I appreciate you taking the time to respond Major. We seem to have a disagreement on what the facts are. And, what the word potential means.
The thing I'm bothered by in our tone is that we keep calling people who disagree with us idiots, zealots, or politicians doing the worst of what politicians do. In your response to me, you called me a Kool-Aid drinker, a Jonestowner, someone who has no clue, and someone who bought in to bullshit rhetoric. Same deal. This doesn't get anybody anywhere. And, how can it be a great debate if the person on the other side is a kool-aid drinking Jonestowner who doesn't have a clue? Great debates have valid points on this side. The math doesn't add up there at all. Either it wasn't much of a debate, or the points are valid.
Nobody's disputing that money can be transferred or laundered in Las Vegas. Maybe we could interview representatives of the casinos so they could tell us what steps they take to try and prevent this from happening on their grounds....whether those steps are working...or whether those steps are futile because it's too difficult a thing to stop.
Let me ask it this way. If an organization in the Middle East wants to get money to a pocket of sympathetic minds in Detroit, in Philadelphia, or in Florida, is it easier to try to get everybody to meet in Las Vegas? Or, is it easier to use unregulated offshore financial vehicles? Particularly in an era where so many things can be purchased online?
Before these groups learned much about the outside world, Vegas would certainly be a choice. It's common knowledge that Mohammed Atta and cohorts spent some time in Las Vegas before 9/11. As the networks grew in size and sophistication, unregulated offshore financial vehicles would obviously have the POTENTIAL to be used. That's all that was being said by anyone on the other side of the debate. That's all Hartley quoted in his article. There was a quote from a letter to Daschle that used the word potential. Hartley quoted a person he interviewed who said the same thing.
Major Wager can't possibly make the case that there isn't the POTENTIAL for something like this to happen. It hasn't happened yet? Fine. It's harder than people think? Fine. It's easier money-wise in Vegas? Fine. All that was said was that the potential exists. The potential obviously exists. What facts could we put forward that says the potential doesn't exist?
Books written about the terrorist organizations by people with no connection to the US government, or even the US because they're foreign journalists, have discussed this issue. Any study of what the terrorist organizations are doing would lead one to believe this is a possibility. It's not propaganda put out by DOJ, unless foreign journalists who have exposed how badly the US has handled the war are secretly part of the DOJ. Any study of terrorist organizations makes it obvious that this is an option.
Moving on. Laundering is no longer an organized crime issue? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that organized crime no longer launders money? Do we have any evidence for that? If we googled "money laundering by organized crime" would we get no hits? The fact that people other than organized crime are also laundering money doesn't mean that organized crime can't use unregulated offshore financial vehicles to launder money. How would the fact that others outside of organized crime also launder money mean money laundering is a red herring in the discussion of unregulated financial vehicles? That would mean a greater danger of abuse not a lesser danger.
You said: "In order to fight the USG on these issues it will take public awareness but most of all public correctness"
How can the public be made aware, and think correctly on the issue, if Major Wager treats the debate like this:
*People who are concerned about the dangers of gambling are religous zealots
*People who are concerned about gambling addictions are busy-body do-gooders
*People who are concerned about children betting don't understand anything
*People who are concerned about the games being unfair are jamming morality down our throats
*People who are concerned about organized crime involvement are idiots
*People who are concerned that terrorists could shuttle money via unregulated offshore vehicles are kool-aid drinkers
Thanks to the comprehensive approach of the site, articles posted by Clevfan and others have shown that gambling does have dangers, can be addictive, can be abused by minors, can feature unfair games, and does have links to organized crime both on land and offshore. Currently there appears to be only the potential for abuse at offshore places by terrorist groups. That doesn't mean "potential" can be part of the concerns of reasonable people.
Making the public aware so they can think correctly means explaining how regulated online gaming would deal with addiction issues, making sure children can't play, making the games fair (which limits it to poker and sports betting), making sure organized crime wasn't involved, and making sure evil-doers weren't able to skirt legal financial means to benefit their organizations.
Specifics, not name calling.
In any debate, the other side will have facts...and the moderator will have facts if its one of those TV news shows. Playing the "it's all a bunch of propaganda" card over and over again without specific evidence that it's propaganda won't win the argument. It wouldn't win a trial if this was before a jury. We have to convince people. The way the laws are now, the onus is on us to convince in order to create change so that things can be the way we hope for. They can't possibly become what we hope if we don't take those steps.
Thanks again for taking time to respond to my earlier post...blg  |