![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldBased largely on this blog post, the Toronto Sun hosted</> Ted Rath's Postmedia Network article suggesting that the head of the Sinaloa drug cartel has threatened ISIS.
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the Sinaloa cartel boss and world's most wanted drug lord, has threatened ISIS with retaliation if it continues to destroy his drug shipments to the Middle East that go through the terror group's "caliphate."
And he's not mincing words.
"I pity the next son of a whore who tries to interfere with the business of the Sinaloa cartel. I will have their hearts and tongues torn from them," El Chapo reportedly wrote ISIS in an e-mail leaked to a Mexican blogger with ties to the cartel.
[. . .]
The Middle East, with its excessive oil wealth, is a hot market for cocaine, ecstasy and other party drugs. Several cartels are trying to establish footing there, including the feared Sinaloa cartel, the largest and most powerful in the Western Hemisphere.
But the fundamentalist Islamic ideology of ISIS is very much against drugs.
And the group has been destroying all shipments found passing through the territory it controls in Iraq and Syria.
That's apparently led to bad blood between the two violent groups.
"You (ISIS) are not soldiers. You are nothing but lowly pus----," reads the e-mail leaked to cartelblog.com. "Your god cannot save you from the true terror that my men will levy at you if you continue to impact my operation ... My men will destroy you."
I joked on Facebook that it was nice to know that the Sinaloa cartel had our backs against ISIS. If this is accurate--a very big if, as verification may be hard to come by given that the alleged author is literally in hiding--something like this does not seem intrinsically implausible, given that under the totalitarianism of Daesh would make the cartel's operations impossible.
I also wonder about one thing: There must be something in the vocabulary of political science, some term to describe how groups of dubious standing or even outright criminal groups try to gain legitimacy at home by going against common enemies. Is there?
And he's not mincing words.
"I pity the next son of a whore who tries to interfere with the business of the Sinaloa cartel. I will have their hearts and tongues torn from them," El Chapo reportedly wrote ISIS in an e-mail leaked to a Mexican blogger with ties to the cartel.
[. . .]
The Middle East, with its excessive oil wealth, is a hot market for cocaine, ecstasy and other party drugs. Several cartels are trying to establish footing there, including the feared Sinaloa cartel, the largest and most powerful in the Western Hemisphere.
But the fundamentalist Islamic ideology of ISIS is very much against drugs.
And the group has been destroying all shipments found passing through the territory it controls in Iraq and Syria.
That's apparently led to bad blood between the two violent groups.
"You (ISIS) are not soldiers. You are nothing but lowly pus----," reads the e-mail leaked to cartelblog.com. "Your god cannot save you from the true terror that my men will levy at you if you continue to impact my operation ... My men will destroy you."
I joked on Facebook that it was nice to know that the Sinaloa cartel had our backs against ISIS. If this is accurate--a very big if, as verification may be hard to come by given that the alleged author is literally in hiding--something like this does not seem intrinsically implausible, given that under the totalitarianism of Daesh would make the cartel's operations impossible.
I also wonder about one thing: There must be something in the vocabulary of political science, some term to describe how groups of dubious standing or even outright criminal groups try to gain legitimacy at home by going against common enemies. Is there?
