It is obvious that the main source of money for 9/11 was oil money, especially Saudi oil money.
Actually, it was "construction" money, or even "Honey" money, since Bin Laden's family made their fortune off of construction projects, while he's been heavily invested in the honey trade in Yemen (according to reports).
But that construction was fueled by oil profits from selling energy to foreign nations, including Americans.
But the Opium trade played a large role in fueling Al-Quaida and Taliban operations in Afghanistan which was, until recent the largest producer of Opium, and under the Taliban, warehoused the largest storehouse of the substance. And while the NA was also involved, it was the Taliban who controlled the warehoused drugs in the country.
But more of a focus in the drug trade/terrorist linkage is in S. America, where the world's longest Marxist insurgency has been raging for more than 30 years, fueled primarily by the drug trade. They sell the worst product to their own poor, kill Colombian Supreme Court justices using "sicarios" (cheap assassins), and terrorise the government and population into submitting to their will. And we saw the same thing from Sendero Luminoso in Peru.
All of these groups rely upon drug profits to carry out their wars and attacks against non-combatants.
And that's why I think it's appropriate to put the thought in people's minds that their personal habits do fuel organized crime and terror throughout the world. And sure, the issue can be muddied by citing oil profits, or the alleged short-selling that occurred prior to 9/11, but what's the harm in trying to convince people that drugs fund terror? It's not like we're undermining or subverting a legitimate business. Potent drugs such as Cocaine and Heroin kill or harm the users and undermine the social fabric of both the suppliers and users (which are no longer clear cut since drug use is rising in S. America as well).
It may be "propaganda", but it's not a lie, nor does it possess a derogatory side effect in its promotion. The worst it does is make people think about the consequences of their personal habits. And it gives people a personal means of saying they are assisting in fighting the war on terrorism.
As for oil, I'm all for energy independence. I see little reason for us to be subsidizing nations which will turn around and use that money to harm US interests.
Bottom line, I see only positive things that can derive from this ad campaign. I certainly don't see any downside to playing on people's sense of patriotism in achieving such a social good as demand reduction for narcotics.
9/11 sobered up this nation and has made us receptive to such messages. I think we should seize the opportunity and pursue this approach.
Hawk |
