I wish Mexico had a better system, this sort of shit is a tragedy. I don’t know how or even when this will change, but I’m hopeful it will one day in my life
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
If Mexico and America used the same firepower on the cartels, that they do on the middle east, cartels would be a thing of the past.
They don't want to get rid of the cartels. The DEA has a vested interest in staying relevant, as it's part of the whole law enforcement industrial complex. Hell, one of the deadliest cartels' soldiers were previously trained by American special forces back in the day ( https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2010/11/3/us-trained-cartel-terrorises-mexico ). Guess who trained Taliban? You got it, the US. Who trained many of the guerrillas that would turn into tyrants in South America? Correctomondo, the US once again. We love to destabilize regions for corporate interests.
Not just the DEA, we've built a whole economy around drug offenses staying illegal. Drug testing companies, technology firms that develop law enforcement gear, law enforcement seminars, to say nothing of the thousands of companies that profit off of prison labor for what is effectively free, and the fact that a lot of the nonviolent offenders wind up turning violent because nobody will hire or rent to someone with a drug conviction.
we even have dowsing rods for cops
True story: Rambo was pivotal in helping the Mujahideen repel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. They would later become Al Qaeda.
The problem is systemic. You kill one cartel, another one pops up. It's because there's a demand for their products. Get rid of the demand and you'll dry up the supply. Do it in a smart way, not by destroying people's lives which inevitably throws them back in the cartels' hands.
I bet it isn’t all sunshine and roses but hasn’t El Salvador quite a bit of success by going absolutely crazy against the cartels?
Yes just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban…
We've tried that under previous administrations. Doesn't work. Lending Mexico a hand is just playing whack-a-mole so long as the conditions for the cartels (including the massive corruption in government, police, and military) remain.
The best thing the US can do for Mexico is reduce demand for cartel products domestically.
Weeding out FARC and Shining Path actually did teach valuable lessons which habe been repeatedly reapplied successfully during modern counter-terrorism.
Both where heavily invested in organized crime but are nowadays toothless or non-existant due to coordinated goverment and civilian efforts.
The Best example might be "The Sons of Iraq" who helped to pacify Iraq quite well. The Coalition literally hired local people suffering most from extremists to fight the extremists and it worked like a charm. FARC and Shining Path were pushed into insignificance by roughly the same methods.
Yes, there were "revenge" killings by the "somewhat good guys" against the "really bad guys". But in hindsight it was necessary to show the "really bad guys" that the tables had turned. As long as the overall violence decreases - deal with it.
Oh, by the way, did you know that the Mafia once was an organized military organization fighting for Sicilian independence? Over the last 200 years they slowly degraded into a bunch of sometimes wealthy oligarchic stock market fraudsters, but mostly pick pockets and low level fraudsters, at most bribing officials for construction jobs, if at all. 40 years ago they killed judges and police officers in the dozen. Nowadays they get beat up if they show up in Palermos shops and demanding the Pizzo (protection money). And the police stands by and collects the beaten gangster afterwards without minding the locals doing local justice. Works fine.
It is changing. Not as fast as almost every Mexican would want it to, but it is clearly changing for good if you take a look at the numbers.
Being reported due to being from El Pais, but they have a VERY high credibility rating:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/el-pais/
Not sure what the beef is here, someone mind explaining?
The answer is racism.
Against whom? I'm not being facetious, I am just uninformed to the motivation.
I have no idea about the back story here but being mexican, there racism against indigenous Mexicans, and darker skin mixed Mexicans. Mexicans that are light skinned are seen in a better light by our own people.
That's not uncommon for non white populations (groups?) I've read the same thing about Japanese people, Chinese and Indian people. Darker skin people are subjected to more discrimination than their lighter skinned countrymen.
As a mexican living in Mexico, the struggle is real. What is not real is the OP in bold letters. The so called "specialists" are usually a bunch of so-called activists campaigning in the election against the party in power.
There's also the magnitude of the election not being accounted for. These elections are the biggest in history. It's only logical that, assuming the high homicide rate in the country, the absolute numbers will be higher. It really sounds like another article trying to tie our president with the organized crime, something that has been shyly thrown at the average citizen several times now. If there was any evidence of this "blurry" line between government and cartels, the opposition to the President and his party would have already use it, since there's only one month left for campaigning. Instead, we have a paid bot campaign in X/Twitter, a millionaire one, financed by who knows whose money, trying to portray the president as a cartel boss or something. A failing campaign, if we look at the numbers.
I agree on your comment about the current situation. It is very violent. Either it’s getting more reporting than previous years or it actually is as bad as it seems. But I might be misunderstanding the tone of your comment here, it reads very apologetic of the current government to me:
It really sounds like another article trying to tie our president with the organized crime, something that has been shyly thrown at the average citizen several times now.
Maybe because it’s true? As another mexican, I have absolutely no doubt the government is working with cartels in different regions in exchange of more control, both ways. And I’m not saying it happened just in this administration, it’s been happening for at least 20 years.
My take is that some regions where the government wants bigger control are currently controlled by rival cartels where the government currently has bigger control in.
I also find it a bit cynical so write that this fact is being “shyly thrown around”, why are there so many articles about it then? The current president –the face of the government– had been seen multiple times visiting el Chapo’s mom. Very shy of him.
Is the president having dinner with El Chapo's mom enough evidence for you? It might not be straight up evidence but it does point towards it
I don't know enough about the situation to make an informed opinion, but let's make a hypothetical:
A government regime cannot be complicit in crimes because if they were then an investigation would have found them complicit in crimes?
That sounds insane. That sounds like a crazy person's opinion. These deaths and kidnappings aren't natural. Who stands to benefit from all of this? The answer from where I'm standing seems pretty clear.
Mas alla de que sea cierto lo que decis, me sigue pareciendo una locura pensar en que rapten o asesinen candidatos por una eleccion. Hay alguna tendencia entre las victimas? Son de algun partido en particular?
Not really a democracy at this point, is it?
The question is- is it more or less of a democracy then when it was a one-party state for most of the 20th century?
Jesus.
I checked the wikipedia list and Jesus is just about the only candidate name that hasn't been murdered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_politicians_killed_during_Mexican_elections
No point in murdering Jesus. Three days later he comes back and starts campaigning again.
And potentially hunt you down and try and make you eat some of his flesh to prove you failed.
Of all the places the US does aggressive intervention in, I’m always surprised they aren’t more heavily involved in Mexico.
They were and probably are. Which is why Mexico has these problems.
Not really surprising if you think about it. No oil, fierce competition from violent drug cartels that would fight back, and Mexican immigrants have been painted as an enemy for so long that there's no sympathy for their troubles.
Basically, the US has a lot to lose & not much to gain.
I'm constantly reminded of that one Ad Campaign for some kind of alcoholic beverage where they offered to fund the next revolution or civil war or something. I can't find anything about it online anymore, sadly.
I'm starting to think that maybe the same advertisement wouldn't be so controversial if it happened today.