*Double posting for great justice.*Now, on for the second part. Let's speculate a bit, as a mind excercise. Let's wonder: Why would the New York Times publish an article like that, knowing full well what they're asking for? why would the New York Times want the military's involvement, when it would take a coup d'etat to get them involved in the first place? Well, this is where it comes to speculation from my side, but based on hard data. There are some interesting things to be said about this Mark Thompson. But the one that really bothers me is:
- Mark Thompson, during his tenure in the BBC,
developed ties with former Prime-Minister and former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon from Israel.
- Ariel Sharon was the
Defense Minister of Israel under Prime Minister Menachem Begin
during the South Atlantic Conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It is my understanding that, as Defense Minister of Israel, he was responsible to oversee Israel's military industries.
The Ministry of Defense oversees most of the Israeli security forces, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), IMI, the Israel Military Industries, IAI, Israel Aircraft Industries.[1]
So any sale would have needed his approval, right?
-
Israel sold armament and military equipment (I don't have an exact number, but we were indeed a major client) to Argentina during the conflict. Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time.
So, while this still isn't enough evidence to determine without a doubt that there's something fishy behind this, it's indeed quite a suspicious connection isn't it? Sounds to me like it was easier for weapons manufacturers in Israel (and other countries, by the way) to deal with a corrupt military junta and get away with blood-tainted money (that military equipment killed British soldiers, in an avoidable conflict) than it is to deal with a democratic government and try to do the same. And weapons manufacturers seem to be the only ones who benefit from a "war on narcos", as judging by the current state of those countries Ms. Schmall postulates as examples of how to deal with the drug problem (and if you don't have friends to talk to in Mexico and Colombia and access to their press in its native language, don't even try to tell me they are doing well).
The Argentinean society in this last few years has been debating about this whole drugs problem. The two prominent factions are those who want to legalize it and put it under state regulation or control while promoting treatment for addicts, and those who want a total war against drugs and drug users. I'm willing to listen to arguments from both sides, since I sincerely think both sides have society's best interest in mind. But I want those arguments coming from rational people without a questionable background, and who understand the problem from the inside. Not from the New York Times, and not from someone like Izaguirre.
Finally, a priceless comment
from the mouth of Claudio Izaguirre, Ms Schmall unbiased autority figure:
"[...] si no metemos al Ejército a diezmar a los 30 o 40 mil tipos que están al frente de la venta de drogas en la Argentina, no los sacamos más. No se olviden de que la Fuerza Aérea Argentina tiene prohibido controlar nuestro cielo, este es otro dato más"
Translation:
"[...] if we don't get the Army involved to decimate those 30000* or 40000 guys behind drug sales in Argentina, we'll never get them out of here. Let's not forget that the Argentine Air Force isn't allowed to police our skies, that's another piece of relevant data"
*: 30000 is (oh so casually) an
estimated number of people dissapeared or killed during the last dictatorship. It's not an obscure number either, it's a widely known estimation with a profound meaning in the Argentinean society.
Seems pretty clear to me that Ms. Schmall knows who she's citing and what she's pushing for...
