Soon you will be rooting FOR the Taliban.

Post Reply New Topic

Most of the world's crop is grown by the Taliban, Burmese army and Al Qaeda.

Source?

It's not like any of the legal markets allow for importation of cannabis products produced in Afghanistan, but also Afghanistan is known for opium (and meth, as of recent), much more than it's (still) associated with hash.

Burma/Myanmar has long history as a source of opium. So the nasty regime might well encouraging the growth. Thats probably true.

Al Queda doesnt control any land tilled by farmers that I am aware of. So I dont see how Al Queda could be a major grower of any crop, legal, or otherwise.

The Taliban has a dual personality on the issue. The puritanical Taliban banned the growing of opium in 2000. But when W. invaded and knocked them out of power they allowed (maybe encouraged) opium cultivation in regions that their guerilla forces controlled. So during the Bush/Obama/Trump years most of the Afghan opium was grown in Taliban controlled areas.

But now that the Taliban has resumed control of the country they have restored the ban on growing it, and on drug trafficking and processing. And are rather successful at it.

So you might think that "well..the Taliban are as*holes but at least theyre helping the world to "just say no to drugs".

But according to the American Institute for Peace you should think again...because theyre successful ban hurts Afghanistan more than it help Afghanistan or the world. And will further mess up their economy and may result in even more refugees.

I think you missed my main point, opium isn't hashish. Producing opium crops won't make a place a significant contributor to the hashish trade.

TRUE，dude

I wasnt talking about hashish. I was talking about opium.

Opium is well known, but cannabis is also grown in these regions. These are basically outlaw regions outside of normal law. The Burmese military basically work with organised crime
https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/ ... l-security

The Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda are desperate for money so grow hash and opium to supplement their income. They also supply to their own fighters.

So, nothing to support the claim 'most of the world's crop is grown by the Taliban, Burmese army and Al Qaeda'.

In a very generous interpretation, you've almost supported 'some of the world's crop is grown for the Burmese army's benefit' but that's not a very controversial statement. Your claim has several facets, supporting one of them doesn't amount to supporting the entirety of it.

This isn't the first time you've made a large, multi-faceted claim and when challenged only support a narrow portion of the claim. Whether or not it's intended to be dishonest, it appears that way. I'm drawing attention to it in hopes of using it as a teaching moment.

If I say Sideshow Bob and Snake Jailbird are two of the biggest criminals in Springfield and you challenge that, if I respond with well, Sideshow Bob tried to frame Krusty I have provided zero evidence regarding the Snake portion of my claim, and essentially nothing about how the scale of Sideshow Bob's crimes compare against the rest of the criminals in Springfield.

When you say most of the world's (hashish) crop is grown by the Taliban, Burmese army and Al Qaeda and provide a source that largely discusses human trafficking in Myanmar, you have failed to support your claim in a meaningful way. It suggests that either you didn't read the source you've provided or that you think I'm so f*****g stupid that I won't notice the article doesn't support the claim being made.

The worst part (for someone in your shoes) is that as someone slowly establishes a pattern of these sorts of responses, it becomes harder to believe they're correct about what they claim, whether one agrees with the specific claim or disagrees. This doesn't matter so much when it's people who never agree with that person, they'll just write them off; but what about when it's people who sometimes agree with them? Now they have to worry about their ally using what will appear like bad faith arguments when arguing for a position they also support.

I don't know if it's a lack of due diligence or bad faith, but I'm certain you can do better. And sometimes, that means conceding one isn't able to find a source that supports the entirety of their claim. One doesn't even need to concede that their claim is wrong, only that they're not able to adequately support it currently.



For what it's worth, the conversation you were interjecting into started with a reference to hashish, not opium.

In terms of production, Afghanistan would be the major producer of cannabis resin in the world. This is principally due to the high resin yields measured in Afghanistan (145 kg/ha), which are four times higher than in Morocco (36 kg/ha measured in 2005), where cannabis resin is also produced.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR ... nnabis.pdf

Also you do know that illegal supply isn't commercially monitored like Fentanyl shipments from China right. It's a no-brainer, Regions of the world which operate outside of international and national law are prime croplands for drug production. I posted a link which shows Burma is a prime candidate.

This actually supports your claim, unlike your previous source. It's 13 years old, but it's at least on topic.



You understand the difference between 'this might be a good area for production' and 'this is demonstrated to be a significant producer', right?

Posting a link that one can claim proves potential isn't the same as posting a link that proves it's actually happening on the scale you claimed.

They need to use it, not sell it.
Then they would relax and spin.

Not likely, women aren't even people under their rule....so yeah no way would I cheer that on. All that middle east war nonsense just so the Taliban could go back to treating women worse than cattle.

My point is there are no numbers for production levels, soil fertility, crop yeilds or shipment volume in places like Mexico, Columbia and Burma due to the presence of armed drug cartels.

Near to Afghanistan is Pakistan which is a big buyer of drugs from across the border. A lot of Burmese product ends up in the golden triangle of northern Thailand.

There is a lot of weed grown in the world. I cant believe that any one nation has a monopoly on it. Like tomatoes its a user friendly crop everywhere in the temperate and tropic zones.

Vietnam vets I knew in college in the Seventies talked about how Vietnamese peasants pulled it out of their rice fields as a weed...our GIs would offer to buy the stuff they saw lying on the dikes of the paddies...and the locals would react the way an American homeowner would react if you offered to buy piles of crab grass (are you crazy?).

And nowadays they have genetically engineered stuff that grows in cold places like British Columbia.

Or short hybrids that grow in small hot houses. Its as if they are making cockroaches even MORE resilient and omnipresnt than they already are.

And you still havent answered the question as to HOW Al Queda could be "growing" any kind of crops when it doesnt control any land?

But thats just it.

Theyre trying to keep from being overthrown by ISIS...which oppresses women just as much, PLUS ISIS will resume terrorism against the outside world (which the Taliban has grown tired of).

So you get all of the bad stuff of the Taliban ...plus MORE!

And if you order RIGHT NOW...you will get..oppression...terrorism...plus an extra nonstick frying pan thrown in!

Thanks. I knew I'd heard something about that. So if the Russians had managed to get rid of the Taliban (or whoever they were then), a lot of things might have gone better afterwards.