Comment by cess11 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cess11 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

OK, but did you know that US intelligence reignited heroin use in the US after WWII?

As a way to pay off the european organised crime gangs US intelligence gave them heroin to sell.

Why did the US need to pay crime gangs?

Because they denied the europeans sovereignty and democracy, and used the mob as a tool to stop political organising.

But the mafia doesn't work for free, and maybe you've wondered why Frank Sinatra spent so much time in pre-revolutionary Havana, and how Lucky Luciano came to be a global leader.

And, why it was such a nuisance that the cubans shrugged off the informal occupation.

This is why. The US hired the mafia, the mafia accepted, then met with the usian mafia in Cuba because you need to sell the heroin somewhere that's not home, when the US felt it had lost control and jailed some of the mafia leaders it was way, way too late.

If this is new to you, read Alfred W. McCoy, plus Wikipedia.

Okay but did you know there's a man in prison in Arizona named Jose, who's in for heroin smuggling?

Heroin smuggling is bad, and I've imagined that someone paid for the OP article to have this headline. Putting the same logic together which you employed - it must have been Jose who forced rand to publish the study with such a provocative headline.

This conspiracy garbage is so tiring.

If this is new to you, read arizona court dockets. Trust me, Jose is guilty, the evidence was airtight, so he MUST have paid rand, according to your garbage conspiracy logic

What do you mean, "conspiracy garbage"?

McCoy was a respected academic and scholar. Have you read his books about this?

> What do you mean, "conspiracy garbage"

"I've read about the US government doing bad things in the past, and so, I'm allowed to say that any article with a headline which I find provocative, is paid government propaganda"

That's a garbage line of reasoning and I don't care for it.

Did the "academic and scholar" you cited, write anything at all, to back up the claim that the op link is paid propaganda by the government?

It's conspiracy garbage to cite "huh did you know a highly respected academic says that Jose in Arizona smuggled heroin? Because I read this scholar's work, which means I'm now qualified to read a RAND study headline and conclude that it's worded so provocatively that it must be government propaganda"

Right, but I didn't make that argument.

Yes, that's exactly what you did. You cited that the us government did heroin or whatever, to back up the argument that the headline to the op post is so provocative that it must be government propaganda.

That's a garbage line of logic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com