But generally speaking, every DA, every cop, every prosecutor and judge MUST believe what they do is "right". How else can one justify the ruining of others lives for a paycheck? Gotta feed the family right?

But with information moving faster than ever, there are those that have become more aware.

The war on drugs is by THEIR definition. As many of us have become extremely aware after using specific substances, we know it's simply an assault on the unalienable right every human has given by whichever creator, diety or whatever they subscribe to. I find it extremely difficult to imagine what kind of person it takes to be a LE. I'm so removed from that kind of thinking it seems ridiculous.

We just do our best to stay away from them, hoping they stay away from us as well.

LE know they don't have  the right. Unless they somehow believe the life they follow. It may not be today, but someday you'll know and you'll be ashamed. Or you'll never know. And what a shitty fucking life that would be.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 18, 2012, 01:47 am
The SR strategy is one of exclusively taking the position of the interior.

Quote
defenders are in what military strategist Carl von Clausewitz calls "the position of the interior." They have to defend against every possible attack, while the defector only has to find one flaw that allows one way through the defenses ........ The attacker's clear advantage increases the scope of defection even further.

Being purely defensive gives extreme advantages to your attacker. They are defensive and offensive. You are not going to win a war by purely defensive tactics, you are only going to ensure that a single mistake on your part is all it takes for an attacker to defeat you. You should force your adversary to also take the position of the interior in respect to their own strategies, because then they also are forced to protect from every single possible attack, a much less pleasant position to be in than eternally waiting for one single weakness in their opponent.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: philter3 on April 18, 2012, 02:05 am
The SR strategy is one of exclusively taking the position of the interior.

Quote
defenders are in what military strategist Carl von Clausewitz calls "the position of the interior." They have to defend against every possible attack, while the defector only has to find one flaw that allows one way through the defenses ........ The attacker's clear advantage increases the scope of defection even further.

Being purely defensive gives extreme advantages to your attacker. They are defensive and offensive. You are not going to win a war by purely defensive tactics, you are only going to ensure that a single mistake on your part is all it takes for an attacker to defeat you. You should force your adversary to also take the position of the interior in respect to their own strategies, because then they also are forced to protect from every single possible attack, a much less pleasant position to be in than eternally waiting for one single weakness in their opponent.

With all due respect to you (and none whatsoever to "Carl von") this is horseshit. Clausewitz was a wanker officer type who made his bread and butter catering to other wanker types whose job it was to look dashing while peasant armies clashed for their edification. He was an aide-de-camp.. not a fighting general and as such his thoughts on strategy should be taken with the huge caveat that they are meant to be flattering to the mindset of the professional officer (i.e. by definition WANKERS).
  This "oh so nice" idea of the "strategy of the interior" is completely based on line formations and taking territory. It simply doesn't WORK in asymetric warfare, or any sort of guerilla action. Nor is it any sort of metaphor for law enforcement or a COIN operation.
   "..extension of diplomacy by other means" my left nut. Clausewitz can suck a dick, this is a conflict between a regime and multiple non-state actors existing embedded in a territory ideologically contested by both. As such the notions of what long dead pettifrogged wankers from the age of cannons and glory think is only relevant by accident.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: kmfkewm on April 18, 2012, 05:35 am
The SR strategy is one of exclusively taking the position of the interior.

Quote
defenders are in what military strategist Carl von Clausewitz calls "the position of the interior." They have to defend against every possible attack, while the defector only has to find one flaw that allows one way through the defenses ........ The attacker's clear advantage increases the scope of defection even further.

Being purely defensive gives extreme advantages to your attacker. They are defensive and offensive. You are not going to win a war by purely defensive tactics, you are only going to ensure that a single mistake on your part is all it takes for an attacker to defeat you. You should force your adversary to also take the position of the interior in respect to their own strategies, because then they also are forced to protect from every single possible attack, a much less pleasant position to be in than eternally waiting for one single weakness in their opponent.

With all due respect to you (and none whatsoever to "Carl von") this is horseshit. Clausewitz was a wanker officer type who made his bread and butter catering to other wanker types whose job it was to look dashing while peasant armies clashed for their edification. He was an aide-de-camp.. not a fighting general and as such his thoughts on strategy should be taken with the huge caveat that they are meant to be flattering to the mindset of the professional officer (i.e. by definition WANKERS).
  This "oh so nice" idea of the "strategy of the interior" is completely based on line formations and taking territory. It simply doesn't WORK in asymetric warfare, or any sort of guerilla action. Nor is it any sort of metaphor for law enforcement or a COIN operation.
   "..extension of diplomacy by other means" my left nut. Clausewitz can suck a dick, this is a conflict between a regime and multiple non-state actors existing embedded in a territory ideologically contested by both. As such the notions of what long dead pettifrogged wankers from the age of cannons and glory think is only relevant by accident.

The position of the interior is widely recognized as being "not bullshit" by pretty much every security expert and military strategist, and as applying to all scenarios with an attacker and a defender. It still holds true for asymmetric warfare, the defender needs to prevent all potential attacks and the attacker only needs to find one way to attack that will not be prevented. Here is the entire quote:

Quote
Network security is an arms race, and the attackers have all the advantages. First, network defenders occupy what military strategists call "the position of the interior": the defender has to defend against every possible attack, while the attacker only has to find one weakness. Second, the immense complexity of modern networks makes them impossible to properly secure. And third, skilled attackers can encapsulate their attacks in software, allowing people with no skill to use them. It's no wonder businesses can't keep up with the threat.

oops wrong one

Quote
defenders are in what military strategist Carl von Clausewitz calls "the position of the interior." They have to defend against every possible attack, while the defector only has to find one flaw that allows one way through the defenses. As systems get more complicated due to technology, more attacks become possible. This means defectors have a first-mover advantage; they get to try the new attack first. Consequently, society is constantly responding: shoe scanners in response to the shoe bomber, harder-to-counterfeit money in response to better counterfeiting technologies, better antivirus software to combat new computer viruses, and so on. The attacker's clear advantage increases the scope of defection even further.

I don't necessarily support violence being used against law enforcement (not that I give a flying fuck if they all die), but there are more sorts of attack than violent. They can be hacked and information on their agents dumped, undercovers can have their covers blown, pretty much any disruptive thing against them. One of our goals should be to be as disruptive to their operations as possible, not just to protect ourselves from them. As long as we are the only ones with anything to lose and they are the only ones with anything to gain, things are not going to go to our favor. We need to make them want us to stop compromising them, not just fend them off in the hopes that we can prevent them from compromising us. Protecting from compromise is much harder than compromising, due to the full position of the interior logic. 

Visualize yourself as being tasked with defending a home from a burglar. You need to make sure every door is locked with a lock that can't be picked, that every window is locked and shatter proof, that a tunnel can not be dug under the house and into it, that the chimney can not be used as an access point, etc etc. All the burglar needs to do is find one way to enter the home. Obviously they have the much easier job.

The same concept applies equally to us. We need to make sure we can't be compromised via financial traces, via communications interception, via network analysis, via hacking, via the mail system via dozens and dozens of potential ways to fuck up and the dozens and dozens of implementations of those ways that we could fuck up. All LE needs to do is find a single way that they can compromise us. We are clearly taking the position of the interior, and I think it is bad that we are the ones in this position while we completely ignore the fact that we should be focused on not only defending our own selves but also compromising our opponents.
Title: Re: when is it time to treat the war on drugs as a war?
Post by: Dopeboy on April 18, 2012, 10:42 am
When a group of men use physical force, violence, intimidation, etc. to impose their will onto others the first step in fighting them should be through non-violent methods. Financial warfare and psychological warfare come to mind.

Psychological warfare: We gather support against them, organize a larger army than theirs, made up of young, motivated, creative minds. We continue to rally up support by any means possible, trying to influence as many people as possible to join our ranks. We organize our movement in order to stop the oppressor's campaign to continue building prisons and expanding their empire. We need people to be willing to dedicate their lives in the fight for freedom and free will. Without free will we have nothing.

Financial warfare: Buy foreign made goods, never buy American made goods when possible. Remember that every time you spend money in a Western country, you are supporting the government of that country. Keep your money in Bitcoins whenever possible. Rip off Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, and any major bank or financial institution. Never pay taxes if at all possible. Influence others to do the same. Anyone who supports the government and the police state is an enemy.

But of course if the non-violent shit doesn't work, well I'm sure we all know what needs to be done. Every man needs to decide on his own at what point he's had enough. Just please don't kill innocent civilians. Only those in uniform should be targeted.

And remember that the American government's greatest enemy is the American people. No country on Earth is a greater threat to the US government. So when American patriotism begins to fall, and the American people begin to grow restless, the government will use war with other countries as a tool to unite the American populace. What was the Cold War? lol It was a perpetual state of fear from 1950-1980 that the government used to rally up support and patriotism. The War On Drugs? A perpetual state of fear against the big bad wolf who preys on the innocence of children. The War On Terrorism? Perpetual fear of the evildoers etc. etc. It's all bullshit and manipulation as a means to force you to be a slave to your master.