http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11477062
QuoteA Saudi prince murdered his servant in an attack which had a "sexual element", the Old Bailey has heard.
Bandar Abdulaziz, 32, was found beaten and strangled in the Landmark Hotel, Marylebone, central London, on 15 February.
The court was told Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud had carried out several assaults on the victim before he died.
Mr al Saud, 34, admits manslaughter but denies murder and one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The jury has been asked to decide whether he is guilty of manslaughter or murder.
When the body was found the prince claimed his aide had been attacked and robbed three weeks before his death.
But the jury was told Mr al Saud carried out the killing - and injuries including bite marks to Mr Abdulaziz's face showed the "ferocity of the attack to which he had been subjected".
'Friends and equals'
The prince has claimed he was "friends and equals" with his servant and denied being gay.
Jonathan Laidlaw QC, prosecuting, said: "The evidence establishes quite conclusively that he is either gay or that he has homosexual tendencies.
"It is clear that his abuse of Bandar was not confined simply to physical beatings.
"There is clear evidence, over and above the bite marks, that there was also a sexual element to his mistreatment of the victim."
The court heard that the prince and his aide had been staying together at the hotel since 20 January as part of an extended holiday.
Mr Abdulaziz's body was found with blood on the pillow and the defendant appeared "shocked and upset", the court heard.
Mr al Saud told police officers they had been drinking in the hotel bar until the early hours of the morning before returning to the room and that when he woke at about 1500 GMT he could not rouse the victim.
The prince had tried to clean up some of the blood and wash some of Mr Abdulaziz's bloodstained clothing, Mr Laidlaw said.
'Sexual connotation'
Bloodstains found in the room were "consistent with the victim having been the subject of a series of separate assaults before he was killed", the jury heard.
Asked by police about the injuries suffered by the victim, Mr al Saud said he had been robbed three weeks earlier on Edgware Road, in central London.
But CCTV footage showed the prince attacking his servant in the lift of the hotel on two separate occasions in previous weeks and kicking him outside a restaurant on the night of his death.
The post-mortem examination showed Mr Abdulaziz had suffered heavy blows to his head and face, leaving his left eye closed and swollen, his lips split and his teeth chipped and broken.
There were also injuries to his neck, ears and internal organs, bleeding to the brain and a rib fracture.
"There were bite marks to his cheeks, which had 'an obvious sexual connotation," Mr Laidlaw said.
The case continues.
This wouldn't be the first time a Saudi Prince has been revealed to be a murderous sadist, but al-Saud...well, that name mean's he's part of the charmed circle in the Saudi Arabia, the actual Royal Family itself. A large Royal Family, no doubt, with 600 or so members....but's he's not just some oil-rich magnate who gives himself an imaginary title, like most "princes".
That aside, try finding any other information on the Prince. I have, and I've come up with nothing. Nada. Zip.
What a vile, sadistic bastard.
What Nigel said.
This reminds me of the story a few months back about the Filipino servant who returned home from working in Saudi Arabia with a load of metal pins and needles that had been stuck in her body by her former employer, just because he felt like it.
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2010, 05:11:46 PM
This reminds me of the story a few months back about the Filipino servant who returned home from working in Saudi Arabia with a load of metal pins and needles that had been stuck in her body by her former employer, just because he felt like it.
That's different. The fact that the prosecution is being allowed to make this a sex thing means he's a dead motherfucker.
GOD DAMN IT
I need to get me some servants
Saudi princes into snuff, goodness, what is the world coming to.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2010, 05:19:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2010, 05:11:46 PM
This reminds me of the story a few months back about the Filipino servant who returned home from working in Saudi Arabia with a load of metal pins and needles that had been stuck in her body by her former employer, just because he felt like it.
That's different. The fact that the prosecution is being allowed to make this a sex thing means he's a dead motherfucker.
I'm honestly surprised he didn't have diplomatic immunity in the first place. Of course, if the Saudis knew from the start the particulars of this case (and they probably had a good idea; Saudi intelligence is terrible, tradecraft wise, but drop enough money and anyone talks) they likely rescinded it to allow the prosecution to go ahead. They're all playboys in private, in my limited experience, but appearances must be kept up. Goodness knows enough militants want to kill the entire House of Saud already for being insufficiently committed to Islam, without them appearing to be protecting homosexuals into the deal.
Said Prince is now going to seek asylum in the UK after his prison term is served.
Given we extradited homosexuals back to Iran, where they also face the death penalty, I don't rate his chances too highly. Especially since we want to be warm this winter, and for the Saudis to continue to buy our weapons systems and hire our mecenary companies.
I dont understand what the correlation between bites to the cheeks and homosexuality is and why even it was brought out.
i think its because they were sharing a room together. very suspicous i'd say given that homosexuality is punished by death. add to that years of mental abuse. who would stay around for that. sounds like a domestic abuse situation.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 05, 2010, 05:21:18 PM
GOD DAMN IT
I need to get me some servants
I know, right? It would make GASMS a breeze.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 20, 2010, 08:55:47 PM
I dont understand what the correlation between bites to the cheeks and homosexuality is and why even it was brought out.
Did they say which cheeks?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 20, 2010, 08:55:47 PM
I dont understand what the correlation between bites to the cheeks and homosexuality is and why even it was brought out.
Certain bite marks during violent episodes can have sexual connotations. I presume, though this is speculation, that cheeks are one of these areas, replacing the near chaste "peck on the cheek" style of a kiss with a far more sadistic and damaging act.
I also suspect there were other acts performed on the servant which, when considered alongside the cheek-biting, lend itself to the theory that the Prince is homosexual or at the very least bisexual.
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
Certain bite marks during violent episodes can have sexual connotations. I presume, though this is speculation, that cheeks are one of these areas, replacing the near chaste "peck on the cheek" style of a kiss with a far more sadistic and damaging act.
Well yes, that does make sense, but if the Prince has a history of going psychotic, then it really doesnt mean anything other than he had a psychotic episode... not like we would hear about his medical history do.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 22, 2010, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
Certain bite marks during violent episodes can have sexual connotations. I presume, though this is speculation, that cheeks are one of these areas, replacing the near chaste "peck on the cheek" style of a kiss with a far more sadistic and damaging act.
Well yes, that does make sense, but if the Prince has a history of going psychotic, then it really doesnt mean anything other than he had a psychotic episode... not like we would hear about his medical history do.
Is this a variation on the it's-only-gay-if-the-balls-touch?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on October 22, 2010, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on October 22, 2010, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 22, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
Certain bite marks during violent episodes can have sexual connotations. I presume, though this is speculation, that cheeks are one of these areas, replacing the near chaste "peck on the cheek" style of a kiss with a far more sadistic and damaging act.
Well yes, that does make sense, but if the Prince has a history of going psychotic, then it really doesnt mean anything other than he had a psychotic episode... not like we would hear about his medical history do.
Is this a variation on the it's-only-gay-if-the-balls-touch?
No :argh!:
I know its not an important part of the OP, its just that it called my attention.
I imagine there are a list of marks of potential abuse that police and investigators typically see in these kinds of cases, bite marks (I know in pediatric cases, at least) being amongst them.
I was just assuming the news didn't want to write he also buttsecksed him?
They'd just call it sodomy and rape...the media's not afraid of the word "sodomy," Trip. Esp if it makes a Saudi look bad.
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2010, 03:28:32 AM
They'd just call it sodomy and rape...the media's not afraid of the word "sodomy," Trip. Esp if it makes a Saudi look bad.
you mean
Saudimy?
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 23, 2010, 03:49:05 AM
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2010, 03:28:32 AM
They'd just call it sodomy and rape...the media's not afraid of the word "sodomy," Trip. Esp if it makes a Saudi look bad.
you mean Saudimy?
:spit:
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2010, 03:28:32 AM
They'd just call it sodomy and rape...the media's not afraid of the word "sodomy," Trip. Esp if it makes a Saudi look bad.
Saudi Royal Family (most litigious royalty in the world) + British defamation laws = docile press.
Well, he got 20 years for it. Which is better than getting life. If he got life, he'd be up for Parole in 7 years. But getting 20 years means he has to wait 10 years before he can apply for Parole.
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2010, 09:17:13 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 23, 2010, 03:28:32 AM
They'd just call it sodomy and rape...the media's not afraid of the word "sodomy," Trip. Esp if it makes a Saudi look bad.
Saudi Royal Family (most litigious royalty in the world) + British defamation laws = docile press.
Ah, that makes sense then. American press doesn't usually have that issue, really...but then this didn't happen in the US and so didn't get much if any playtime here.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 23, 2010, 10:34:26 PM
Well, he got 20 years for it. Which is better than getting life. If he got life, he'd be up for Parole in 7 years. But getting 20 years means he has to wait 10 years before he can apply for Parole.
Good, even if it was a crime of passion he didn't deserve to get off on manslaughter.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 23, 2010, 10:34:26 PM
Well, he got 20 years for it. Which is better than getting life. If he got life, he'd be up for Parole in 7 years. But getting 20 years means he has to wait 10 years before he can apply for Parole.
It's at times like this that I just want to give up on the UK justice system...
Then you'll be happy to learn that 90% of UK prisoners are described as suffering from at least two mental illnesses, in addition to alcoholism or drug dependency.
Prisons in the UK exist mostly to keep people who wouldn't commit a crime anyway from wanting to do so through deterrence, sweeps up those too impaired, stupid or outrageous in their acts to cover up their crimes and so the system ticks along quite nicely. Oh, and occasionally we outsource them to the likes of Wackenhut, so they can send kickbacks to MPs and give loans to the major parties.
I have the rehab center over the road from me... I can believe most of them have at least one mental illness (possibly caused by the heroin they seem to 'aquire'- probably through selling their very nice washing machines the government are happy to provide them with).
I say bring back 'proper' punishments and make people in prison earn their keep.
Interesting fact: when heroin was decriminalized in the UK, before the 1970s, it's addicts were mostly ex-soldiers and people recovering from surgery. There were no crimes associated with it, and doctors were licenced by the government to treat addicts with it. Since heroin's major physiological side effect - apart from being very addictive - is constipation, people did not die from it or suffer in ill health. There was no "heroin problem", it was not a popular drug and its usage was contained.
Then, in the 70s, the American government, as part of it's war on drugs, put pressure on UK ministers to outlaw it, which they did. Since then, the addict population has exploded from a few thousand to over 200,000 currently. The drugs are cut with all kinds of terrible shit, meaning overdoses and complications are more common. Because it's illegal, the price has risen, meaning addicts frequently have to commit crimes in order to afford their habit. And government attempts at crackdowns only result in increasing the street price of heroin.
So basically, there was never a heroin problem in this country until our government created one.
Wow, I didn't know that, I can believe it though. I wasn't even aware it had ever been legal- I guess most drugs were at some point though when you think about it, like MCat and (more recently) NRG-1.
The trouble makers though are usually the alcoholics- they're some of the nastiest pieces of work I've seen.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 06:44:33 PMInteresting fact: when heroin was decriminalized in the UK, before the 1970s, it's addicts were mostly ex-soldiers and people recovering from surgery. There were no crimes associated with it, and doctors were licenced by the government to treat addicts with it. Since heroin's major physiological side effect - apart from being very addictive - is constipation, people did not die from it or suffer in ill health. There was no "heroin problem", it was not a popular drug and its usage was contained.
Then, in the 70s, the American government, as part of it's war on drugs, put pressure on UK ministers to outlaw it, which they did. Since then, the addict population has exploded from a few thousand to over 200,000 currently. The drugs are cut with all kinds of terrible shit, meaning overdoses and complications are more common. Because it's illegal, the price has risen, meaning addicts frequently have to commit crimes in order to afford their habit. And government attempts at crackdowns only result in increasing the street price of heroin.
So basically, there was never a heroin problem in this country until our government created one.
I can imagine. If it's not on the black market it's not being sold by shady characters targeting the homeless and lesser-mentally-capable.
Seriously, when I see the people attending the methadon distribution point, those poor sods are so retarded, I can't imagine it's just a result of drug-abuse. (Additionally, I believe that certain mental disorders have a high co-morbidity of inclination to addiction, so that makes sense. AD(H)D is one of those disorders, btw)
Opium dens were quite popular in the 19th century, as was cocaine.
Hell, Britain fought a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War) (two actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars)) for the right to sell drugs in a country where they were illegal.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 06:44:33 PMInteresting fact: when heroin was decriminalized in the UK, before the 1970s, it's addicts were mostly ex-soldiers and people recovering from surgery. There were no crimes associated with it, and doctors were licenced by the government to treat addicts with it. Since heroin's major physiological side effect - apart from being very addictive - is constipation, people did not die from it or suffer in ill health. There was no "heroin problem", it was not a popular drug and its usage was contained.
Then, in the 70s, the American government, as part of it's war on drugs, put pressure on UK ministers to outlaw it, which they did. Since then, the addict population has exploded from a few thousand to over 200,000 currently. The drugs are cut with all kinds of terrible shit, meaning overdoses and complications are more common. Because it's illegal, the price has risen, meaning addicts frequently have to commit crimes in order to afford their habit. And government attempts at crackdowns only result in increasing the street price of heroin.
So basically, there was never a heroin problem in this country until our government created one.
I can imagine. If it's not on the black market it's not being sold by shady characters targeting the homeless and lesser-mentally-capable.
Seriously, when I see the people attending the methadon distribution point, those poor sods are so retarded, I can't imagine it's just a result of drug-abuse. (Additionally, I believe that certain mental disorders have a high co-morbidity of inclination to addiction, so that makes sense. AD(H)D is one of those disorders, btw)
It's usually a mixture of pre-existing conditions which make addiction more likely, what the drugs are cut with and socio-economic status, which feeds into pre-existing mental conditions. I'm sure RWHN could point out more on that, I only know the basics from speaking to NHS people and a journalist who investigated the government role in the heroin boom.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 06:44:33 PMInteresting fact: when heroin was decriminalized in the UK, before the 1970s, it's addicts were mostly ex-soldiers and people recovering from surgery. There were no crimes associated with it, and doctors were licenced by the government to treat addicts with it. Since heroin's major physiological side effect - apart from being very addictive - is constipation, people did not die from it or suffer in ill health. There was no "heroin problem", it was not a popular drug and its usage was contained.
Then, in the 70s, the American government, as part of it's war on drugs, put pressure on UK ministers to outlaw it, which they did. Since then, the addict population has exploded from a few thousand to over 200,000 currently. The drugs are cut with all kinds of terrible shit, meaning overdoses and complications are more common. Because it's illegal, the price has risen, meaning addicts frequently have to commit crimes in order to afford their habit. And government attempts at crackdowns only result in increasing the street price of heroin.
So basically, there was never a heroin problem in this country until our government created one.
I can imagine. If it's not on the black market it's not being sold by shady characters targeting the homeless and lesser-mentally-capable.
Seriously, when I see the people attending the methadon distribution point, those poor sods are so retarded, I can't imagine it's just a result of drug-abuse. (Additionally, I believe that certain mental disorders have a high co-morbidity of inclination to addiction, so that makes sense. AD(H)D is one of those disorders, btw)
It's usually a mixture of pre-existing conditions which make addiction more likely, what the drugs are cut with and socio-economic status, which feeds into pre-existing mental conditions. I'm sure RWHN could point out more on that, I only know the basics from speaking to NHS people and a journalist who investigated the government role in the heroin boom.
Socio-economic status plays a large part- it links to a lot, children from poorer backgrounds are more likely (but not always) to be socialised differently and have different goals in life and different, 'deviant', ways of achieving them whether through drugs or crime.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:12:11 PM
Opium dens were quite popular in the 19th century, as was cocaine.
Hell, Britain fought a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War) (two actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars)) for the right to sell drugs in a country where they were illegal.
In1966, the number of Heroin addicts registered with the Home Office, was 1272. This figure rose to 2782 by the end of 1968. Compared to the figures today, (which I don't have) these figures are negligable.
(Source: Drugs, Medical, Psychological, and Social facts. Peter Laurie. Penguin revised edition, 1974)
Today, many schizophrenia sufferers self medicate with Heroin, because it is by far the most effective drug to relieve symptoms. This naturally results in large numbers of people in UK Prisons with severe mental health problems.
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:33:52 PM
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Today, Crack is being marketed, with Heroin by dealers who offer a £20 rock of Crack, free with every eighth of an ounce of Heroin.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 07:36:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:33:52 PM
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Today, Crack is being marketed, with Heroin by dealers who offer a £20 rock of Crack, free with every eighth of an ounce of Heroin.
Seriously?
They must be selling that Heroin out for a huge profit to just being giving crack away... unless they're going to start charging after they've got people hooked.
Quote from: Faust on October 25, 2010, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 23, 2010, 10:34:26 PM
Well, he got 20 years for it. Which is better than getting life. If he got life, he'd be up for Parole in 7 years. But getting 20 years means he has to wait 10 years before he can apply for Parole.
Good, even if it was a crime of passion he didn't deserve to get off on manslaughter.
Sad things is he probably did. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Hanni on October 25, 2010, 07:39:39 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 07:36:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:33:52 PM
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Today, Crack is being marketed, with Heroin by dealers who offer a £20 rock of Crack, free with every eighth of an ounce of Heroin.
Seriously?
They must be selling that Heroin out for a huge profit to just being giving crack away... unless they're going to start charging after they've got people hooked.
Of course they are. This level of Dealer, can expect to turn over maybe £3500 - £4000 a day.
I will admit this is pure speculation on my part, but the Afghan War may be causing some interesting price fluctuations.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:44:35 PM
I will admit this is pure speculation on my part, but the Afghan War may be causing some interesting price fluctuations.
Afghanistan's #1 export still seems to be heroin, from what I hear...the Talibs tried to make heroin more scarce when they were in power. The war changed all that, they then in order to spite the US/UN occupation, started INCITING more farmers to turn a profit for their purposes and sow more poppy fields.
Quote from: Jenne on October 25, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:44:35 PM
I will admit this is pure speculation on my part, but the Afghan War may be causing some interesting price fluctuations.
Afghanistan's #1 export still seems to be heroin, from what I hear...the Talibs tried to make heroin more scarce when they were in power. The war changed all that, they then in order to spite the US/UN occupation, started INCITING more farmers to turn a profit for their purposes and sow more poppy fields.
Turns out they were actually doing that to drive up the prices, while claiming piety was the reason.
As their later conduct has shown, and as you've mentioned, they definitely have no problems with dealing it now.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:01:06 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 25, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:44:35 PM
I will admit this is pure speculation on my part, but the Afghan War may be causing some interesting price fluctuations.
Afghanistan's #1 export still seems to be heroin, from what I hear...the Talibs tried to make heroin more scarce when they were in power. The war changed all that, they then in order to spite the US/UN occupation, started INCITING more farmers to turn a profit for their purposes and sow more poppy fields.
Turns out they were actually doing that to drive up the prices, while claiming piety was the reason.
As their later conduct has shown, and as you've mentioned, they definitely have no problems with dealing it now.
Yup. They are strangely "pragmatic" when there's a "holy cause."
From what I understand, the British Govt has been buying up the Poppy, in an attempt to keep the Tribesmen onside. When the War started, there was an influx of Nigerian Heroin to fill the vacuum left by the effect of the War. Yet somehow the Afghan Heroin is now as prevalent as ever. (Better the Devil you know) The Taliban have no qualms about the sale of opium to the west. It used to get processed into Heroin in Turkey, but with Turkey's aspirations to join the EU, this practice has had to be minimised, to toe the EU line. Now, processing has moved back across the border into Afghanistan, so now they can offer the real product to their market, for a greater price, (Which will be good for the post-war Afghan economy) than they could, just for the raw material. If moral arguments are left to one side when considering the Afghan Poppy, simpler economic factors can be addressed, and accounted for. Opium/Heroin is one of the only Markets there is, where the producer doesn't need to go and seek out a Market, the Market finds the producer. The production of the product, is driven by the demand. If the demand is not met from Afghanistan, (whose whole economy is based on Poppy) it will be met by the new African Countries who are just waiting for an opportunity. (Nigeria, Somalia, Congo, Sudan) This will destabilise Africa even more, and disrupt any post War economic improvement in Afghanistan. The whole War out there is being fought over Opium anyway, no matter what the coalition Governments say. It's the only viable resource of export, there is in Afghanistan. To the winner, the spoils! The only other thing of value to anyone else out there, is Goats. And no-one ever went to War over Goats!
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 25, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Considering BRIBERY is equal to 25% of Afghanistan's "official" GDP (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672828,00.html), who is surprised?
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 25, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Also because allying with the US means allying with Karzai, who is not only weak enough to let them continue on drug dealing, but who is implicated in it himself, through his brother.
Quote from: Jenne on October 25, 2010, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 25, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Considering BRIBERY is 25% of Afghanistan's "official" GDP (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672828,00.html), who is surprised?
At least they're honest about their corruption. Unlike, say, us.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 25, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Also because allying with the US means allying with Karzai, who is not only weak enough to let them continue on drug dealing, but who is implicated in it himself, through his brother.
...weak, or savvy? I'm thinking Karzai's cut from the same cloth that Pervez Musharref is--speaking out of both sides of his mouth to necessarily appease those he lives WITH and those who control his purse strings and his prestige.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2010, 08:53:04 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 25, 2010, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 25, 2010, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 08:43:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Also the Taliban are only responsible for roughly 10% of all Afghan heroin. Most of it is actually being sold by our warlord "allies".
Who are only Allied to us, because our Army have been driving the Taliban away from the main production areas, and consolidating their power base. Also, I expect there is an unspoken guarantee of post War business being put their way.
They are allied with us because we pay them. The depressing things I have read in the Army Knowledge Online newsfeed.
Considering BRIBERY is 25% of Afghanistan's "official" GDP (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672828,00.html), who is surprised?
At least they're honest about their corruption. Unlike, say, us.
Everyone's "honest" about it over there...that is to say, everyone expects it, and no one does anything to stop it. But I wouldn't compare our government over HERE to theirs over THERE, at any point in time. We don't bribe our post office workers to give us the stamps we pay them for...they have to. Our corruption's pretty low at the local level, for ourselves.
For OVER THERE, hell yes, we are playing ever much as deep a game as the Afghans themselves--well, the Afghans in power, that is.
Given his power seems to extend about three miles outside of Kabul...weak. Musharraff at least had a real army to command, most Afghan officers are Tajik and will stab that Pashtun boy in the back the minute it becomes more useful than leaving him alive.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:57:48 PM
Given his power seems to extend about three miles outside of Kabul...weak. Musharraff at least had a real army to command, most Afghan officers are Tajik and will stab that Pashtun boy in the back the minute it becomes more useful than leaving him alive.
Perhaps...I think the tribal/cultural alliances are indeed heavily played out in Afghan politics, but plenty of Tajiks are shrewd enough to know the sinkhole getting rid of Karzai would create would put Afghanistan that much further back from getting out of the uholy mess it's in...if that is ever going to happen, that is.
Oh, it wont happen while the US is still present in the country. But after the troops leave, watch as Karzai's frantic attempts to gain economic and military clout flounder, and he becomes less and less useful. As US economic woes get worse, the US wont be able to support Karzai in the way they are doing now, and those officers will be going without pay (Afghan Army is too large for the size of it's economy already...and still doesn't have the numbers, skill or training to defeat the Taliban). Unpaid soldiers, from a different ethnic background to the leader, in an unstable, resource rich country...that's Coup Scenario 101, right there, right next to a "a former coup leader leaves the country on a foreign visit and a former mid-level officer launches a military takeover".
Well, it's barely worth their lives to be in the Afghan Army if they aren't going to be paid for it...I can see that far, at least. Those fuckers get death threats from the villages all the fucking time.
However, I agree Karzai's up a tree without the US, which is why his rebukes of the US are always so mild-mannered and like so much braying of a donkey, to borrow my husband's countrymen's saying, rather than anything of any substance (again, just like Musharref, in my opinion).
I really doubt Karzai will last out till the US and UN are gone. I really think the dude will save his own ass and skidaddle as soon as the last tank goes out through the Hindu Kush.
Quote from: Hanni on October 25, 2010, 07:39:39 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 07:36:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:33:52 PM
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Today, Crack is being marketed, with Heroin by dealers who offer a £20 rock of Crack, free with every eighth of an ounce of Heroin.
Seriously?
They must be selling that Heroin out for a huge profit to just being giving crack away... unless they're going to start charging after they've got people hooked.
You haven't heard of the "first hit's free" marketing strategy? Of course they intend to start charging once people are hooked.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 27, 2010, 02:19:49 AM
Quote from: Hanni on October 25, 2010, 07:39:39 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 25, 2010, 07:36:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:33:52 PM
From what I saw, in the Independent not long ago, there are roughly 240,000 crack and heroin users.
Today, Crack is being marketed, with Heroin by dealers who offer a £20 rock of Crack, free with every eighth of an ounce of Heroin.
Seriously?
They must be selling that Heroin out for a huge profit to just being giving crack away... unless they're going to start charging after they've got people hooked.
You haven't heard of the "first hit's free" marketing strategy? Of course they intend to start charging once people are hooked.
Nah, Crack is really cheap at the moment. You can get a sizeable rock for less than the price of three pints of beer. So £20 worth with every £300 of Heroin cost's them virtually nothing. I don't like Cocaine, or Heroin, but I do know people who do.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 07:14:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 25, 2010, 07:09:54 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 06:44:33 PMInteresting fact: when heroin was decriminalized in the UK, before the 1970s, it's addicts were mostly ex-soldiers and people recovering from surgery. There were no crimes associated with it, and doctors were licenced by the government to treat addicts with it. Since heroin's major physiological side effect - apart from being very addictive - is constipation, people did not die from it or suffer in ill health. There was no "heroin problem", it was not a popular drug and its usage was contained.
Then, in the 70s, the American government, as part of it's war on drugs, put pressure on UK ministers to outlaw it, which they did. Since then, the addict population has exploded from a few thousand to over 200,000 currently. The drugs are cut with all kinds of terrible shit, meaning overdoses and complications are more common. Because it's illegal, the price has risen, meaning addicts frequently have to commit crimes in order to afford their habit. And government attempts at crackdowns only result in increasing the street price of heroin.
So basically, there was never a heroin problem in this country until our government created one.
I can imagine. If it's not on the black market it's not being sold by shady characters targeting the homeless and lesser-mentally-capable.
Seriously, when I see the people attending the methadon distribution point, those poor sods are so retarded, I can't imagine it's just a result of drug-abuse. (Additionally, I believe that certain mental disorders have a high co-morbidity of inclination to addiction, so that makes sense. AD(H)D is one of those disorders, btw)
It's usually a mixture of pre-existing conditions which make addiction more likely, what the drugs are cut with and socio-economic status, which feeds into pre-existing mental conditions. I'm sure RWHN could point out more on that, I only know the basics from speaking to NHS people and a journalist who investigated the government role in the heroin boom.
I'm just seeing this now (mostly because I did a vain search of my name). But it is true that you see a lot of co-morbidity when it comes to substance use. There has been a significant movement here in the states to develop more treatment models that take into account mental health and substance abuse. Because if both are present, and you only treat one of them, you're not really helping the patient all that much. The issue, of course as it always is, is adequate funding for programs.
That sounds remarkably similar to how we approached things in terrorism studies ie; if we only stop people blowing stuff up, and not the conditions which make people want to blow stuff up, we're not helping much (although there is a school of thought which posits if we can achieve perfect security, who gives a fuck why people want to blow stuff up), only there the problem is all the money is in the stopping people from blowing stuff up areas and not in the stopping people from wanting to blow stuff up areas.
And that money is a truly significant amount. As I'm sure it is with enforcing the drug war versus treating addiction and related mental illnesses which feed into it.