Never Mind Fast & Furious. Why Are We Sending Guns to the Mexican Government?

Crime scene (courtesy msn.com)

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama Administration cabinet members knew about Operation Fast & Furious, the ATF’s “stingless sting” that enabled the sale of some 2000 U.S. gun store guns to Mexican drug thugs. Two of which ended-up in the hands of men who murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. I am reasonably sure the President of the United States was also briefed on the extralegal, U.S.-sponsored gun smuggling operation. I am losing hope that they will be held accountable for approving this criminal endeavor. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been supplying the Mexican Army and State Police with fully-automatic firearms, knowing full well that tens of thousands of these guns “seep” into the hands of narco-terrorists. (Syrian rebels anyone?) And knowing that the Mexican Army and Police are just as murderous as the cartels. Here’s some [more] evidence that legal firearms sales are arming Mexican killers . . .

A woman says she saw Mexican soldiers shoot and kill her 15-year-old daughter after a confrontation with a suspected drug gang even though the teenager was lying wounded on the ground. Twenty others also were shot and killed in rural southern Mexico after they surrendered and were disarmed, the mother told The Associated Press.

The Mexican government has maintained that all died during a fierce shootout when soldiers were fired on in the early morning of June 30. That version came into question because government troops suffered only one wounded, and physical evidence at the scene pointed toward more selective killings.

The witness said the army fired first at the armed group holed up at the warehouse. She said one gunman died in the initial shootout, and another gang member and her daughter were wounded. The rest of the gunmen surrendered on the promise they would not be hurt, she said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

After the gang surrendered, the girl, Erika Gomez Gonzalez, lay face down in the ground, a bullet wound in her leg. Soldiers rolled her over while she was still alive and shot her more than half a dozen times in the chest, her mother said. Another suspected gang member was injured in the initial attack.

“A soldier stood the kid up and killed him,” said the witness, who said she had gone to the warehouse the night before to try to retrieve her daughter from the gang she had apparently joined.

The soldiers interrogated the rest of the gang members in front of the warehouse, and then took them inside one-by-one, she said. From where she stood just outside the warehouse and in army custody, she heard gunshots and moans of the dying.

Now it would be one thing – a horrible thing but one thing – if the Mexican troops murdered the gang members in an effort to rid the populace of criminals. There is no reason to believe that. There is every reason to believe that the Army executed the drug gang on behalf of another drug gang (the area has been the scene of inter-cartel warfare for some time). With the complete support of the Mexican government.

Several days after the killings, AP reporters visited and took pictures of the warehouse and found little evidence of sustained fighting. There were few stray bullet marks and no shell casings. At least five spots along the warehouse’s inside walls showed the same pattern: One or two closely placed bullet pocks, surrounded by a mass of spattered blood, giving the appearance that some of those killed had been standing against the wall and shot at about chest level.

After the AP report, the state of Mexico prosecutors’ office released a statement saying there was “no evidence at all of possible executions.” The office said it found ballistic evidence of “crossfire with a proportionate interchange of gunshots.”

The state government refused to release autopsy reports the AP requested under Mexico’s freedom of information law, declaring them state secrets to be guarded for nine years.

Yes, I know: we can’t disarm the Mexican Army. I know that guns are not the problem; America’s War on Drugs is as responsible for the Mexican killings fields as anything the Mexican Army does to its own people. I also know that politics makes strange and bloody bedfellows. But there should be some sort of reaction from Uncle Sam to the carnage south of our border. I’m no gun control advocate, but funneling more machine guns into the region at taxpayer’s expense isn’t a solution to the problem at hand. By any stretch of the imagination.

comments

  1. avatar Nelson says:

    good question.

    why the fuck are ‘we’ govt asshole imbeciles sending weapons to Mexican govt, Israeli govt, Saudi govt, UAE govt, Pakistani govt, or any other govt or nations, period??

    1. avatar walt stawicki says:

      $imple an$wer

  2. avatar surlycmd says:

    So the Mexican gov’t can make money selling guns to the cartels and still have enough weapons to kill the peasants?

    1. avatar Gene says:

      You sure money is involved? Seems as if certain parts of their Gov’t _are_ the cartels.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        Exactly. The government is a criminal enterprise. Just like Chicago.

        Hmm. What prominent national politician grew up in that culture?

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          The Bamster. Definitely not my favorite president.

  3. avatar JohnF says:

    Hey, at least they’re not sending them to Ferguson, MO anymore!

    1. avatar John F says:

      Did the Govt do a PAPER WORK check on the straw pruchasers of the guns they sent to Mexico..
      WHAT !! NO BACKGROUND CHECK…

      1. avatar walt stawicki says:

        and when backgrounds said “no way that jose should be buying a gun”, the dealers were told to go ahead!

  4. avatar Mark says:

    “… Why Are We Sending Guns to the Mexican Government?. …”

    Fast and Furious V 2.0…?

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    What part of supporting the monopoly on the legitimate use-of-force don’t you understand? It is perfectly in accord with the principles and standards of Uncle Sam to supply/authorize sales to any foreign government. “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” (Richard M Nixon) It’s established law.

  6. avatar Tom W. says:

    Let’s review. We armed the Mujahadeen to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, than after Russia left in shame what followed?
    Oh,…. Organized Taliban and AQ.
    Certainly didn’t become problematic.

    We now want to arm Syrian rebels, and Mexico. Yet folks in this country, don’t want me to have 30 rd magazines or a certain type of “scary” looking military styled weapons,…but we’ll ship trucks full of happy button stuff I can’t get easily to anyone standing there with their arms out?

    Really?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Government, Mark II.

    2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      I want new post 1986 happy button stuff myself.

  7. avatar Pascal says:

    How about getting our Marine out of their jail before giving them anything at all?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      How about taking our Marine out of their jail and giving them NOTHING?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Shoot, I’m old and weak, but I’ll bring my own gun and ammo to that party if they just invite me. I suspect the cops and military would run away so fast it wouldn’t even be fun, but still worthwhile…

  8. avatar jwm says:

    “We” are not sending guns to mexico. A corrupt and morally bankrupt admin in DC is sending the guns. When I vote for barry or refuse to vote at all you can include me in that “We” statement.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      CORRECT!!!!!!

    2. avatar Rambeast says:

      To be perfectly honest, every administration sells arms to the wrong people. The party isn’t the issue, it’s those in power doing favors to others in power where resources are that those that bought and paid for our reps want.

      It’s like…

      Corporations own the government, so we need more government to control the… /repeat.

      The people don’t have to be answered to anymore. If they upset the apple cart, the government manufactures a threat to send them back in fear of losing their comfortable cages. The populace is perfectly happy to let DC spend us into oblivion, and believe the BS stories fed to us as excuses…as long as their favorite show/sport/store/etc remains open and available.

      TL:DR, We’re f’cked.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Brah?!? They are not selling, they are giving. At least W’s admin made them pay up front for weapons and ammo, credit for medical and food.

  9. avatar Wow says:

    One question: Are we SELLING them guns or are we GIVING them guns? Because my taxes should not be collected to GIVE anyone guns but our own troops…and if we’re going to be GIVING guns to people that are not US military, start with me…we give guns to other nations that are hardly our friends but for me it requires all kinds of background checks???

    1. avatar walt stawicki says:

      selling, selling selling, but some like saudis and isralis are given the money to buy with!

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I disagree with the notion that we ought – in principle – NOT GIVE guns to people. Suppose we see an oppressed body of people outside our boarders. Consider 4 options:
        1. – we stand back and do nothing
        2. – we offer guns for sale to the oppressed people
        3. – we give guns to the oppressed people
        4. – we send in the Marines
        (Admittedly, there are lots of considerations and other options.) Sometimes we will do #1; but, I’m not particularly comfortable with this option as a standing policy. #2 I don’t have any problems with (assuming the oppressed people aren’t our presumed enemies.) Jump to #4; do we understand the pitfalls here? Sometimes we will do it and sometimes it will be the only thing that could be done. Now, why rule-out #3? If the Lord helps those who help themselves, why should we shrink from kicking in a few assault rifles? If the oppressed people have the capacity to take-up the arms, wouldn’t it be better to give them the arms to take-up vs. sending in the Marines to do it for them? If they are/are-not willing to fight for their own cause why should we refuse-to-help/spend-our-blood? Seems to me that GIVING arms to an oppressed people so that they can defend themselves is often the best option.
        I’m not arguing one-way-or-the-other with respect to the Syrians. Perhaps the enemy of our enemy is our friend sometimes. Sometimes, as with Stalin during WW-II, it’s a tough choice but it doesn’t make sense to take on two enemies when you can have one help you fight the other. The most clear-cut principle with the Syrians seems to be that if our Government decides to do it then it must be the wrong decision. Sigh.

  10. avatar Carlos Deras says:

    The only problem I have with the stories told by the Mexicans… is that they are told by Mexicans. Unfortunately, aside from worshiping the local gangs as town saviors, Mexicans are highly prone to exaggeration. An example I will use is one from my family. About 10 years ago a distant cousin of mine was walking home from a night club and was gunned down by the Federal Police, While it is a true story people left out the facts that
    A: He had joined one of the local gangs
    B: He was a drug abuser and sold drugs
    C: He carried illegal firearms, Which everyone practically does, and flaunting them on his Myspace and in public.
    I don’t have any doubt in my mind that the may have tried to gun someone else down or turned a gun onto a Federal Officer, however almost nobody in the family wishes to acknowledge any of the facts and till this day continue to tell the story of a supposed “innocent young man” gunned down by the corrupted Federal Police. Another example is when they arrested “El Chapo”. Not long after his rest over 1,000 people marched into the streets of his hometown demanding his freedom.

    o-((_-_))-o Although my mother comes from that country… I can’t help but to consider the majority of the Mexican population Stupid. They say they want peace and an end to violence, but almost all of them are Drama Queens who like to live in a terrible state of existence. We shouldn’t offer any form of Aid to this country both its government and people. o-((0.0))-o If anything we should put financial sanctions on them by not allowing any money or goods into Mexico.

  11. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    With a wide open border, people with such values, views, and culture that make this happen…….Might be coming to a city near you….

    1. avatar Retired LEO says:

      Might be coming? My friend they are here, invited by Barry & the rest of the corrupt politicians.
      Yes I know corrupt & politician are the same.
      When our utopian citizenry stops the bleeding heart poor hispanic pc nonsense they may realize crime, disease & welfare increases in this country are directly related to our overrun border. When ISIL(ISIS) parks next door, you can bet they came up from good old mexico. I personally try to avoid any business that hires illegals, no sense sending my $$ to
      an even more corrupt country than Amerika.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I think a reporter dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and crossed the border about 5 times with no hassle.

  12. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    “I know that guns are not the problem” Of course not. The lack of accountability is the problem. Our fed buddies can make any choice they want without accountability. The difference between a good choice and a bad one are the results and an agency and regime not able to be held accountable for their actions is no longer for the people.

  13. avatar Scrubula says:

    The mexican government is almost as bad as the cartels… it is corrupt and does not represent the will of the people in any way…

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      I think the Mexican Government are the Cartels.

  14. avatar libtard says:

    Yep. Obama should be held responsible for his crimes and the crimes of others in his administration. An so should George the first, Clinton and Shrub (George the second). I leave Ronnie R. out because that scumbag is dead.

  15. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    We are sending guns to Federales because that is the fastest way to get them to the Cartels, silly rabbit.

  16. avatar the ruester says:

    You guys don’t get it. We are simply trying to help them nationalize their narcotics industry.

  17. avatar Phil says:

    Playing with fire to arm both side of a conflict, regardless if it’s in Mexico, in Middle-East or in Ukraine, will sooner or later becomes a very dangerous game that will back fire to us… If anyone doubt about that, I’d unfortunately just say: Well, let’s wait & see!

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    But there should be some sort of reaction from Uncle Sam to the carnage south of our border. Yes, the Feds will blame the NRA and will urge more gun control for John Q Public.

  19. avatar DD says:

    Selling guns on a government to government / sub rosa group is never about making money on guns. They may as we’ll be free. It’s about cause and effect. It’s about asking one group to kill another in order to forward your agenda. Is this even news?

    Juaquin “El Chapo” Guzman . . . And many many others before and after.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email