Fworst place

In competition people strive for first place. But in the gruesome competition of killing people, the phrase first place should be a phonetic error on worst place.

There is a lot of blood in the news, and there are a few names typically associated with it. There is no doubt some unspoken competition between the Taliban, Al-Qaeda terrorists, insurgents, and Mexican drug lords. All are looking to be big on the body count. Throw in a little gore like a beheading and you start to see the psychological game they are playing to be seen as the worst and not to be messed with.

Some are driven by money, and others are driven by the inability to coexist with other people who have different views, and still others are in search of real-estate. They all have chosen violence and disrespect for others.

In the case of the drug lords and in particular the drug lords in Mexico, they are quickly moving to the front of the pack in this competition. The reason for this is the numbers combined with the non stop intensity.  Picture something that looks like a military thunder run such as the US army did when they rolled into Baghdad, and you start to see what it looks like in Mexico.

Gangs of armed men just roam about killing people to send a message. The war between rival drug gangs is not a place to be, although essentially they are solving the problem by killing each other off. The unfortunate thing it is they are like the teeth of a White shark, there is always another one ready to move into position.

As for the Taliban, they simply are too far off the main road and killing people who do not see things their way and killing people is just as easy as swatting a mosquito to them. They are more of an infestation and not as aggressive as the Mexican drug lords. It seems the drug lords simply kill everyone who gets too close.

Insurgents are more of the neighborhood thugs. They are driven to acquire some land and that means hanging out where the land is. They may use bombs or drive by shootings or even a major attack from time to time. But the fact that they can blend in with the people who live there in many cases makes them a bit tamer. They do not get excessively involved in suicide bombings unless they have some people to spare. Their response is based in the neighborhood. If it is a rough place, then they will be more violent. If it is more laid back, then so are they.

When it comes to terrorists like Al-Qaeda, they have a signature of big body counts with big events. So as long at they can be infiltrated they more or less become somewhat impotent. Also they tend to work away from home. However with The Mexican drug lords, they simply are home grown and for lack of a better word that makes them worse.

So looking at how Connecting the Dots would score these first off we would give fourth place to the insurgents. Their body count is low and for the most part there are fairly effective counter measures as long as there is good intelligence on their actions.

Third place goes to Al-Qaeda simply because they are inconsistent. They do have very dramatic attacks that produce high body counts, but because of the time between attacks they come in third.

Second place goes to the Taliban. They are an infestation and for the most part the dominant force unless they are dealing with a military head on.

That leaves the Mexican Drug lords in first place for a variety of reasons. One is they are doing this in their own country so the motive is greed and not looking to overthrow anyone. Also they seem to be racking up the biggest body count rapidly approaching 30,000 before the end of the year. In rough numbers that is 20 people per day non stop. Even the other 3 contenders are falling way short in comparison because many days there is no activity. When they do come out it is in surges and not consistent.

So with that simple little fact, perhaps the best way not to drink the water in Mexico is simply go some place else as it is clearly a war of matched resources.

Comments are closed.